The Physics Of My Dreams (Zeroth Draft)

What makes our dreams so unique? I don’t fucking know. But as a theorist I have some guesses:

Dreams are created (in part, at least) by our brains, the best and most subtle particle decelerators in the Universe (not black holes). You might recall—either from memory or from google—the existence of the third, the second, and the first generation of particles, a classification all together called the standard model.

However, you wouldn’t recall—just as you might not recall a dream—the existence of a zeroth generation of particles. Just like the second and third generations of particles, these particles are not easily observable in our modern patch of the Universe. Whereas the second and third generation of particles cannot maintain for long because of their high energy is out of balance with the ambient energetic state (that is synchronized well with the first generation of particles), the zeroth generation is at a much lower energy state, one that the Universe in the future may approximate. However it is not just the for the future to wander in to this lower energy space where first generation particles and the energy soup that surrounds them to decay in to zeroth generation particles. Such particle decay happens in our brains all the time, especially during sleep. Time itself in dreams can seem to be multiplied out in duration, and such is the rich complexity that takes hold when a lower, more “efficient” use of particles is at play and interacting in the energetic Universe and consciousness. In a sense, consciousness dives down into these lower more complexifiable zeroth generation particle configurations to expand the depth and breadth of experience—just as the life force of the Universe has done all along since the big bang.

These zeroth generation particles are at such low energies that they alter the very foundations of planck distance and planck quanta. This is particle diffusion—but they only last as long as the collection of brain energy can remain subtle enough to hold this space as it’s own dream Universe. All sorts of quantum gatherings and intrigue happen here and are drawn here. Quantum tunneling and harmonization with other dreamers creating similar families of zeroth generations of particles are frequenc-ially aware of one another, perhaps more intelligible if it were to be put in to terms of string theory and not quantum theory.

Now as onlookers—many physicists included—often philosophically prematurely presume, the “fundamental” (bias) first-generation particles are foundational and determinative of what they coalesce to create. Not so the case here, in the very least. These lower mass particles emerge as the subtle storm a brain reaches in micro regions, with first generation particles decaying in to these lower state particles. Directly or indirectly related, the Planck constant—though it may seem fixed and holds the very name to convey such—is actually something subject to evolution and devolution. It varies and will vary, based on the success and failures of we—largely composed of first generation matter organisms—who create our present, which sews the seeds of the future we will inhabit or be extincted from.

In our dreams we are literally building prototypes of the future physical capacities of the Universe. These are refuges and inspiralations that we can grow and make more populated so in a future time lifeforms commonly dwell there, and clock time relatively is slowed exponentially.

A zeroth generation of particles? I know it’s probably a new idea for you, so why don’t you sleep on it and see if it takes hold.

Related Posts:

notes 4 today: 2016-12-15 (Particle Decelerators; Framing Infrastructure As The Ontastricture; Exo-DNA; Tripping Yourself)

The Eternal Difference

The uinverse Part 1: Logic as the Metaphysic

The uinverse Past 2: Effects Searching for Causes

The uinverse Part 3: Moving Past the Future

The First Unlaw Of Thermodynamics: Energy As The Unlawful Principal Of The Living Universe

 

Advertisements

The Council of Edmond – Meeting Minutes

TIME & LOCATION: The meeting took place on October 25, 2017 in an undisclosed location in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

PRESENT: Edmonds (host & facilitator), Ley, Gulian, Fred, Brian, Giovanni, Earl (note-taker), Gabriel, Geoff, Alex, Gendry (alias), Brendan, and Samantha (“uninvited”)

0) The meeting began with Edmonds reading the following excerpt/handout:

‘You will hear today all that you need in order to understand the purposes of the Enemy. There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it. But you do not stand alone. You will learn that your trouble is but part of the trouble of all the western world. The Ring! What shall we do with the Ring? That is the doom that we must deem.

‘That is the purpose for which you are called hither. Called, I say, though I have not called you to me, strangers from distant lands. You have come and are here met, in this very nick of time, by chance as it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world.

‘Now, therefore, things shall be openly spoken that have been hidden from all but a few until this day.’

Part A – Worldly, Historical, and Future Problems

1) Sub-topic 1 – Oligarchy (introduced by Giovanni). The powerful were believed to be a major problem by all, but questions of what power is and where they got it (are hierarchies ontologically real) were discussed. Critical commentary from several members, and a salient question was if oligarchy is responsible primarily for the world’s ills, or if something systemic and infrastructural is more to blame.  The idea summarized that oligarchs themselves are still in the prison: “Property and money are the prison, the oligarchs merely the current prison guards.”

2) Sub-topic 2 – Racism (introduced by Earl). Racism is a major problem, yet after discussion it was believed to be a symptomatic resultant of other oppressions that has only become foundational to the racists’ identities as culturally learned. Also the concept of white privilege was downplayed in favor of a new understanding of “colored disprivilege”. Further, a unique struggle not normally elaborated in acceptable discourse was discussed, namely that many whites (WASPs) have deep community (and previously resource) deficits that explain the roots of their aggressive individual and national policies throughout history. Further discussion was tabled to allow for the next sub-topic which grew from the racism discussion.

3) Sub-topic 3 – Imperialism (introduced by Gabe). Lenin’s work on imperialism was averred to, and the notion of capitalism as a disease that will inevitably keep spreading, if allowed, was generally agreed to. Along these lines, it was posited that imperialism is not just the “macro” taking over of resources on other continents, or planets (an eventuality?), but also should include the control of biological life at the cellular (genetic modification) and even down to the quantum control of sub-atomic particles (accelerators and quantum computing). Imperialism comes from an internal weakness on the part of the oppressor, so despite its widespread devastation, it is still symptomatic in its origins.

4) Sub-topic 4 – Suburban clusterfuck (introduced by Edmonds). Credit was given to James Howard Kunstler as a general introducer of the suburban perils (physical and psychological) as well as the coiner of the term, though none were sure if that was truly the case. Dependence on electrical grids, food and resource supply chains, automation (tabled), depression, sameness versus difference grew out of this discussion. Also, cities as death-traps for a variety of similar reasons of fragility, but also violating and perverting to an extreme degree Dunbar’s number. There were a plenitude of apocalyptic scenarios put forth which one member pointed out was ironic to be coming from such a mundane thing as suburbia.

5) Sub-topic 5 – Civilization(S) (introduced by Gendry). The discussion of urban and suburban woes naturally went to civilization-as-a-whole (initially), where problems of sedentism were expounded upon. But there were some ardent defenses of sedentism, with references to scholarly work that said not all sedentary people in early history and pre-history needed to create ecologically destructive agricultural practices. It was pointed out that it was in fact nomadic people that often became the conquerors, but this idea was then problematized by the fact that most nomadic people were not “imperialistic” like this and that imperialism stemmed from intrinsic weaknesses in relation to a given land, especially were that land already occupied and “distorted” by sedentism. There was agreement that the effects of civilization to create climate change, by way of soil erosion and poor/ignorant land management, including domestication of animals and crops for mono-cropping, were huge factors in causing desertification and atmospheric carbon increases.

6) Sub-topic 6 – Propaganda (introduced by Alex). It was agreed that the powerful have always utilized multiple methods to coerce people, often resorting to misinformation instead of overt violence (for example through exaggeration or outright lying). Western representative democracy was forwarded as a prime, ongoing example of propaganda: representative democracy is when oligarchs take up acting. Propaganda was found to be a deep cultural force that goes beyond just social class, governmental, and economic oppression, but it can be found in parallel in all sorts of everyday relationships where manipulation is consciously or unconsciously utilized. The question to see if it’s pre-civilized went in to a discussion of other animals such as birds, namely peacocks, to know if the bright feathers males flaunted were representative of their virility or a sapping of their energy for the sake of a veneer; the oily sheen on a dog’s coat or even on a leafy plant were mentioned, too. Contemporary propaganda was agreed to be holistically inefficient, mentally enervating, and a parasitical draw on available resources that could be used elsewhere, except when it was itself highly artistic and its own end regardless of the distorted representation for another end.

7) Sub-topic 7 – Identity-Politics (introduced by Gabe). There was no consensus on whether or not identity politics was itself a problem or representative of many problems existing and a means to counter them. A conciliatory approach offered by one of the members on how to approach identity politics was that it depended on what the unifying identity was, and if it was a pre-existing alienated group defined by the oppressor, or an identity created by a loose group of marginalized (and not-so-marginalized) people to vent, gain attention, and/or seize power. The reconcilement centered on the idea that even if the problems for which the identity-based group was created were not solved, and even if new problems were created by the social group rising from their challenges, there often resulted positive internal community growth that filled the vacuum, and the issue(s) themselves could be viewed at the least as a vehicle to unite people in to community which they were all lacking. The discussion then became more genealogical in how identity politics ever arose, and then was tabled.

7a) 15 minute break followed by a 5 minute quiet reflection on the topics covered so far, and then a singular generation of a list of problems not yet covered so far.

8) Sub-topic 8 – Legality (introduced by Brendan). Brendan started off saying that law trials are not about justice, they are a sport between highly paid professionals who compete at the onlookers expense. This served as a beginning to the discussion which went quite deeper in to evaluations of what legality really is. It was put forth that more often than not that even were laws able to not contradict and negate other laws (for which biased and unbalanced lawyers and judges were paid to sort out), that the human channeling of energy in to legal systems over the millennia, regardless of the cohesion and coherence of the justice system, has been synonymous with greater and greater purging from the individual person an innate sense of vigilance and justice. Laws are the blindspot of justice, and now with an entire legal class, the laws have divorced everyday sense of ethics, which is in effect how the human disease can unleash itself on the Earth without any self-checks or thoughts to do so. Environmental stewardship was such an example of innate human consciousness that it needed to linguistic codification, and yet it has now taken centuries of destruction of the environment on the part of humans to finally render it in to law, and it is still ineffectual because it is contradicted by the rights of governments and individuals (corporations namely) to rape the land. Justice is a terribly long walk of the pen, with countless victims written over along the way; or is it?

9) Sub-topic 9 – Industrialization/Technology/Globalization (introduced by Brian). Though the topic of industrialization seems to have been overlapped with already in the sub-topics of imperialism and civilization, the discussion was qualified for additional insights that Brian, and then others following him, surfaced. Firstly, because many non-primitivist socialist-utopian affinities were present in group members, it was important that a discussion around the role of technology be had, presuming that the technology was in the hands of, for example, a gift-economy or worker-run city whereby it wasn’t used for individual profit, but for social progress. Industrialism for human use at the hands of worker-councils should be a good thing, if it could be done ecologically. However this very question became a central problem, and the open question remained on whether or not all technology or just certain technology is bad for the planet. The deep attachments to technology were admitted to on the part of all, however whether or not this was a bad thing or merely part of evolution was discussed. Some reductio ad absurdum examples entered the discussion but will not be listed in these notes. Suburbia was brought up again in this discussion but with attention to the many roads that industrialism required to connect the parts for the conquering of evermore of the land to convert it in to industrial use (if this was the type of industrialism that even a humane socialist economy would seek for). It remained an open question if industry could ever reach a utopian point where it was not destructive to any living things as was aspired to (presumably) in the Soviet Union.

10) Sub-topic 10 – Money (introduced by Fred). A discussion of mediation in general that first focused on money, but expanded to particularly the quantification and reification of consumer goods and services so that they might be translated in to monetary quantities, and the chafing down of all things to fit in to the cash nexus or other human categories of thought, and physicalitys that conformed with artifices. The social losses incurred when money was given legitimacy were discussed, and how other/older forms of kinship and resource sharing were weeded out; a huge quantity of money middle-men that emerged to bureaucratically manipulate it giving way eventually to huge “money making” institutions; money is the clothes that imperialists are dressed in. Also, intrinsic problems of money will always exist, it was argued even were there benevolent money-managers (such as automated robots, tabled for later).

11) Sub-topic 11 – Science (introduced by Geoff). The science sub-topic discussion continued right where industrialism and money left off, but quickly mixed in philosophical ideas revolving around what reification really is and if it’s the method of science to do so (dissecting and then analyzing). What is science really and if is used as a term so broadly is it really multiple things conflated together? Is it just mere empirical observation? How does science choose its objects and what mereological assumptions does it make? Representationalism (and misrepresentation) are cultural and shifting far more than they are objective, and yet this is the way of science that constantly disproves itself, meaning it is a long history of being wrong, outside of the aspect of science that is the humble recording of observations and drawing minute conclusions. Thomas Kuhn was indicated though his name couldn’t be remembered at the time. Specific examples of science’s direct impact were brought up. Science enabled nuclear power (or was it the human imagination, and science shouldn’t be given deistic agency?), and now in peace time there are black-holes created routinely with great hubris, and great danger. Will modified organisms really be helpful in evolving the planet forward, or are they a murder of life with life’s own corpse? Discussion went further, into the imperialism of knowledge, the unceasing human quest to know things, that has been conflated with evolution of the species; it has led to a great weakening of the human because of the time investment into obsessing about knowledge piles to the loss of in-body time that humans need. The poor posture overweight cubiclite was referenced.

12) Sub-topic 12 – Science/Fiction (introduced as “Artificial Intelligence” by Giovanni). Edmonds chose to title it Science/Fiction for writing purposes and to include a broader discussion beyond artificial intelligence. Immediately too the question was injected of if artificial intelligence can even attain artificial consciousness, for machines are not self-healing and evolving organically and are uncontained by programming, yet computers seem to have this fundamental restraint. If artificial intelligence is created (presumably organically and not electronically), or even if machines advanced enough to be almost autonomous and controlled by the oligarchy entirely, they would be deadly to all humans that didn’t serve some purpose. Ley had lots of background in science fiction and had written an unpublished essay titled “Fictional Today, Experimental Tomorrow: The Real Dangers Of Science Fiction” where he argued that the human imagination was very important to defend us against most crises, which are preventable if we take their precursors in our imagination (this in parallel to using intuition to sense the future). However, Ley said imaginations can conjure futures that are radically different yet could then be realized by a determined people that imprison the present for their own twisting purposes. Science fiction does just this, as it provides enough of a blueprint (it seizes the imagination) that we then force (engineer) the present in to. Engineers are not neutral actors in all of this but actively decide which of a myriad of directions reality will go in. Comedian Bill Burr’s routine on Steve Jobs was mentioned as exemplary of this arbitrarity.

Further, and perhaps most dangerously, science fiction goes to normalize dystopian situations and neutralize our critical ethics faculties to something that would otherwise be quite shocking. The “saw this in a movie” effect is widespread and has allowed great leaps in perversion and destruction on the part of governments and corporations. The abnormal is so quickly made normal and digestible through movies (again, propaganda)

13) Sub-topic 13 – Health (introduced by Gulian). Gulian confessed he had been thinking about this topic all along because of the variety of food options we all were partaking in, some very healthy and some very poor food choices “winter storage foods built for sieges”. Lack of sunlight exposure and the work of Stephanie Seneff were asked to be included in these notes, too, which he mentioned briefly but self-tabled. He took a show of hands to point out who of us were fading during this second half of the meeting, and who was still going strong. He did this from a standing position, standing being something only he and Edmonds did during the meeting that he pointed out. He went on to say how adversely affected modern human health is by all the previous sub-topics we had previously listed, and a vicious feedback loop ties them all together. And it was agreed that if our own health was not managed in preventative ways not dependent on the parasitical medical-industrial complex, we could not hope to fight these other issues. But questions of how to do this, and what makes a person feel healthy and whole beyond merely eating healthy and exercising bodily and spiritually were discussed. Samantha, a dweller in the location of the meeting who is a practicing nutritionist, happened to overhear the discussion and offered some practical tips for all of us including intermittent fasting, using a salt-water infused water drink called “sole”, and sleeping at the same time every night. The need to express our creative energy was brought up as a health initiative, particularly sexual contact and release, and also very important skin contact such as cuddling.

14) Sub-topic 14 – Sexism (introduced by Samantha) – This meeting, as Samantha pointed out and others admitted noticing earlier, didn’t formerly include one women, or one openly LGBTQQ person (as far as she knew). How could the world’s problems hope to be alleviated and turned without the voices of the other? There was discussion of how to go about including others who they didn’t happen to be acquainted with, and how to not make it merely in to a tokenizing inclusion, as would be the case with several of the member’s wives. Also the assumption that all those who identify somewhere in the LGBTQQ spectrum, or too as straight women, feel oppressed, and would have any interest in taking on the task of evaluating the world’s problems and then saving the world. Rights to be nude entered the discussion, and one member, followed by two others, stripped for effect and to re-normalize the surroundings.

15) Sub-topic 15 – The Over-looked “ism” (introduced by Edmonds). Edmonds confided that this he was hoping to end with, in what he saw as an overarching problem not yet clearly defined or considered. There were a few headings under which the idea might be introduced, and he chose it under it’s negative terming as an ism, namely ageism. He felt that the fight against ageism opened itself to a proactive fight rather than a reactive and defensive fight, as has been and would be the case when fighting most of the other causes of global death and oppression (because they were fighting to defend something that enabled a different version of rot to dwindle within. Fighting for the youth to continue is what life inevitably had always done, and not through destruction but creation and cultivation. It was a fight far beyond mere cultural contrivance, but in line and with momentum coming deep from instincts and the whole trajectory of life on Earth. The Earth had chosen billions of years ago to have reproduction as the part of how life continues, and humans had now severely interrupted this. Ageism against the youth was discussed and agreed to as a major issue to cap off the problem listing phase. Another member pointed out that the humanizing of the event as an ism against humans might fail to include what was really the fight for life on the planet, whether animal, plant, fungi, or other. The sixth mass extinction if allowed to continue would eventually preclude fights against any other of the problems, and yet solve many of the human-made ills on the Earth, but for few species left to benefit from.

Part B – World Saving, History Redeeming, and Future Freeing

It was agreed upon that this portion of the meeting would be extremely brief and focus upon devising solutions for one of the single problems listed. To the surprise of all, one member put forth a motion, and then another seconded it. Including this process was quite spontaneous, and to Edmonds’s delight it was in favor of the problem just elucidated. “For the children!” said Alex with a fist raised, and then all raised their fists and said it again. Alex then shared powerfully that we ought to not focus on the Enemy, referring to the LOTR reading where “the Enemy” was underlined, but on the friends. Giovanni then ventured that restoration permaculture is the best way to be “pro-life” wherever anyone of any status and means happened to find themselves. He shared a specific idea he had been contemplating on how to make the “Water Is Life” movement more proactive using permaculture. Essentially his idea was that instead of just defending by use of laws and pleading, westerners or indigenous peoples should actively make new sources of water and “green the desert” through swales and pond creations to inspire people to create once again what had been lost. All the members agreed to go and research permaculture, and Fred, also a permaculturalist, shared that he would work to revive the “Permaculture Campaign” that he had launched earlier that year and had let fall to the wayside. The meeting was closed with the idea that they would meet again in the future after having chewed on and researched what was discussed (and reviewing this document), coming up with any proactive campaigns that might be suitable. A last comment and commitment was by Gendry who had shared that he was already looking at intentional communities to visit on IC.org, and that another best thing to do for the future generations was to provide them with the option to be part of a tribe. Several others thought it was a good idea and told him to forward information to their emails and that an intentional community exploration sub-committee should exist alongside the permaculture researching.

So concludes the minutes on the Council of Edmond, October 25, 2017, 100 years after the Russian Revolution, and 1001 years before the Council of Elrond, in the Third Age of this world.

The Anarchists of the Late Roman Empire, a cautionary tale

Little is said of the anarchists of the Roman Empire. Little can be said, after all, for they were a quickly destroyed people.

–Background–

Long before they were destroyed, the Roman anarchists coexisted—albeit in a marginalized and sometimes shunned social standing—with other “citizens” and Roman dwellers including migrants (some forced) who generally left them alone as they were no threat to their own frenzied feeding off the fat of the bloated empire. Many anarchists were even open about their distaste for dwelling in a territory occupied by a coercive force—much in a manner akin to the sovereign citizens of this 21st century—yet they were never considered a threat by the formal authorities nor any common “patriots” (if there could be said to be any). Ideologies didn’t mean much anymore, save that the more cautious paid lip service to Christianity to hedge against leaving themselves open to any vulnerability; this choice to Christianize depended entirely on what part of the empire the said persons lived. Indeed, the vacuum of thought was empty and vacuous despite this modest attachment to Christianity; the idea of ideas was at a very low point, a precursor to the coming illiteracy (à la the dark ages) to sweep over the land.

Some of the younger and rowdier in the anarchist circles did get in to trouble from time to time, not because of their ideas but because of their actions. They would openly criticize the empire, occasionally staging protests of this theme, and throw rocks at soldiers, and would sometimes gain public attention when one of their own was jailed leading to further protests and jailings. There is no documentation showing any corrections beyond the jail time, which gives further credence that the anarchists were not taken seriously. Perhaps they themselves did not take themselves seriously enough, and though they did access the analytic abilities to discern arbitrary power in a world where such power was the norm, they were unable to maintain the energy levels to constantly defend and critique against such a naturalized evil, and so they played in to it unconsciously. This subcultural existence went on for more than a century, and there was no urgency on the part of any of the aforementioned peoples to change the situation, anarchist nor others.

–Ground–

One year, when a particularly harsh climate evolved a series of particularly harsh storms (financial, demographical, ecological, psychological, infrastructural, unseasonable weather), so called “barbarians” were allowed in, or forced in, and resource caches were quickly overwhelmed and depleted. Perhaps had the anarchists sued for alliances, and a system of mutual aid with these oppressed barbarian groups sooner, their own disasters could have been averted; but indifference reigned the day, and in the turmoil of events that suddenly happened upon the empire, such collusion was precluded. That year the vast weaknesses of the empire were quickly revealed to those thoughtful enough to notice, but they, like the other infortunados, were helpless to prevent their situation from quickly worsening. Within a few short years the peoples dwindled, and absolutely all of the anarchists perished. Some survived, but they completely left and forgot about their anarchism because they hadn’t cultivated deep and resonate mobile roots that they could carry with and within themselves. Little beyond the Christian church and the cunning and powerful were able to maintain any standing above mere survival; the laws were usurped and fashioned to suit their needs, enabling the ushering in of a future feudal ordering. There were no anarchist maxims to be uttered in prevention or refutation of these naked unchecked power grabs.

Not all was bad: great were the times of those who were on the outer periphery of the empire—not yet made dependent on the empire and able to now be free of the paralyzing yoke, returning to their own localized habits (some subsistence). The land, too, started to heal and soil erosion was reversed and animal populations came back almost miraculously. Unfortunately in that land too many bad seeds were left in the soil, allowed to slowly germinate and prefabricate the next round of wider and deeper oppression. The stewards were dead, or elsewhere…

–Foreground–

They had dwelt mostly on land that was stoned to death, paved by such hardened materials that smothered the ecosystem. They were being kept afloat by layers of artifice that they were unable to notice because of feelings of dejection mixed with distraction—circuses. Usually they were relaxed (or lulled), and their vigilance was sleepy. The anarchists were subalterned by a combination of forces, most of which were not calculated in to their critique. They died, and their children died—who they so wanted a better world for—not because of government per se, but rather because of the real forces of the world that the government insulated, distorted, and buffered against. The empire was well on its way to death because of its absurd middleman position, but unfortunately its tall walls obfuscated a view of the tidal waves crashing just outside. The anarchists knew the empire to be systemically weak, and that it may fall because of its own immanent problems, yet they did not create their own resilient human systems to mitigate their own weaknesses. The anarchists goaded the government to reveal its monstrous self and come and slaughter them, but ironically it was when the government itself imploded that so did the Roman anarchist communities. They thought they had imagined life without government, but either their images were not truly liberated, or they failed to realize the images externally before the catastrophic events unfolded.

Perhaps ROMAN Empire stands for Radically Oppressive Militarized American National EmpireL, but perhaps not… let’s not wait and see, but rather let us roll our dice while they are still ours to role!

 

 

L ROMAN could additionally equal really/radically oppressive/overly militarized american national empire

 

The uinverse Past 2: Effects Searching for Causes

The temporal past has no ontological significance, though it is probably the most naturalized false metaphysical postulate (an epi-ontology, if you will) that is given great investitures by the pillars of human culture like religion, fate, and determinism. It is the pastulate—if you won’t—that receives a great deal of traction from many non-classical and colloquial areas of human endeavor. Such disparate areas where the past is taken for granted range from the academy, where most scientists subscribe wholesale to Einstein’s spacetime, on over to the informal references to activities of yesterdays and yesteryears—references which take on a seemingly active existence in the imaginations of those who dwell on events past. Some, such as archaeologists and particle accelerating physicists, would even go so far as to forcefully plow and dig up modern habitations, or put our solar system at risk of a black hole, than lack any knowledge of the past. Whatever the particular method, it seems that devotion to something that isn’t in the here and now is certainly a trend in human behavior. The past, for its part, is a well papered over falsity that has cropped up and will continue to crop up when our vigilance sleeps, which is when our brains succumb to platitudes. An ontological explanation as to why a determinant past, though ontologically false, has staying power in our institutions and imaginations, is called for. The past is an enduring falsehood that is the logical mirror to something that does have real ontological significance: the metaphysical entity that is a determinizing future, i.e. the logical uinverse.

Universe's Impossible History

The past is not an ontological reality: it does not endure, reverberate, or have any effect on the present. A tenseless past does not accumulate with the passing of time (and no tensed past can be reaccessed out of our present, i.e. time travel into the past is precluded). Yet because of the nature of the uinverse—with its incessant logic impending upon the present with the potential future metaphysic—it is able to project itself (through negation) back in to “the past” transhistorically, seeding itself “there” so that an idea grows in the we of the present that there maybe is some sort of ossified past that seamlessly is moving us in to its logically contrived future. Contrarily to this supposed commonsense worldview, the reality of the metaphysical uinverse is that it is as an overturned fully branched out tree; it is such a tree that has come from no seed (for it has no birth), it only has a death that is intimately intertwined with the death of the Universe. When we of the present are a totally passive and captive audience, unable to deny scientific logic, the uinverse presents to us a full trailmap that displays our roots going back to a beginning. However, this trailmap that we unwarily misinterpret as a genealogical record is in reality a roadmap that projects the route to its end; it is a postdestination that when we chose to believe, we fate to be so (analogous to the “self-fulfilling prophecy”). The uinverse, then, is completely associated with a future and could not be locatable into a past for both the reason that 1) I am positing that there is no extension to time, i.e. time does not exist, and 2) the uinverse is in a purely reactive relationship with the physical present, rather than a “preactive” state that would allow it the causal agency to continuously create the present. Thus the logic driven uinverse, from the observations being made earlier (in part 1), is clearly a mere reactive metaphysic that is always making prescriptions a posteriori in relation to the evolving present.

The uinverse does have temporal sequence, which might be called duration (as opposed to the fully present-ed real Universe). This is not physical duration, but rather a metaphysical extension that is temporal, a perfectly sparing amount that has just enough calculus to drive the present Universe back to its original and constant end goal of the purely logical singularity. It is important to note that this uinversal duration tensely disintegrates when the choice is made to fall in to this logical path, this for the reason that our present treats a logical determined choice no different than it would an un-logical free movement previous state—both quickly leave ontological existence as they are tensed. The uinverse is a pure opportunist, and has no care, no pride to ontologically store previous routes to Universal destruction; all that it cares for is to move the pieces towards the end logical singularity. Premeditation is the defining difference between a determined, logical choice for new motion and that of a free, illogical choice for new motion.

The logically singular end goal aspect of the uinverse is what Parmenides inherently realized when he devised his philosophy impossibilizing motion: he was speaking with the voice of the pure logic that diatribed of a necessity for a singularity. He denied the real world of motion all around him in favor of submitting to the whining of a metaphysic that ultimately wanted to destroy that world. The past’s non-existence is, not coincidentally, something Parmenides would agree with, but for a very different reason or end than he had hoped to investigate, that of freedom and determinism. In contrast to what Parmenides would say—that there is no freedom because there is no change, and that there is no need for determinism because everything (i.e. the only thing) is already determined—the real moving Universe has the option of freedom built in to it, and as being truly free, it has the optional choice for determinism (via the uinverse) available to it. The freedom of our living Universe, of our ontological reality, is a freedom that has the option of death (and the Universal freedom should not be confused with a individualized and separately locatable “free willing” entity). Without assuming a past as is tacitly done in so much of the causal determinism/freedom dialogue, there is now the space afforded to the Universe to include the existence of both freedom/determinism without the temporal restrictions that make them mutually exclusive. Determinism is an option, a future direction, that the energies/energy of the present can avail themselves to. There is no necessity that this deterministic path is elected, and there is no force greater than collective conformity that keeps the ontological present committed to such a straight and narrow path.

Heading off the role of cause and effect: the breaking of the cause and effect chains

The most basic of inversions that logic binarily has put on our minds is that of the concept of cause and effect. Logic, in crude form, says that causes out of the past conglomerate to create our present, as a mere effect, which in turn becomes a future cause of future effects, and so on chaining up the future in-definition. However, this logical presumption becomes highly problematic when there isn’t a past out of which the present can causally spring, and the questions that then emerge are where is the place of cause and effect, and is it just a false belief (leaving the Universe to be ontologically free, or somehow determined by another force)? Cause and effect is indeed a creation of the uinverse—which explains why it has independently emerged repeatedly in different cultures—and it cannot hope with this tactic to be causal, it can only hope to be “effective”.

There are many intuitive problems that arise when one seeks to use cause and effect as an explanatory device for all that is empirically witnessed in our world. It would be peculiar, but not necessarily falsifiable, if we lived in a causally determined universe that caused, deep back in its origins, among other things the exact necessary causal chains that would allow the correctly mental-structured (for human consumption) concept of cause and effect to appear now and then cause variable written refutations of such a concept. Another observation that doesn’t sit well with cause and effect is that of oneness somehow causally erupting from within itself, or later on being caused to erupt from an outside force, in to a multitudinous mixture of matter and forces of varying speeds and distances. A universe with increasing levels of depth/subtlety/difference seems to be ill-explained or formulated when it is understood as causally causable; this may be restating the age-old paradox that something needs to be caused and yet needs to be self-causing, albeit by a different route. However, from my view self-causation only seems paradoxical if we assume cause and effect to be the only (or primary) ontologically real method of motion (i.e. mutually exclusive, or “incompatible”). Many contemporary cause and effect enthusiasts defer the issue by appealing to the determined randomness from the quantum mechanical scale to explain how cause and effect could appear so subtle and unknowable. To be fair to the physicists, physics is currently a lot more open-minded than philosophers and logicians who would use their trade to push crude causal determinism; in this regard, perhaps I am just one such person, though in reverse, crudely unpushing a crude cause and effect model.

The metaphysical uinverse is a plethora of sequential cause-effect chains that all lead off with an effect, which they use to bate the Universe to provide the cause to. The long but finite “fuse” of effect, cause, effect, cause, …, logical-singularity is inertly constructed in the metaphysical potential state of the uinverse. It is always dangling the effect tip of its fuse into our present as the logical option we might embark on. The sorrow of embarking upon this path with all our energy consistently devoted towards it is that the voyage has at its end a final disembarkment at Universal death; it would be better to embark on an endless voyage. Causal chains, though linked to death and ultimate death via logical necessity, are an option afforded to the free Universe; they are led by the effects that seek to recruit their own causes to bring themselves in to concrete realization.

Next: The Uinverse Part 3

Aking to follow – Part Two, Anarcho-Monarchy

Who is the one person to dictate to others that everyone must be their own leaders of their lives at all times, and that they shouldn’t be a follower? Not an anarchist—and I don’t know that I have encountered a leftist who has taken that radical a position, but I write this in anticipation of—and against—such a polarizing point that is arguably quite anti-anarchist. So to recap and put the question into a statement: there should be no person telling other people what they should and shouldn’t do.

With such a situation allowed for, an anarchist society allows for both leaders and followers. Anyone who holds the anarchist ideals should deeply consider that many of us at times are, and may feel the need to be, followers (think especially of the infant/childhood condition of existence). There is nothing wrong with leaders and followers, just so long as the followers aren’t being coerced into being such, and there is no time commitment that keeps them bound to follow past the present moment in which they are choosing to follow. There is no contract, no obligation, that a student should have to a teacher to continue being a student; nor does the teacher have to remain a teacher if there is a sudden urge to stop being a teacher and become a student, or leave the dynamic completely. Options are always open to all persons, and the moment that a follower wants to lead themselves, or follow a different lead, is the moment they can.

There are some historical/futurical cautions to be aware of with the leader, follower dynamic. Coercion has often existed and put contracts/shackles unfairly on participants (not just the peasants, but the heirs to the throne who would rather relinquish their power). Landlords in medieval times abused the leader/follower tendencies among humans to create the shitstorm of perpetual servitude, whereby over many generations the famous quote of Steve Biko is rendered true: “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”

It’s as if servitude morphs from being the symptom of a structure to an organic and perfectly natural occurrence. We can allow for monarchs, just so long as the true meaning of “mon” is kept with a single person, temporary to the situation (I’m thinking of an even more temporary form than Roman/Greek executive dictators), and the monarchy is not passed on arbitrarily to an heir, but that the followers choose their new leaders—the best case being them maturing to choose themselves!

Aking to Follow Part 1