Move over Garrison Keillor

Poor Garrison!

Let's face it, big guy, there are only 24 hours in a day. I've never read any of Garrison Keillor's books, although I've listened to Prairie Home Companion once or twice and saw the movie, which I bought for my father-in-law. The midwest holds no romance for me, I'm one of those southern idiots whose accent you make fun of while I make fun of your attempts to imitate it.

There are tons of great writers out there, and their books are still available, many for free.

Do we really need a publisher/gatekeeper? Well, you sort of have one. It's not even human, it's called a search engine now. And trust me, we have a long way to go when it comes to decent searching.

For example, if you type Garrison Keillor books "most nostalgic" into Google, your first hit is a heap of drivel (much like this blog) called physics 198-101. It's not about physics, even.

So, publishers, get a life and go into critiques. Volunteer to help us find the good stuff that we are doing. You can't get rich on it? Well, no one is going to be rich in the hive, except for the beekeepers, and they are all getting jobs with the government.

Will this push back creative individuals? Sure! But hey, you wanted Democracy, and everyone is equal in the hive, just not very fat or well rested.

Still, we can envision somewhere the hive coming up with its own American Idol brand of writer judging, and eventually we'll see niche judging until, finally, the hive is ordered and structured in a way that we can all search.

Meanwhile, guess what, we're living in web anarchy. For the adept, that's not so bad, as long as you're unemployed and have plenty time on your hands. Have you idly ever wondered who invented those infernal coat hangers? Look them up. Facts we can find. It's judgment that is lacking on web searches, evaluations, and because these are personal, the solution is for all of us to get in line and think the same. You don't think it'll happen? When's the last time you searched for an article and didn't find the best one on Wikipedia?

We've had critical mass marketing of groceries, tires, computers, eyeglasses, and we're rapidly entering critical mass marketing of ideas, where just finding yourself in the Book of Sand is an infinite task.

Insanity and Energy Perception

I've been re-reading that scorn of new age tripe, The Celestine Prophecy, and tried to stop before it got really crazy. At the time it came out, the author James Redfield really hit a nerve.

But at least toward the beginning, he said two things that made me think. The first was about our perception of beauty. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that beauty is universal, so understand, all this is totally personal but nevertheless true for me, my opinion.

And what I'll say about it is , yes, seeing something beautiful is energizing, whether it strikes me as a beautiful scene, painting, woman, or piece of mathematics.

So rather than dwell on what the nature of beauty is (aesthetics) I want to think about why beauty has this energizing effect on me (and apparently on Redfield.)

Working from specific examples, a beautiful scene, for example, can evoke memory or associations with pleasurable memories, as well as pleasurable expectations. A beautiful woman can evoke expectations of physical pleasure. A painting, for me, can evoke pleasure in appreciating the competence of the artist, the use of color and form, or wit. In fact, laughter is a particularly energizing activity on its own. What is happening here, and does it really have to do with some sort of floating energy field, or what? Just why do we say it energizes, anyway?

Without researching it, I would surmise that aesthetic pleasure releases chemicals into our brains that stimulate us much as a hot fire would stimulate a kettle of water to boil. We feel this in a physiological sense, and relate it to what we've learned about energy in physics.

What bothers me, and what I would like to understand further, is why there is such a popular crazy sect out there that insists that seeing energy is similar to seeing an electric or magnetic field. This seems to me to be unrelated to seeing beauty. I can perceive beauty, basically conceptualize it and then I can understand as above the energizing effect it might have.

That is totally different to what the new agers call seeing energy, seeing we are all connected. Unless.

Unless they are talking about a conceptual leap, similar to the conceptual (you might say automatic or subconscious) leap that we make when we affirm something or someone is beautiful. To my mind, this feels like direct perception, but there is a mental process that takes place in between. That's what I call conceptualization.

Like any human act, conceptualization can be practiced and developed until it's practically automatic. If the new agers are talking about this and call it perceiving energy, then I wish they would discuss it that way, rather than as a directly visual perception.

Castaneda, a true master of prose and sorcerer of words, alluded to the indirectness of this in some of his books. His shaman, Don Juan called this 'seeing' a certain way of holding the eyes.

On the other hand, Carlos goes off and starts seeing fibers of light everywhere. This is certainly dramatic, but is totally different (and more incredible) than simply perceiving/conceptualizing/being energized.

I'd like to get some straight talk on it, but so far haven't found any resources, except for self-promoters selling mystical books and CDs.


s

Quantum Behavior in the real world

It happens in photosynthesis.

And, it appears Roger Penrose predicted it before I did, of the human brain. That's why he gets the big bucks.

That being said, I stand by my conviction, made in ignorance of his comments, that our minds are capable of quantum entanglement and that the brain has the capability of viewing through time similar to the way a wormhole would go through time.

However, the new work leads me to a more precise general description of what is going on.

All the successful work with quantum entanglement including the study of photosynthesis points to the wave nature of the photon and other particles as where the real magic happens.

This shouldn't be any surprise, if we realize that almost all of our advances in science have been dependent on wave mechanics.

More importantly, as humans, we are intimately connected with the physical world through wave information. There's no question that this has a direct bearing on our own interactions and also our social interactions. It's not hard to posit that complex wave activity is at the heart of most, if not all, of our macroscopic world. That we have been ignorant of this up until now is largely because our attention and most of our success in technology has been through the exploitation of the particle nature of mechanics and through digital information processing.

Personally, I can point to quite a few examples of wave mechanics and its significance to human perception: Holography creates three dimensional perception through wave mechanics. Another: A few years ago, the DX7 was a new form of music synthesizer that worked through wave modulation algorithms. It created fairly realistic sounds that were very difficult for non-engineers come up with. (Later, digital sampling came into prominence, and wave modulation synthesis took a back seat.)

It seems also that, tied to the whole process of entanglement, what we call chaos but what I would call fractal complexity is at work. Given that most of nature is fractal in composition, it seems to me that here is the real bridge between the quantum and the macroscopic world.

What is surprising is that we can get a handle on this level of complexity at all, but that's probably because of our success with scaling up complexity through computer reiteration.

Up until now, humans have been wave pattern perceivers. Now we are at the beginning of being wave pattern scientists. The pathway will be through set theory and number theory. In my opinion.

the third of may

The essence of automatic writing is not to think about it too much, to get lost in making the interesting curves of cursive writing.
Here, we see a rehearsal of interpretive dance, as members of the Peoria Ballet reenact Goya's painting, The Third of May.