Think Therefore

 I'll give myself credit for having a grip on what Heraclitus in 500 BC referred to as "All is Flux." But I'll not pretend to fully grasp the back row pioneers of physics where since the 1980's we've seen potential for understanding consciousness in Holonomic Theory which places consciousness as an interstitial phenomenon of quantum effects in and between brain cells. 

 At the same time I'm quite content to look for answers beyond the more traditional neuroscience which thinks in terms of patterns of neurons and surrounding chemistry. It's all very much Dutch to me, but I do grasp the difference between quantum, the very metaphysics of meaning, and the orderly process of atoms and molecules reacting to each other which is the science of chemistry.

 I'm tempted to call it a Reciprocal rather than a Reaction. The difference is the nature of the recognition implicit in "reciprocal" and in "reaction." Here a reciprocal recognition is to see both the explicit and implicit of a mountain. This way you see a mountain as in the process of mountain-ing rather than a humble and inanimate Noun.

If we go back to the math and philosophy of Descartes, you'll find a cat, a donkey or a beef cow weren't recognized as processes. These creatures didn't "Think Therefore" and nor did mountains.    

Drops of Experience and Implicate Order

Late Daff

 A cemetery of facts where the beginning justifies the end. In our quest to "kick out the Trinities," become non-linear in our thinking, get down with the verbs, we children of the last generation are going to look at Whitehead and David Bohm.

 We have spent time with Alfred North Whitehead. We have looked at the difference between a Narrative and a Theory? For pedants a narrative has to have a beginning, a middle and an end. A theory is an explanation for why something happens. A theory has to be testable, otherwise it might just as well be a narrative. The criticism brought against both Whitehead is that the metaphysics of his Process Philosophy was more like a narrative than it was anything like a testable theory. In a very real way, the Book of Genesis is a narrative, it's not a theory. Whitehead's metaphysics has been called the Philosophy of Organism, he suggests that reality isn't a bunch of substances and objects, it's not stuff, it's a series of interconnected dynamic processes, it's the "drops of experience" constantly becoming that make up the universe. Whitehead's been praised for doing away with the mind body duality and he's been accused of coming up with a jumble of ill defined, incomprehensible words, such as "actual occasion," "prehension," and "concrescence." In the end the thing to understand is his claim that every actual occasion has a form of subjective experience. In short, for the former Head Boy of Abbey House at Sherborne School in Dorset stuff wasn't noun, it was verb.

 David Bohm was a different fish. His PhD thesis at Berkeley University contributed to solving the math in some of the practical problems confronting the science of building an atom bomb. Because his work was "secret" he had a hell of a job getting his Thesis recognized. He fell foul of the Congressional morons of the Un-American Activities Committee. The most significant Theoretical Physicist of the 20th Century became a Brazilian Citizens, then a British Citizen. He died in Herndon near London, England. His verbs emerged from the unbroken wholeness of Implicate Order, everything folded in everything else, the Universe is a "flowing movement" not  a collection of isolated parts.

 

AGM's and Enoch made Them.

 Enoch, in the Biblical Record lived 365 years before he was gathered by God and that's where the Ancient Gossip Mongers  (AGM's) went to town. The text - Genesis 5:21-24  - is clear enough: Enoch "walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him."

 Some Jewish and I suspect more Christian thinkers have suggested that the real meaning of Genesis 5:21-24 when it is translated properly into one of these silly modern languages like English is that the Enoch Episode was early in God's relationship with his creation and he'd forgotten to make sure that Enoch was actually dead before allowing him into heaven. The result for anyone who worries about these things is that Enoch is still alive and well and a real pain to be around.

 There are two other things to remember about Enoch, he is the son of a sixth generation descendant of Adam called Jared and he fathered Methuselah, a man who lived for 969 years. And there it is, the whole straight line thing happening, as linear thinking bullies and, unless you happen to be retarded, lies its way into becoming the central plank in the genetic inheritance of a Faith that attempts to maintain a personal relationship with a God that obviously doesn't give a damn.

 The Phrase "Enoch made them, Enoch shall break them," was Luddite humor. Enoch Taylor had an iron foundry in West Yorkshire, he and his men  made 7-10 pound sledgehammers, and they made the needles for the knitting frames, two of which were destroyed by Ned Ludd in 1799 with an Enoch Hammer. During the 1812 riots, "Enoch made them, Enoch shall break them" was a slogan that cheered the crowd and frightened the masters.

 The issue of Self, is that Self does not live in isolation, it is not formed in isolation, it is not hammered in isolation. The fourteen men hanged on January 16th in two batches in York Castle for breaking machines left 13 widows and 56 children fatherless. 

Recuperation - The Great Enoch of the Mind, or Lord Byron's "Atropine of the Poor."

Guy Debord of the Letterist International.

 In 1799, Ned Ludd smashed the needles of two wide knitting frames. In 1812, the year Napoleon's soldiers retreated from Moscow, the Parliament of the Greater Britain passed the Frame Breaking Act. 

 Lord Byron, the Romantic Poet, in his maiden speech to the House of Lords, described the Act as the "Atropine of the Poor." What did he mean? Atropine is one of those medicines that might cure you, or it might kill you. Killing the poor, Byron argued, wasn't the solution to poverty. 

 In 1813, in the City of York Greater Britain, 13 men were hanged for smashing machines. In Britain, the labor movement had a long way to go.

  As of March 19th 2026  we're a long way from Ned Ludd. In the 1980's there was a French group called CLODO (Comité Liquidant  Ou Détournant Les Ordinateurs, or Committee on the Liquidation or Subversion of Computers) which was proudly responsible for attacks on several computer firms. There was Ted Kaczynski, a wizard of mathematics known as the Unabomber a graduate of Harvard University who received a PhD from Michigan University for his thesis on Boundary of Functions, he died in 2023, in jail when he was 81. And in October of 2025  SHITPHONE ritualistically put an iPhone on trial and smashed a phone-shaped piñata. It was described as a "Byzantine performance, part Carnival, part Luddite Respite aimed at reclaiming the Present Moment from the Little Existential Rectangle."

 When we put CLODO, the Unabomber and the outrages of SHITPHONE it is as nothing when compared to the reactions (Peterloo Massacre, the Chartist movement etc, etc) across a nation that resulted from the Parliament of Britain shitting on the working man by passing the Frame Breaking Act of 1812. So why have the great majority of us all just pudded around lily-livered and gormless while knock-kneed, un-lettered squillionaires in tee-shirts prance around on stage and tell us what our future is going to look like.

 I'll tell you. Experience and perception have been commodified, we are trapped in digital vapor. Controlling the Means of Production as conversation is deported, it’s too literal. The real hanging offense today is Dumb Insolence against the true model of reality the un-lettered Tech-Bros want to build. And here if the AI provides Justice for the Poor, so the Tech-Bros don't have to, we must ask "Is it a Reciprocal Recognition, or is it just a High-Speed Eviction Notice written in a more affordable font?"

Just in case, recuperation is the word used by the Dumb Insolent to describe how capital commodifies everything including revolution. 

Doctor Faust and his short cut

Red Deadnettle.

Maybe Henbit Deadnettle

 The Faustian, or the Ned Ludd Algorithm is a thin promise that a machine will solve the problem of Profit and Certainty in exchange for the user's Sovereignty. It's the Front-Row belief that a calculation can replace the uncertainties of destiny and the blindness of the Fates. The algorithm wants to retrain the universe, it wants a simulation of the world not the disobedient coherence of an Insolent Back Row.

Ned Ludd? Algorithm?

Yes. 

Habermas

Habermas in 2008

 Oh, with the storms gone from the night, the winds calm again, the joy of resonating in the verbs of Sovereign Recognition, a "shared becoming." Yet it's a belated day of remembrance. Jürgen  Habermas died on March 14th 2026, he was 96. Like all great minds be reached the third month of the year before following the Lead Bull into greener pastures so that he might return again renewed. He called his "shared becoming," his Sovereign Recognition, he called it intersubjectivity.

"Was Jürgen a man of the Back Row?" I hear the call.

No, he was Front Row through and through. His mission was Critical Theory, his motives stemmed from the agony of the Second World War, his question was "how the hell did this happen to the German people, why did we allow it, what can we do about it." Put that in your pipe and suck it as our own world sinks back into the brigandage of a lawless Oligarchy, an Epstein Class that defines the sacred as Gold Plate, Botox, Gated Communities and Private Islands.  

 Habermas took his thinking to the Post Structural dissection, he understood words as noises in a symbolic order of meaning. The rationality of Weber's practical, real-world sociology through Habermas' interpretation required a profound understanding of the mechanics of communication between us beings as Wittgensteinian writing in sand and not on the stone Bertrand Russell was hoping for.

Habermas wanted to solve the world with reason. The Back-Row sees the world as both "wonder and agony." Baxter and Bobby agree with our wordless comrade the Cat. We don't need a Procedural Theory of Democracy to know when a Surgical Strike is necessary or when a Byzantine silence of dumb insolence is the best response to a Front-Row in service to the Oligarchs who demand nouns from us.

  

The Jeeves and Wooster of the Back Row engage Jesus in Dumb Insolence

More Bloodroot

 I think we enjoy the smell of raw knowledge and human frailty for a while longer, go back in time to what might have been a struggle Jesus of Nazareth, the human, was having with words when as an example of Grace over Law he wrote in the sand.

 This is where the Wooster of the Sliver says "what ho" when he means "something useful is being said, I'm not sure what it is?" and The Jeeves of the Anvil, the one who keeps the glossary, comes to the rescue.

 This is a "Surgical Strike" into the very dust of our history. We have arrived at  the ultimate Back Row moment. The stage is set, a man in a crowd, a woman facing the cane of the Law, and a deliberate act of answerlessness etched into the ground, and don't take too much notice of John the writer of Gospels and his nouns, Jesus was stalling, he was performing the first recorded Benjamin Mortification of a thin legal noun - what Critical Theorists do.

 The Front Row (the Pharisees) brought in a woman as a category - she was an Adulteress. The Front Row wanted a "Frictionless" execution of a linear law. Jesus, the human, refused to look at the Noun. He looked at the sliver, the person that lay beyond the noun of a backdoor that had been categorized Adulteress.

 When Wooster of the Sliver, that's me,  says "What ho?" at this scene, he is sensing the Superposition, his cat in a box waiting to be rescued, one way or another from a decaying atom. The Law is thin, it's a spelling test where the penalty is death. The Writing in the Sand is Thick, it's a Verb that refuses to "Noun-ify" the woman.

 By writing in the sand, Jesus was creating a Pedagogy of Answerlessness. He didn't argue the law. He changed the friction of the room. He forced every person in that crowd to face their own Mental Disunity - to look at their own long list of failures before they dared to collapse the wave and sentenced the woman accused of a spelling mistake to death

 Our Jeeves of the Anvil looks at our Glossary of understandings, he turns to the word "grace" sees  an International Sovereign Recognition. Here the law demands a noun, a sinner. The Sliver Sense of "grace" doesn't see a noun, it sees a Becoming - a verb.

  Writing in the sand, the most temporary, friction-full surface that can be found,  our understanding sees that Truth isn't a Monument of Stone, but a Relational Event in the dust.

 Like Sayyid Said al-Busaidi bin Sultan of Oman and Zanzibar outwitting Mountstewart Elphinstone the governor of Bombay in the 1840's the Anvil upon which our Glossary of understandings is forged, this time is championed by Jesus, he outwitted the Oligarchs of the Law,  the Pharisees.

 Call it the Byzantine Silence of the Sand. If Jesus, the man, had said "Don't stone her," he broke the law. If he said "Stone her" he broke an understanding of grace forged by his own verbs. Instead he went silent, a  Back-Row Maneuver, sometimes called Dumb Insolence. He invited the judges into the Void of Potential. And in that silence, the contagion of the crowd broke. They didn't collapse into a mob, they tangled back into individuals and walked away, instead of killing the demonstrator they all broke the law..

Ordo Posterior Superbus

Quince and Forsythia

 The Crowd as a biological event, what le Bon called Mental Unity, as distinct from the biological event of Alone-ness, or possibly Mental Disunity, is currently an intuitive distinction which on evidence from my own personal experience is I think a real distinction. There are things I will do and say when alone with my thoughts that I try to avoid doing or saying when in a crowd.  

 More recently we don't all live in the same cave, we don't keep warm by the same fire, bath in the same water, sleep in the same space, and there are billions of us not millions. I suspect that over the generations the quality of both Alone-ness and Crowd-ness has changed. A massive crowd for a hunter gatherer was probably less than a hundred people.

 For John Walking Stewart the ideal of social organization was five or six family groups living in the same Longhouse. Mind you, Walking Stewart never lived in a Longhouse, he died alone on his birthday in the room he rented in Northumberland Place near what is now Trafalgar Square in London, England. In the following days his body was found by friends beside an empty bottle of laudanum. A truly enviable way to put an end to the pains of old age and sickness.

 For a Trappist, a hermit, a reality is the inevitability of crowd-ness in a belief system that places value on alone-ness. For a hermit and Trappist the exercise is to maintain an intimate and wordless contact with a form that has nothing to do with crowds of people. And desperate the majority of us are to understand our belonging through the warmth and security of a majority. If a hermit might want to be invisible, not sure that a Trappist does.

 In our world the grammarians have made an effigy of language. They see verbs as in the service of nouns. Like good mechanics in their fear of death or invisibility, they make up spelling tests, the subjunctive and they invent adjectives to dress the dead. I can see the back row is a basic pain, a disobedience with nothing but disobedience to offer, and how glad I am to belong to it.

"Back Row Proud."

The Crowd as a Biological Event

Bloodroot

 What we have to remember about le Bon is that he was a skull measurer, he had a faith in biological determinism, the sort of thing that lead the flaccid minded and barrack dwelling to divide humanity into racial characteristics from savage to civilized, inferior to superior. His many interests included an invention for measuring skulls while in the field whether at an anthropological site of a bus stop his Pocket Cephalometer was a useful tool for measuring character.

As a disciple of the gospel of Transcendence as recorded by Kant, I am very unwilling to give any credence to le Bon's version of biological determinism, I do think we should give thought to le Bon's idea of a crowd being a 'biological event' capable of something very similar to contagion. The Crowd can riot, it can reduce a sense of isolation, it can bring together. We have looked at the Paris communes with their long tradition of the crowd that I think you might agree goes back to the Revolution of the 1790's and achieved yet another moment of glory in 1968.

 I suspect the riot le Bon experienced might be categorized as a food riot. The 400,000 Crowd at Woodstock 1969, was more of a "happening" than a riot. The 1,500 Crowd at the Glastonbury Festival of 1970 felt like a happening and became the beginnings of an annual happening. There were the Nuremberg and Trump Rallies. And too it's difficult to avoid thinking of the Women of Greenham Common as a crowd which developed a unique series of behaviors built around peace. It does seem that people, especially those in power, are increasingly alarmed by uncontrolled crowds, but the contagions of the Crowd aren't always bad or ignoble. 

 In our new world of verbs, the contagions of the Crowd contain the resonances of becoming.

Un-collapsed and Nounless

Lenten Rose

 Let's toss a few verbs around. First we will call it the Civilization of the Sliver, and for those who wonder, this is possibly the first time in the existence of me I can use the word "Civilization" without sneering or cringing.

 We are the back row, we are the guardians of transcendence as a verb and yet, like pornography, we don't know what it is but we know what it's not. So lets go back to the 1890's and explore Gustave le Bon's The Crowd: A study of the Popular Mind (1895).

 If a date is important to you the book has the provenance of being described as a "Foundational Text" in the dimly lit cathedral of social psychiatry that more recently has been swallowed by the branding ding-bats of Madison Avenue's marriage to what I think are referred to as "The Botox Obsessed Tech Bros."

 It was the Siege of Paris during the Franco-Prussian war that le Bon found himself in a food riot. A relief convoy had found its way into the city, it's was protected by ill-trained national guardsmen. Le Bon knew full well that patience and trust was required from all parties. In the wider world there was a growing distrust between Citizens of Paris, the Napoleon complex of their national government which had been so soundly squashed by Prussian and German soldiers in the field of battle.

 Le Bon argued that the emotions which suddenly dominated the crowd were not "New" emotions, they were Atavistic emotions. In another way for those of us who live as verbs on the slope toward nouns, these atavistic emotions were from the "Basement of the Human Foundry." They were emotions of the swamp out of which all other emotions emerged. 

 In the maw of this atavistic brew the Individual vanished, the back row was empty. It was a contagion that caused straight-backs to dissolve. Our back row sliver sense was gone, everyone was half baked jostling for a selfie on the front row. Gustave, a polite young man who could read and write threw himself into the smiley face of a riot.

What was it? What had happened?

In a crowd, what some call "uncertainty," what others call that holy grail of answerlessness required of us verbs, was experienced as a physical threat. The crowd wanted a Frictionless Certainty. It doesn't want to "Wrestle." It wanted to Strike. And if you want a simple answer call it the fear of answerlessness?

The Fear of the Void, the argument continues, is a fear that predates reasonableness. But, brothers and sisters, to be an individual is to be "Answerless." To be an individual is to stand alone in the Void of Potential. It's a cold, thick weight, and not far away in a warm crowd is the Lure of a Noun that offers an escape from the burden of becoming.

It’s not that people are "Wrong!" They are Terrified of being Un-collapsed and nounless. 

And Here We are in the Spring of 2026

Protecting Towhee from rearview mirrors

 Baxter and I would like to take a look at the following two sentences. The "Pedagogy of Hatred" explored by Jorge Luis Borges in notes he wrote between 1936 and and 1945 wasn't just about teaching children to dislike an "Other." It was about the structural perversion of the "Process of Becoming."

 The Pedagogy of Hatred. Borges' understanding of Germany included the idea that Germany was one of the most civilized well organized nations the world had ever seen.  Pedagogy can be explained this way: the theory and practice of learning, and how this process influences, and is influenced by, the social, political, and psychological development of learners.

 In 1936 the fourth edition of a children's book was published, it had sold 51,000 copies in Bavaria. The book was titled, "Don't trust any Fox from a Heath or Any Jew on his Oath." The book had pictures. of young, athletic German boys and girls, and let's continue the familiar message with a poem from the text, "The German is a proud man who knows how to work and struggle, Jews detest him because he is so handsome and enterprising." Step aside Hollywood, when it come to denigrating the other you'd met your match in an eighteen year old Kindergarten teacher named Elvira Bauer who died in 1945. Hers was a prosperity doctrine of National Glory.

 A man called Doctor Johannes Ruhr of Berlin edited, or re-edited, the "History of German Literature." Amongst others he removed the name Franz Kafka and Bertolt Brecht. Kafka was a Jew. Brecht's wife was Jewish. 

Corrupting the Process of Becoming. Ah right, sounds snow flake libtard. But greater minds than yours and mine have identified the Process of Becoming. Borges, an Argentinian, in the months before the Second World War was about to explode beyond the consciousness of us people into the reality of killing,  identified his own feelings in 1939. He listened to the slogans on the streets of Buenos Aires and he wanted to be neutral, his love of German Literature and his joy in an English Language that had produced Bernard Shaw, his admiration for Bertrand Russell's critique of newspapers as a source of truth was complete. Not for a minute did Borges believe that a regime that'd eradicated Schopenhauer for being Schopenhauer was powerful. Far from it. In 1939, for Jorge Luis Borges, Hitler and his homespun Übermenschen were a banal curse on mankind.

In 1945, contemplating the peace, with the great powers still dividing up the world. In the west it was what to do about Iraq, with all that oil, Palestine and the Zionist, should France go back to Syria or was Lebanon good enough for them. Borges returned to his Ancient Greeks, he found them alive and well. His Plutarch: "No-body is what he was, nor will he be what he is now." His Heraclitus: "No-one steps into the same river twice."

We can leave it to Hannah Arendt to remind us of Heidegger's "Becoming" then look at Borges Total Library, a place were every word ever written could be found in one place. Would this absolute knowledge, would knowing everything be the functional equivalent of know nothing. And why? Because finding the truth among infinite false variants is impossible. 

Covenant

Vinca Minor

 The meanings in the English Speaking word covenant start with the ideas of cutting and sharing. This cutting and sharing form of covenant either followed a blood oath or followed how the meat of something like an Ox or a Goat was divided following an ordained by the Priest sacrifice. Today Covenant still has Legal and Religious meanings all of which we are going to ignore and concentrate on the sacred rather than mixed up diddle-dads of the profane. And by sacred the meaning is clear you can't get a priest or a lawyer to release you from the shame of breaking an understanding between yourself and another. The issue being, a covenant hasn't hurdled the distance between a small almond shape in the temporal lobe and the Humpty Dumpty of the Left Hemisphere that produces work for lawyers, Priests and Grammarians.

 

Prosperity Preaching

Fallen Cedar

 The error of "Tongue in cheek" is that some moron will run with it as fact. As it happens, in my view, the essence of Fake News as a concept goes deep into the past, it wandered in the wilderness for a thousand odd years, it was dug up, it reacquainted itself with the present, it had a passionate affair with irony in the 1640's, then,  sometime in the first half of the 1700's was adopted by Bishop Berkeley, Patron Saint of US Episcopalianism, founder of Immaterialism or Subjective Idealism, otherwise known as The Very Reverend Esse Est Percipi, (to be is to be perceived). They all spoke and wrote Latin back then because it was very apple for the teacher and Front Row. By the early 2000's post modernism had been through enough beer bongs and influencers to produce this shag carpet pick up line "Fake News" which is the shortened form of "News I don't want to hear  so it can't be true so give me in A."

 Our man Nietzsche, with his "Behold the Man" his crown of thorns would never preach, his ubermensch wasn't a leader, never wanted to be, he just loved Wagner as a portrait of a tragedy that faced our species. Wagner was hope, his next opera would be even better, more transforming, another chance to transcend, but like the Rolling Stones with their Glitter Rock, a total sell out, Wagner never was more than a moment to be repeated, on endlessly into a Ground Hog Day of Februaries.  

 But you are absolutely right! Schisms are the thinning of the community. When we start fighting over whose mirror is clearer, we lose the Grip on the journey. We risk becoming just another set of Prosperity Preachers shouting over the pews.

Yes indeed the schism ends were the covenant begins

Oh Happy Day

Chair

 All very well throwing compound nouns around as though they were pomegranates, but what is the difference between the Front Row and the Back Row.

 Of course I'll tell you exactly what I mean by reminding everyone that yesterday's tribute to the Situationist International was to imagine the box in which Schrodinger had closed up his cat, with a counter and a decaying atom, being opened, and then drawing a slogan that reflected an understanding of the moment. The hint from the back row was that Schrodinger's Cat would hopefully be alive and furious with Schrodinger for shutting him up in a box with a decaying atom and Geiger counter, and as a result of individual and justifiable rage the cat would would obviously bite Schrodinger on his Nose.

 In short, the Front Row would have reacted in a different way, they would have said: "Ah! Now I understand why quantum rules cannot apply directly to large everyday objects, or macro-systems, so give me an A."

 The point for the back row is: "So big deal, why was shutting  a cat up in box the only way to illustrate a point about how an atom, until it is observed, is in a state of superposition, both decayed and not decayed at the same time." And there might have been something about Schrodinger being one of the more primitive of the bow-tie wearing Great Apes .

 Just a joke? Not in the context of the newer Prosperity Gospel Preachers, so engrossed in their own spectacle it's clinically sad. 

 

There's a new protocol in Town

Polards

 Tuesday again, Good Lord. And it's not February any more, I might even see Saint Patrick's Day. I say might because by Solstice, we'll all be dead or insane, which might be more noble and glorious than our current front row of cringe-worthy, feckless and basically icky. "Who Dares Wins" brothers and sisters, but I'm not playing anymore.

 The new Protocols in internet search engines have changed from a word based search that never asked why and what are you looking for and is instead increasingly based on a Semantic and intent based understanding of you, the searcher, and your interests as both a person and consumer.

 An ultimate Madison Avenue, bribed by the Oligarchs to keep the Front Row happily obedient and tell the Back Row how to think.

 So go ahead ask: "Who will draw me a slogan of Schrodinger's cat biting Schrodinger on the Nose."  

Meaning Requires a Witness and so does a Bear in the Woods

Snow drops

 OK! Let's go nuts again, talk particles with special reference to Superposition. Our dialogue will possibly result in a wholesale abuse of Superposition, might be another bulldog understanding of the Higgs Field, so be brave, remember that in the end what we're looking for is a back row understanding of "Why has our species become so cringe-worthy, feckless and basically icky." And this time we are giving the Psalms and Anvils of our "Forgiprocal State" of verbs and nouns to the tenuous grasp of quantum of physics.

Heisenberg was born and lived as a Lutheran Christian. I mention this so as to suggest that Heisenberg's uncertainties had a safe place to go to on Sunday Morning this meant he could let his thinking about the Ultimate Nature of Matter produce his Uncertainty Principle: "You cannot know the position and momentum of a particle with absolute precision." 

Position for you and I: Where we are - The Noun - The Label - The Address. (None of it Concrete)

Momentum for you and I: Where we're going - The Verb - The Journey - The Tangle. (None of it Concrete)

"What's The Tangle?" I hear the call. The tangle is the daily wrestle for sustenance and meaning. We use the word "Tangle" so we don't have to think of Jim Jordan and the like, naked men and/or boys rolling around, hairy armpits, sweating and panting on the floor.

"I know where I'm going!" Good for you, that makes you the Front Row. and for the Back Row that makes you a prime source of Ick, Feck and Cringe.

In our Back Row World, a Right or Wrong, rather than an Alive or Dead of Schrodinger's Cat, the wrong could be described as "an act of structural perversion."  Ask: "What is an Act?" And I'll tell you: "When you step over the edge and treat a Straight-Back form - a person - as a Noun, a tool, an asset, a piece of data."

That Edge is a slope to a frictionless nowhere where the Compound Nouns of Linear Thinkers, such as Final Solution, Free Markets and Free Electricity lie in ruins. If Schrodinger's cat is wrong, it has become a piece of the machinery, it has given up its straight back to survive the box. If the cat is right, it is still Dumbly Insolent, it's still a Verb waiting to Tangle with and maybe bite Schrodinger's Nose.

Our State as Transcendent Beings is Un-Collapsed

Roman Fresco of Dice Players in Pompeii 

 I happily return to a slope in a random place. We go back in time to find its genesis, which will be like ancient history for Baxter, Bobby and Ivan, It was Newtonian understanding of the Noun, and  I was a bit shy of using the word randomness in a world of probability, pattern and order. My understanding of Randomness came from the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, the 1972 edition. I clung to the part of its definition that included "...uncontrolled or unguarded state, freedom...." I remember using the phrase, "No up, no down" to play with the the concept.  The point being when you want to think science through the eyes of the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary of 1972 you were entering an reappraisal of the world, a world were Random Access Memory was a meaning in regular enough use to need a dictionary definition. More recently I might have been tempted by "superimposition." A state having a probability amplitude to be a different state, I might have seen the verb on the slope as a probability amplitude heading toward a defined noun. Had I done that it would have been an error. The world as the  mind perceives it isn't probability, pattern and order. That collapsing state solution everyone hopes for and the fall into the safety of the noun at the bottom of the slope, isn't where we, you and I, are. Oh no! Our state of randomness is un-collapsed.