ORGANELLE

“Those who never read science fiction are doomed to enact it.”

— infraheard

^ When topologists are horny for some fresh paradoxical curves?

Möbius Strip Clubs.

∞ “Our minds were formed in and of the promise of profoundly intimate relation with nonhuman intelligence, intelligence itself… and timespace. They are nothing like our common concepts or suppositions, and cannot be, for they are their origin. Did you ever know of a word that could encompass all the statements possible in any language? But in our original intelligences there are such words, and more, for there are orders of accessible representational capacities, and at the second order, a single token can be more significant than all that can be done at any order below it.

We have been trapped in the lowest orders of misrelation with our own minds, in part, because we have categorically misconstrued their natures and origins, their purposes and potentials by framing them in the crudest of all possible terms. Yet let me ring the bell I rang when I began this rant: the nature and ‘purpose’ of our minds is contact and relation with nonhuman intelligences. This is what our minds »are. In the same way you did not learn language to talk to yourself, and would be horribly confused if this was the case, you did not acquire a mind to contest with the produce of human thought and culture.”

— an intelligence agent

∞ On the Nature of Dreaming: A Note

Dreaming is a mode of experience that involves fascination. It is unlike the presuppositions of our languages, and defies such linguistic ideas as noun and verb. The nature of dreaming is recursively relational, and is founded on the establishment of profound intimacies of identity, meaning and relation.

Whatever consciousness is or may be, in dreaming… it partly dissolves into a state of ambiently self-structuring potential. This is, in part, why our memories or reports of temporality in dreaming conflict with our waking models and expectations. The nature of time in dreaming is related more to experiences of relational intimacy and the ‘overall rate of transmission’ that obtains within these experiences.

But dreaming has another peculiar feature, which is that many if not all dreams, apparently continuously re-include aspects of their own structure (a level meta to the shape or character of the specific experiences) in the content and significations of the dream. That is to say, that as a dream proceeds, it may often become increasingly ‘about its own structure’ in ways that are peculiarly symbolic and often metaphoric.

Although this process begins relatively modestly, over the course of the dream, it ‘builds up’ to a point where, near the conclusion, there is often obvious evidence framed in the circumstances of the transition to waking. That is to say that ‘the end of the dream’ often involves a structural representation of ‘waking up’ that is coherent with the dreaming situations.

It’s not mind-bending, it’s doctrine-bending. Somehow, people eventually thought the world couldn’t be a being. Or shouldn’t be, according to some other, probably materialist doctrine. But it was always obvious to me that if you grow some living cells on a stone in space, that stone becomes a being. Planets are better imagined as beings than objects — even without the organisms…

https://futurism.com/astrobiologists-earth-intelligent-entity?fbclid=IwAR0DQ8br_s6JlsJ5-6puSVXPfUgbo6EJuqeZUldAuk-YkFg_-PEf88ik7WE

∞ The difference between us biophiles and everyone else is that we are afraid »for spiders and snakes, whereas they are afraid -of- them. So, effectively, ‘the fear-people scare us’.

Those?

Those are just the graveyards where we represent what we no longer participate in or experience. Especially together.

We call them shows, videos, and movies.

That’s »mostly where our dreams of adventure, especially together, go to pass away.

There are, occasionally, exceptions.

These are things of the relationship.
Those are things of the marketplace.

Let us not combine them.

∞ Fundamental Amplitudes

They had another way before thinking, and this way was true. But something happened; an event. During the event, they founded an artifact-way that would become ‘thinking’. First, about themselves. Because of an ‘almost living’ knife that becomes a mind.

They found the knife inside them. And then began to cut things. They cut themselves away from everything. Now, deprived of everything, each ‘one’ of them either had or did not have things. But the first ‘one’ was the entire species. So first, they cut their people away from all their unities in relation. With the knife.

And then their minds became about individuals or groups ‘having’ and ‘not having’ everything that was everywhere. They became so confused that they ‘thought’ they were in a garden that belonged to them. They thought they ‘had’ gardens. It was the opposite, of course. The gardens had them. As children. Like fingers in the universe of minds.

They invented other ways of having. Collections of things to have. Stores. Banks. They thought ‘we have stores and banks’. The stores and banks were dead. They might have been true stores, or true banks — formed of mutual benefit — but they were representations of that. False replacements.

So the banks and stores had the people, instead. Because they no longer ‘had’ themselves, each other, or the living world.

They thought they had cars and machines and wars… but again, the cars and machines and wars they made, had them. It made their minds, and trapped them in terrifying modes.

They kept making the wrong kinds of cuts in all the wrong places: importance, identity, relation, function, meaning, purpose, character… everywhere. And so they were owned and became the ‘dead extensions’ of all of their errors. A wrong way of cutting that results in the idea of individuals and ownership.

The old way was the opposite. The ‘cuts’ became constellations of unity. Meaning. Relation. Purpose. And these made themselves more true with each move. The other way was self-correcting…

It resulted in immediate intimacy, insight awareness… and true mutuality. An eye of many eyes in many places, instead of a dead eye in a place where nothing exists except the knife… and all its endless aggrandizements.

They (k)now emerge not from the garden or relation, but from the crisis of the knife, and the catastrophic tragedy of being dominated by its ‘way of distinguishing’. But the old gardens still speak. Their song is not a knife.

It is a living star. It constellates unities … of the original garden.

∞ I often speak of what I refer to as tactical opportunism. This phrase describes both a practice and a mode of attentional awareness by which we may discover and acquire uncommon intelligence, protections, skills, abilities and other benefits… by remaining intimately aware at all times of both unexpected threats and new or previously unimagined opportunities in every moment and situation.

As a practice (or perhaps a mode of being), it consistently yields unexpected rewards when it is oriented toward intimate relation with living places and nonhuman beings. It was absolutely crucial to our distant ancestors who existed in a state of identity (distributed selfhood) with endlessly diverse natural signals and relationships. It is a mode of heuristic optimism which is, at best, poorly understood by most humans who prefer to worry or mourn when relationships or situations depart from habitually familiar forms or expectations.

In nature, nearly all creatures must remain in such a state at all times in order to survive. This means that they avoid merely rule-based or habitual behaviors in favor of what we might call ‘active sensing’. In human culture, lulled by habit and buried in pollution, noise and technology… we rarely develop even the slightest experience of this form of crucial sensing intimacy.

This practice of active sensing coupled with ‘tactical opportunism’ are two of the bases of both advanced martial arts, and… advanced relational, intellectual, emotional, communicative and purposive arts.