Vectors. Imagine that! And then take a moment to wonder how something so well-known and so much used
in science and mathematics today was so easily and almost universally dismissed
not that long ago? And then ponder as well why it is that almost all of the great mathematicians of the 1890's dismissed the set theory
notions of the very well connected mathematician Georg Cantor? How curious that even set theory, the basis for all of modern mathematics,
was considered non-sense not much more than one hundred years ago.
Good God! What the hell is going on here, or more to the point being turned off? Why is it that unlike the mathematical and scientific "prophets" who produce the great leaps in logic and understanding, most of any era's greatest authorities are unable to see what is destined to be the future of their disciplines?
Perhaps
the answer is as old as the Bible? I.e., in the curious way that Jacob is said to have
ultimately gotten to see God's Face by grasping, wrestling with and ultimately
prevailing over that famously divine Stranger, maybe it is because comprehending
unorthodox notions of just about any sort also require "grasping", "wrestling with" and "prevailing
over" strangely familiar, but too strange to be easily embraced ideas?
For example, consider the strangely familiar idea of "any change from x to y as an exchange of x for y" within this icon-smashing "simultaneously going away from institutionalized pride and coming towards revolutionary humility" context:
1) While the official web site for the Johns Hopkins
Graduate Program in Computational Biophysics says that, "In the decade
between Avery-MacLeod-McCarty and Watson-Crick, John von Neumann developed
a concept that shaped the evolution of the digital computer: the
instruction set and the data need not be separate. In the von Neumann machine,
instructions can operate on themselves as data. [Emphasis added.]
The eventual legacy of this realization – contemporary computer science –
serves as an appropriate paradigm for biology. We created the computer in
our own image."
2) Perhaps not only in our image! At least not if the concept of "instructions can
operate on themselves" is logically transmuted from its initial incarnation,
x, to a more more generic version such as this y:
operators can operate on themselves and on other operators
Which in turn
ends up raising a very curious question: Does the Templix (Template
Matrix) of Change introduced below successfully reveal to you how what is above wholly
and totally matches the way that you tend to systematically operate, i.e.,
as at every moment of your life you are sometimes hitting and sometimes missing
the mark?
More specifically . . .
First suppose that every
change from x to y, such as an urgent change from behavior x to behavior
y, is made up of a goal of going away from x and a complementary intention
of coming towards y.
And then suppose that this
general "going away from x" goal has priority over any specific "coming towards
y" intention.
For example, going away
from a burning building, x, has priority over whichever door to hopeful safety,
y, you desire to come through. And going away from "hellishly sinning", x,
has priority over any particular "heavenly" reward you seek to get, y.
Thus, when you are engaged
and involved in such changes from x to y, there are four generic categories
of productive and counter-productive fluctuations that are always inherent
in your circumstantial goings away from x and comings towards y:
- counter-productively going away from performing each goal of going away
from x;
- productively coming towards each goal of going away from x;
- counter-productively going away from each intention of coming towards
y; and,
- productively coming towards each intention of coming towards y.
Consequently it follows there is some kind of
four-part "moral compass"/set of imperative (must not and must) rules and
guiding-light (should not and should) regulations found in the above counter-productive
"going away from going away from x" vs. productive "coming towards going
away from x" vs. counter-productive "going away from coming towards y" vs.
productive "coming towards coming towards y" combinations.
That is, we propose that
as "going away from x" has priority over "coming towards y", the first combination
is a "must not" category and thus the second is a "must" one. And as whichever
"coming towards y" is optional as compared with the absolute necessity of
"going away from x", the third combination is a "should not" category and
the fourth is thus a "should" one.
So here you thus find it as soon as you start seeing it without imposing ANY judgmental adulturations
i.e., by seeing it instead with child-like eyes: a God-and-or-Nature-given
"moral compass" inherent in every God-and-or-Nature-given circumstance per
Norbert Wiener's and Gregory Bateson's positive and negative feed-back "cybernetic"
systems. And speaking of a circum(O)stance(1) and a computer' O's and 1's,
when you have "O" meaning "going away from" and you allow "1" to stand for
"coming towards", is this overall underlying moral principle or UMP then
seen as a hierarchy? And further more, if you are open to clues hidden deep within words:
is this "hier-archy" now ever more deeply approached and thus climbed ever
higher, the way angels are said to ever be going down and coming up Jacob's
Ladder?
Is the above flows
and ebbs of ebbs and flows . . . , and the below GNOS cognitive doorway really
a re-cognizable way of digging very deeply into, and resurrecting increasingly
higher, a fuller understanding of a kind of not always kind, however always
"fair" to its own Principal Principle, universal circumstantial morality?
That is, is the strange idea of an overall underlying code just revealed
to you now to be reveiled and reviled by your Self? Or is it worthy of being
contemplated by that inner Genius within your Self which ever seeks to Guard
you (OOOx/11Ox) and Guide you (OO1y/111y)? Or stated with ancient figurative and literal twists:
is it to be rejected without another thought, or to be much wrestled with
the way Jacob wrestled with the stranger -- and the equally challenging and
enlightening 
way that amateur Egyptologist John A. R.
Legon was able to end up "up-ending" all of the pros "merely" by prevailing in his own self-appointed
wrestling match with the cubit and half cubit measurements of the Great Pyramid
of Giza!
BTW, if you too are up to resolving "riddles-of-the-ages" questions which if nothing else lead to "quests" worthy of your valuable time and effort, you end up with this "Grand Unifying Conundrum":
the curious Answer to why when things conclude, they end "up" even when they end up down!
Greatly looking forward
to getting your feedback.
Email us at: feedback@Synclecron.com
