LYRICS

The applications are to blameAll the people do all dayIs stare into a phone (Placebo, Too Many people)

“Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints!” (Chief Seattle)

When rock stars were myths (Sandi Thom, I Wish I Was A Punk Rocker)

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time, Now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time (Moondog)

Time is an illusion (Einstein)

Wednesday, 8 January 2020

Pictorial 84



That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side of which are the angles less than the two right angles.



In a diagram this is easy to visualise as it’s a roundabout way of saying the two lines incline toward’s eachother (not away or parallel).
Postulates are not axioms, which are really blindingly obvious, but they seem axiomatic. Why am I bothering with this? Only because it boosts my ego to say these things! Even though it’s nothing to do with me and happened about 350 BC. For someone working professionally with geometry – Newton, Einstein et al – the correctness of what they do just has to boost the ego. It’s human nature.
Any geometrical theory of the universe – like Einstein’s warped structure of spacetime – is therefore helpful to the ego of those who work with it.
That’s all I’m saying as spacetime is non-Euclidean and over my head. There are other things that aren’t geometrical and therefore can’t be understood in the same sense. Symmetry, balance (prev.), something a priori, but not a straight line or a circle. It could be a vibration, a musical chord (who knows?)



Proportion in animal figures has to be related to symmetry and balance.
While geometry can boost the ego (of the head), the human figure can’t do that as its ideal proportions aren’t axiomatic propositions. For an artist they just have to be learnt by rote, there’s no real brain work (eg. about 8 heads fit one body height).
I suppose Leonardo hazards a type of geometrical relationship in Vitruvian Man, but it’s frankly not terribly convincing. That’s quite a strong indication that the human figure develops spontaneously from primordial forces of dynamic balance.
All I’m saying is the spontaneity of nature is outside of human ego – as it can’t be understood mathematically, by the mind. I know you could say artists who deal in the human figure have egos, but they don’t have acolytes. Science is built like a sort of inverted pyramid where multiplicities of acolytes live off the theorems of previous ones.
This is why I say a sorcerous order replaces reality with logical propositions. One could trace a relatively direct sequence to the present day starting with geometry (Euclid 350 BC) to Newton’s Principles to Darwin’s competitive order (in a universe of straight lines, or the industrial order) to Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of the net.

All this progression constitutes ego-overload, otherwise known as AI. At the other end of the spectrum, I came across this enhanced photo of London from 1880
 
The copy on DT says “Dickensian” and they’re certainly archaic looking and non-progressive. Is there an innate tendency to be non-progressive in human behaviour (and why)?
First of all, it’s a safeguard of identity (origin).  Going by Biblical authority, when the Jews were captives in Babylon, King Nebuchadnezzar set up a


..giant statue and ordered each captive nation to send representatives. When his band struck up a tune, everyone was supposed to bow to the statue; those that refused would be tossed into a fiery furnace. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, the Jewish delegates, consulted the prophet Ezekiel as to the proper course of action. Since the statue was not erected for idolatrous purposes, but only to honor the king, it would seem that Jewish law permitted bowing to it. However, the three Jews decided that they would demonstrate that only G‑d possesses unlimited power. Their plan was to refuse to prostrate before the statue, thereby defying Nebuchadnezzar publicly. Ezekiel, however, knowing that the punishment for such actions was death, instructed the three not to be present at the ceremony; if they went, he said, they should not expect G‑d to save them miraculously. Nevertheless, the three appeared, and when they proudly stood tall as everyone else bowed down, they were cast into the furnace. A spectacular miracle occurred, witnessed by the vast multitudes: the three walked out of the furnace without even being singed! After witnessing this great Kiddush HaShem, the nations of the world gained a new respect for G‑d and the Jewish people.
 
The motto is that identity is combatively non-progressive b ordering on reactionary. It has the quality of a triumphant song, such as the eon-spanning folk-anthem
Folk and the people can exist alongside progressive industry, and the most obvious example is Motown (Drama3) which grew up alongside Detroit’s car industry and declined along with it. By “folk” I guess I mean the family-oriented identity of Motown that brought the street into the studio – with ambiance.
Ambiance is lost in the modern world because the self-organization of places gives way to progressive organization – which is the opposite thing. A place that is self-organizing will run down and will not rebuild – as happened in Detroit. It will self-regenerate through decay (rugged revival). Dirt and ambiance.
And life stories. By contrast, hip-hop is basically banal and born of boredom, rather than the reality of communal living. After all, Kanye West’s big hit is Runaway which says it all, really.
Living things are not progressive – which is a straight line. They are a dance of different things. A progressive system has to lead to straight line rule, essentially electro-impulses (sun or ego). Living things will rebel against this if they wish to self-rule, since this is a dance of the body.
That is the coming battle as one is to do with information (DNA, algorithms) and the other is to do with physical ambiance, spontaneous gaiety, unthinking acts (hygiene versus dirt and cleanliness; weakness versus strength; immaterial order versus physical and psychic reality).
Which will win? I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s conceivable that the straight line progression of Newton-Darwin- Net is starting to show signs of wear. The reputation of God has suffered in the process. I remember writing a school essay about a global computer the last words of which were: As the last relay was closed, a fiery glow erupted in letters ten feet high: There Is Only One God. (I think I ripped-off Arthur Clark).
But it seems that living things are symmetrical, balanced and proportionate for a reason. Because it would be unthinkable to come into this world unless blessed by those attributes. It’s the ultimate non-progression since it has to apply to every living thing there’s ever been (even atoms, actually.)
This goes back to the idea of aether (Hyborian Bridge 48) which even Einstein was minded to support. Basically, the modern order replaces a universal aether with induction in laboratories (DNA, algorithms). Induction by “them” replaces the subtle vibrations of gravity in aether; order replaces spontaneity (the gods?) Greek myths of the wilful deities; Poseidon and Ulysses; water and H-bonds in the womb.
It’s a blessing that is supplied by the physical universe, and it can have nothing to do with fact or planning or routine as that applies to the ego. It is instead a dance in time of primordial forces (see Bruce Lee prev.)
The fact that the universe is spontaneous lends space for introspective reflection on meaning and morality.