ORGANELLE

∞ I notice that entire geographies of our humanity hide from fake, fictionalized, commercial and other counterfeit contexts and situations. Maybe something like 90% of our actually accessible ‘real’ humanity is never experienced due to the fact that we are never in a context where it is safe for those faculties and potentials to emerge.

Most of the best of what we can be is timid. Not in general. Specifically. There are whole aspects of us that won’t show up for conflict, lying, ‘fake framing’… the majority of the dominant social paradigms are its ancient enemies. It recognizes this. And waits. It waits for something authentic. A moment of opportunity that’s humane, intelligent, playful, nurturing… and true.

And populations demonstrate this property, too.

So if we don’t assemble and activate the contexts in which the deepest and most intelligent (read: anciently established) aspects of us are recognized…

… we will meet and become their opposites. Especially together.

In this walk and talk, I explore a peculiar feature of human cognition: questions that defy our world-image and would shatter the foundations of our lexicons and experiences of ‘identity’ — what/who something ‘is’.

Some questions lead beyond common human knowledge— into insight, wonder, and ‘the outer space’ of identity.

I speak a bit about time and biology, and inquire into whether or not our species is actually intelligent (and what we usually mean with this term). I then go on to explore the questions surrounding NHI and humans.

If there are branches of our government in possession of NHI tech or even concepts… this would represent ‘humans from the future’, the power such a situation would convey is beyond any other form of power… an event that would comprise a ‘speciation moment’ where our human species is divided into ‘has tech’ and everyone else.

From a reply to a reddit post in r/aliens that begins by quoting an NHI that was reported to have said: “We are so old that you wouldn’t understand.”

“But extend the metaphor; what if life is actually nothing other than non-corporeal intelligences, native to the nature of timespace…. ‘hitchhiking… on biologies? That might be what biologies mostly are.

{ Suppose that ‘evolution’ is actually the reception and modulation of an array of signals from timespace. }

This would grant both forms unique domains of liberty, intelligence… insight… awareness and understanding that were otherwise unavailable.

Suppose that most of what ‘we’ are isn’t actually ‘human’ at all, it’s seven other things/ways/minds. We are timespace. We are time, space, light… we are beings. We are organisms. We are animals. Humans. But the human aspect is the smallest and least significant.

Imagine that most of us… isn’t human at all….

Imagine that our actual nature, orgins, character and potential are ancient beyond imagining, and contain myriad intelligences.

Imagine that, for example, there’s just one organism here on Earth. Just one. It has many forms and each of the forms is like an organ. Now, take this further and imagine that all living planets in all of time are one organism, on many worlds. At once. As if unity has obvious precedence… to distinction.

If there are truly advanced intelligences in timespace, and that’s something you can absolutely count on… most of them think of one family of lives, minds and missions.

Do we want to come home to our families and origins… or go again to otherizing, argument… and war.

One of these games has a future.”

https://medium.com/ill-ixi-lli/the-door-in-the-sky-913fba02d4c

∞ A cloud is in the world. It can, for example, be located in space and time.

A rainbow is not in the world. It cannot be located. It is a phenomenon that happens for observers like us. In us. The rainbow appears to be in the world, yet it is only in us. As such, it is at once evanescent, disappearing into being, and continuous (to a degree). The visual aspect is an effect of parallax and light… yet it is only incompletely in the vision. At the same time, without the vision we will not experience it. The rainbow is not ‘what is seen’, but requires it.

∞ What is the difference between a rainbow as seen by a person, the ‘photograph’ of that rainbow by that person, and the experience of those who see the photograph? Is the ‘rainbow’ in the image… a rainbow? No, it is an artifact. It is in the world. The rainbow is not in it.

To what degree is a camera an observer?

We are trained, particularly as males, to ‘disambiguate’ phenomena in order to produce a derivative ‘fact space’ that we then present as authoritative. This move mimics insight, intelligence and appears to ‘enhance the speaker’s authority’. It’s a rhetological tactic that has become endemic.

In this walk and talk, I highlight features of this problem and ways around it. One of the most dangerous forms of this ‘limits the frame’ and produces, by this reduction, a collapsed perspectival space in which insight is intentionally sacrificed in favor of a form of ideological predation.

I talk in this recording about this by presenting examples of the opposite: intelligent reambiguation. This is a game where when we begin with a reduction, we proceed with introductions of new perspectives, insight and a ‘redimensionaliztion’ of topics that we are trained to collapse. This results in an endless array of deleterious behaviors and ‘successful’ category errors.

Most of what we are trained to think, and the methods we are scripted to use, can »only produce a broad array of category errors that continually lower the bar of our potential insight, intelligence and perspectival liberty.

Exploring this way of seeing reintroduces us to the possibility space in which insight and intelligence, creativity and wonder arise…

I also discuss a surprising insight… that when we encounter any phenomena we cannot disambiguate — i.e ‘We don’t know what this is’, our own identity goes into a ‘cloud like’ form, because knowing what something is turns out to be central to knowing what or who we are, in relation. This gives us a way into the ‘outer space’ of our own identity… the practice of ‘unknowing’.

∞ “I have directly experienced other modes of intelligence which are relationally accessible to human beings. Having said that, anyone with a similar experience will immediately understand my next comment: much of what currently passes for human intelligence is, approximately, like desiccated yak feces passing for eagles.”

— an anonymous informant

∞ And I will imagine you glowing. Late at night, when no one is around. Well, maybe a moth and a spider. I imagine you wake up at a certain part of the night and your room is too bright, and you notice this strange light inside the sheets and then you realize that you’re glowing. And you get up very slowly, momentarily afraid and then shielded by wonder. And you touch your skin and it feels the same but it’s giving off this feathery lumin. The moth and the spider awaken and gaze upon you with silent eyes. I imagine that you might hear a voice. And it might be your voice, and it might not. You are not really sure, but it knows old secrets. I imagine that the voice leads you to the window, and that outside, it is night, and the moonlight plays upon a garden. I imagine that there are silver monarchs that glow in different colors as they tend huge sunflowers. And perhaps a raccoon, set like a living lamp among the trunks of trees, who looks at you with a question in her eye. I imagine you glowing.

∞ The True is most terrifying. This is not because it is Strange. Rather, it is because the living sense of Truth is a faculty, and one we rarely experience the nature or potentials of. Never in language. Only in and as True Relation. Such relations are always founded upon True Purposes. What are such purposes? They are those which all beings in all moments would instantly know, in being, as being… as True.

Essentially: utterly natural and without overlays or imperative deceptions. FIctionless. But the True is as terrifying as Death, for it is Death to fictions, and most of what we think of or imagine as ‘the self’ is entirely fictional. It does not ‘exist’ so much as it ‘persists’ as a constellation of habitual activities or passivities of mind, relation, intelligence, development… and engagement. Most of our habits are absences of agented participation, or the mimicry of agented participation. A complex phrase we might simplify as intimacy. Whose source is in attention and purpose.

The presence of the True is devastating. It cannot be anything but autoecstatic, a self-and-other exceeding process that rapidly builds in waves. It is impossible for ordinary consciousness to ‘survive’ such an encounter with its own origins; as it is for those origins to themselves remain unaffected. The foundations of the self are absolutely overcome; it is impossible to survive another moment and yet one does, and it is doubly impossible, and yet…

… thus we may suppose that there are fears that are True and those that are False. And the species and senses of them differ. The False fear for the sake of preserved fictions and positions. The True fear for the impossibility of surviving exposure to intelligence and beauty so profound that one feels certain that one can only die in such intimacy—it is tremendously difficult to imagine, let alone sustain any localized idea of self or person. Truth and Death. Birth and Light. Time. The faces on an animal we see as. Unless we see the shadows first, and call such absences as presences.

∞ “The light •is• the ancestors. Every one of them, and yours, personally. So, too, the warmth and the color. Do you see? They are not only watching. That is a naive forgetting of the truth. They are the purpose, method, body and reason of your seeing. And that is not even the beginning of the way we are.”

— an anonymous informant

∞ “Much of my capacity to see and learn depends upon a deep intimacy with metaphor. This is ironic, because it means that my capacity to understand the ‘literal’ world, actually depends on my facility with translating it into various profound and illustrative fictions, whose structural resonances with the topic reveal to my insight what ordinary literality could never aspire to even refer to, let alone illustrate.”

— an anonymous informant