Complex Understanding - 07-08-2024

Hello, humans. Hello, humans. July 8, 722 in the morning. Back on the road again. I've got a number of things I've got to be picking up over this next month out where we live, it's sometimes difficult to get deliveries.

And so you got to go fetch the shit. So that's what we're up to this morning. And drop off a bunch of stuff somewhere else and then come back and start redoing things. And we're gonna do some remodeling here in the next month real quick, get some stuff changed around. Let me shut that off.

There we go. Anyway, so heading in and what I wanted to talk about so my main preoccupation at the moment because we're working on some methodology and thinking about this stuff is the ontological model for physics. There are some things that people just don't really think about, I guess. So say there's two understandings, for there might be thousands, I don't know. But there's two understandings, basically, that humans have for our material reality.

The matter why the matter exists, why we exist as meat suits. And so you can think that, oh, well, we exist as meat suits because all this grit came together and a miracle happened, and life began in the material. Highly unlikely, right? The grit doesn't exist. You can't prove the grit exists, because if you get into the grit, you discover that it's mainly empty space.

Right? Just space between the electrons. The electrons are fundamentally illusionary.

You don't know where they're at in any given time, etc, etcetera. They'll always appear to be where you want to find them. And there's all these weird things about them. But there's vast quantities of space. So in every single atom, the, you know, 999.99.

999 percent of the.

Hang on a second.

Of the atom is simply empty. There's just nothing there. It's, you know, what they call the electron shell or, you know, the. What do they call it?

I think it's the neutron or nucleus wave space or something like that. It's where this space that the nucleus appears to vibrate back and forth anyway, though. So the determination is that matter is illusionary, that all the green stuff we look at and see as trees, all the black stuff that we see as asphalt, you know, all the sort of gray stuff that we see as rocks, all the blue stuff is water. That kind of stuff is all empty. It's all empty space.

And what we're perceiving as solid, we can prove to ourselves with the grit physics that what we see is solid, is, in fact, not. It's just empty. And it presents this appearance to us. Okay? So that's from the grit perspective.

We can prove that there's just emptiness everywhere. And then this brings up that particular idea. So say that you were ultimate consciousness, and you're everything everywhere in existence, constantly, forever. And let's just postulate that you have some level of, um, emotion at the moment, some. Some, um.

Something that is prompting you to act, okay, desire. Let's just say that. And so your desire, whether it's emotionally driven or whatever, is to, um. Is you want. You're kind of bored.

You want to see what? See if there's possible to create novelty. Novelty itself is an. Is a novel thought. It is self defining.

If your ultimate consciousness and you have a. And you've never thought about it before, and then you think about novelty and the idea that there might be something that could exist that you don't know about and ahead of time, which would be really a staggering, surprise kind of thing for you as the all knowing, then you'd say, wow, you know, that the thought that I could maybe create conditions that would bring about novelty is itself novel and is worth pursuing simply because of that aspect of it. Right? So then you have to set about. So this is the ontological viewpoint, and we don't have a formalized methodology for studying physics.

This other physics from the ontological viewpoint, okay? This is called the z physics, by the way, because of the zero point energy. Zero point technology stuff, okay? Or the zero point really is their way of. The gritologist way of expressing this infinite energy, which they don't really know where it comes from and all of that.

But, guys, that infinite energy is consciousness. If it wasn't there to supply the energy, you would not have it anyway. So here you are, your infinite consciousness. You want to have something that's new. You want to have something that's novel.

Well, how do you go about it? And there's all this, you know, all these various different potentials, but at some point you decide, oh, well, one of the ways to go about it would be, I could split myself up into little chunks and then let my little chunks interact in a constrained fashion and see if we can get novelty to emerge. In other words, it's the concept of sort of like making a video game, right? And so your consciousness. And you could decide, well, I want to do this.

And that's when it starts getting difficult for the gritologists and everybody in their understanding. But for the ontological analyst, it becomes relatively simple. Okay? Because if you say to yourself, if you. So in this examination, we are not using reductionism, all right?

And so I don't know that we're actually inventing a new form of a methodology here, but it may be that I have yet to investigate the formalities that exist within the ontological examination world. Actually, they're very few and far between. And so it's a bitch to kind of go and hunt them up. But anyway, so here you are, your ultimate consciousness. You decide you want to have a novelty experience.

How do you start? And then you decide, okay, well, I'm going to bust myself up into lots of little pieces. That's a first start. That's a novel thing to do. And then you start saying, okay, how is that achieved?

And what would be the criteria that would be required? Well, if we think about it logically, the first criteria for that's required for the busting up of great ultimate consciousness into bazillions of little tiny consciousness would be the ability to isolate them from each other, to separate them from each other, okay? And so you're sitting there as consciousness, and you say, hmm, now that's a cool idea.

Now, how do we go about this? Okay, so now bear in mind nothing exists except for you. And so you decide, okay, I know what will separate consciousness, and that is, if I put consciousness into. If I create matter and I put consciousness into matter, then consciousness is instantly separated by the conditions of matter, okay? By the.

And so you say to yourself, well, I'm going to create this materium, and I'm going to create matter within that matter materium. And then I'm going to shove myself as consciousness in little chunks into that matter, into all those little meat suits, and see what happens.

Okay? So isolation from each other is the first requirement in the ontological model. All of physics has only all of what we consider physics, the materium, the material world, our bodies. You know, the place your butt sits on. All of this stuff only exists for the single goal of providing the isolation that is necessary for this experiment.

So ponder that for a second, okay? You're isolating your. Your self as consciousness so that you can have the illusion of separation such that you can have communications between these little chunks in this constrained fashion that may produce novelty. You don't know if it will or not. That's actually novel itself.

That's a cool thing. Ambiguity, uncertainty, all of this is an aspect of our novelty search, okay? Because if you know everything, then you're certain about every fucking thing. There's nothing you are uncertain about. Okay, yeah, there is the other aspect of that.

You could also say, well, I'm uncertain about everything because of the nature of that, but we won't go down that particular understanding of this. But nonetheless, when you examine things on the ontological model, you are basically looking at, we are constructing an analysis protocol, formality, or a rigor that is structured to examine complexity, okay? So if you're a gritologist, gritology is easy, but it yields nothing, okay? Because gritology is a kid's game. Gritology is reductionism.

And in reductionism, you keep throwing out stuff. Keep throwing out stuff, keep throwing out stuff. So you are basically limiting the ability of the. Limiting what you're going to think about, right. The range of things you can think about by this reductionism.

And this is, this is what they train all the scientists on. This is why all the gratologists are as stupid as they are and how they. The way that they function and so on. And it is necessarily also extremely limiting of your ability to deal with complexity because reductionism doesn't work with complexity. You cannot reduce complexity below the level that complexity appears.

So you can have something that's very simple and you can have something that's complicated. But complications only arise from simplicity, from one simplicity plus another simplicity plus another simplicity plus another simplicity, etcetera, etcetera, okay? And you can have reductionism because you can take the complication and you can separate into all of its little parts, and then you end up with some simplicities. This is not the way complexity works, though, okay? Complexity is a whole unit at the level in which you discover it.

So if you discover something complicated, it might take. If you discover something lying in the road and you go on up and you poke it with a stick and you say, wow, that's a complicated piece of stuff, I think. Or it may be complex. Okay, so how do you tell that's the problem if. And you can examine everything in our material world from either perspective.

Is it a complexity or is it a complication? And if it's complication, you can usually determine that fairly fast because you reduce. Because reductionism works very rapidly to separate it out in all these little parts. Okay, on. On complexity, you can do that as well with a complexity.

You can come on in and you could separate an octopus out to all of its little subsystems and so on and so on, right? You know, the little suckers, the arms, the little beak and the whole thing, you know, its digestive system and all of these kind of things. But if you examine each and every one of those things individually as a complication. So its digestive system is complicated, but it's basically a, you know, the simple acids and so on and so on and so on. Then you end up thinking, oh, okay, I have understood this.

This animal here, this octopus. I understand it because I can reduce it down to a listing, a tabulation of all of these parts that I decide are part of the complication.

Now, you cannot, in that fashion, discover its life. You won't discover its brains. You won't discover anything meaningful about its movement or its function in its environment. And when you start examining it in its environment, you're going to say to yourself, well, wait a second. There's shit that's more complex here than the complications might simply point to.

And so, really, truly, we say that we understand the digestive process. That's not true. Okay? From a reductionist viewpoint, we see acids dissolving certain things, but, and we see these, the electron transfers that occur between an ionic transfers and protons, etcetera, etcetera. We see all of those occurring.

We can analyze those. We can build up complicated structures from them, we can write books about them, etc. Etcetera. But we can't actually state with certainty that we understand how life functions off of matter in this regard. How does life, which the grittologist will not even acknowledge, that consciousness and life are the same thing, right?

If you've got life in any form, it is conscious. Whether or not it's as conscious as you are, as aware as you are, or as communicative as you are, is separate, is a separate issue entirely. And so we don't really know, when you eat a piece of chocolate, how the sugar in that chocolate transfers itself into energy within your body. Yeah, we say there's the ATP, the adenine triphosphate separation there. We see that phosphorus and potassium, iron, zinc, and these other minerals are used in the electron transfer process within the cells.

But how does the electron transfer process itself provide you with the energy of. To your brain to have the motivation to lift that damn leg and get your ass out of bed, right?

We can't describe that. We can't. We've never analyzed that, or there are people that analyze that, but they've never been given any credence in our gritology world, which is 100% dominated by the Talmudonians. Right? And gritology, ritual, all of this.

So science is basically a whole series of rituals, and they get. People get demerits for not doing the rituals the same way, all the experiments, etcetera, right. And so it's a. It's a funny kind of an approach to examining our reality. And in the end, you only.

You think you understand some of the stuff that's going on with the. With people, but do you really? So here's. Here's aspects of this. So I manipulate key force.

Okay? That's ki. Like aikido, right? And so I manipulate key force in my body. I can express it outside of my body.

Other people can feel that expression of that key force. You know, I can do these things with my hands, and you can put your hand in between my two hands, and you'll feel things as I move my key force around, and it'll freak people out and so on. So how does gritology explain that? This is outside the grit. This is outside my body.

Right. And so how does gritology explain? Well, I mean, there's just so much in which consciousness participates. Why does one person survive a horrific medical condition and another does nothing? And a lot of it comes down to the level of consciousness that they are expressing.

And so this comes down to, let me just say, really put it the other way, that all of medicine. All of medicine validates the ontological model, and it freaks out the doctors when you bring it up. Right? But what is placebo effect? If I give you water and tell you it's lsd in a convincing manner, and you have a psychedelic trip there, and they say, the doctors will say, oh, well, that's just the placebo effect.

It's a label. It's not an explanation, okay? It does not explain how or why it occurs. And this is all part of the ontological model. So now you can understand that if your ultimate consciousness, you've got a.

This idea, you got a plan, you're going to create novelty here. This is going to be cool as fuck. And the very first thing you have to do is to build a material and start isolating the little chunks of consciousness. All right? So, given that as a premise, it's my understanding that the very first thing that is used for isolation is time, all right?

And so you construct your materium in such a way that you built. You're building a complexity, okay? So we cannot reduce the material. We have to pick one element, one aspect of it. So this is our octopus, right?

And so we don't know what the fuck this thing is. We don't have any real fear about it, but we want to examine it. So we just grab one tentacle and, you know, get that squishy puppy in your hand, and then we start to examining it to build up our understanding of the complexity that we're dealing with. And so basically you can, in this analysis, you can say, all right, within my understanding of building up an understanding of complexity, of this particular complexity, this squishy thing in my hand that goes to these other eight arms and this big bulbous head and that nasty looking beak, you can say to yourself, okay, as I go along on this, just squishing the critters tentacle here in my hand, certain things come to mind. And so I'm going to note these.

And then, you know, as observations is like a practical field scientist might do in an ecological setting, right? And also like in an ecological setting where you're examining a complexity, which is the complete ecology that you're dealing with, not just the critter, but everything that allows that critter to exist and how that critter impacts those things that allow it to exist, right? So there's always other layers to complexity. So just as with the grit, if you keep as long, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is being supported by giant ultimate consciousness, because giant ultimate consciousness doesn't give a crap. It's quite happy to allow them to find small, smaller and smaller and smaller particles.

It just creates it ahead of them. Right? And so in our examination here of complexity and building up an understanding of our complexity, we come to this understanding that we have to examine ourselves, examining the complexity in the understanding that we are part of that complexity, cannot separate ourselves from that complexity, contribute to that complexity, and even the analysis of it forms part of the complexity.

It's tricky shit. Okay? But it's not complicated. And in terms of the individual understandings of the complexity, each layer is itself simple and just for the examination purpose. And so in our protocol, what we do is we come across, we grab that octopus by the tentacle and we say, ooh, look, it's a little sort of, I don't know, let's call this slimy, okay?

And so then we can make a note, ooh, there's a slime component to this complexity. And so then we can come back later after we've, you know, because we become attracted to the little sucker parts, right? We want to examine the little sucker parts for a while. Then we. Then we examine the beak of the octopus for a while, and then we say, oh, oh, let's go back to this other aspect.

And we've noted all of these various different aspects of the complexity as we go into it. And so in reductionism, you're going down in complexity analysis, you're going in and out, okay? So there's. You can examine it at an outer layer or an inner layer, right? And you're never going to find an ultimate, small primary stopping point.

That's the goal of all the reductionists. They never, ever, ever find it. That's why they're a bunch of frustrated fuckers, you know? And this is, like, why Eric Weinstein's understanding of physics is bogus, is because he thinks physics is there as an. As an after effect of grit coming together, when, in fact, all of physics only exists to isolate consciousness from itself so that it could see if novelty can be produced.

Now, here's another effect, another side effect of that, right? In our practical world, this is not our materium. And this isolation that is being provided to all of the meat sacks is not total, complete, and absolute. All right? We have.

So if you were thinking about this, and you just imagine ultimate consciousness, and then, like a cookie cutter, and you go and you cut off all of these little round bits, okay? And those little round bits are all of us, guys, the consciousness in our meat suits, when you do this, you're not actually physically separating. Physics doesn't exist. Physical matter doesn't exist at that level. So you are in no way actually altering consciousness.

This is simply a perception. And given this perception, you can see how such things as psychic ness might arise, because, really, all of ultimate consciousness is trying to create isolation between us. But, of course, we are all of it. And therefore, the fact that it's not absolute tells me a whole lot. But I don't want to go down there right now.

But let's just say that basically, psychic effects are a natural occurring, high level thing within this model, because we are all constant consciousness. And the psychic effect is just us reaching our consciousness, reaching into itself to talk, so to speak, to itself in another layer as you go along. And it's not physically separated, or it is physically separated, but that does not separate us at the consciousness level, does not separate us at the. What we'll call the psychic level. The psychic level is an understanding of our individual consciousnesses in our little meat suits.

But we're, in fact, really just consciousness being deluded into thinking that we're into these meat suits. So it's rather natural that at that level, that one would expect a spillover effect, so to speak. And that spillover effect is what we term as psychic ability. Same thing is true of prescience, okay, of the ability to see head or back. This is why I'm very blown away by Dick Allgaier, okay?

Because the guy is. His little meat sack is really tuned with his consciousness, and this guy can look forward and back into the larger mass of consciousness and come back with details. Really cool dudes. So anyway, but you can also see that, you know, psychic. This is no big deal.

It's a natural part of our being conscious and being consciousness and being shoved into the material.

What we call psychic ness is, in fact the bleed over around our isolation of thought, of impression, right? So we're just picking up waves of greater consciousness and their impacts or emergence from some other isolated bit of consciousness. And there is a great complexity to the material, but it is not very complicated, at least from an ontological model perspective. And the grit approach is ultimate complications and very few complexities. And whenever they run into a complexity, they try and reduce it down to a complication and then ultimately down into simplicity.

And it doesn't work very well because you only get so far, and then you're hamstrung because you don't understand, really, the transference mechanism at the very. What you think of is the very lower levels of energy from. From one aspect of matter to another aspect of matter and how that affects consciousness itself. This is because you think that that energy is separate from the consciousness and that the matter is separate from the consciousness. If you deal with it as a complexity, you can't do reductionism.

And so we don't have science as we have now. And so this is like, okay, so I like Brett Weinstein. I really. I'm very favorably disposed towards his mind and his personality in many regards, the personality being the way in which he operates his mind. Okay, now he's got a brother, Eric Weinstein, not so much.

I don't favor that guy so much. I think he's a stupid goof. Okay. You know, and he's a stupid goof because he's a grittologist. He's a very good grittologist, but he's also very unsuccessful as a grottologist.

So he thinks he's unified Einstein's geometry, which is fine, but Einstein was full of shit and had nothing and was. Was dealing with complications, when in fact, it is a complexity. And so all of his complications will get you so far, and then you're stuck. And that's where we are now. That's why our science has been stuck for 100 and some odd years, is because we got into this einsteinian mess and letting, well, it's actually the ultimate gratology expression.

Gratology comes into existence in the 16 hundreds with the liberal education mindset. Okay. I won't go into any of the details there, but getting back to Eric Weinstein, this is. This guy is an elitist prick, okay? He's got a bad attitude.

He. He's blocked me on Twitter from way the fuck back when. I must have said something that offended him. And I once heard that he says that he's got, like, a mental condition that. So he.

He doesn't like contention, right? It's like, well, dude, no one likes contention, you dumb fuck. So, you know, we all have that mental condition, and he's just. I. Personally, I think he's a coward.

I think he's an intellectual coward. And, you know, he only gets up there and, like, that poor guy, Terrence Howard. I've only seen a few of those clips. Gets the absolute shit beat out of him by Weinstein. And, you know, and Weinstein is wrong on so many of these different things.

I've got to get some time and watch the whole four fucking hours to see if they get into the Keeley deliberate deception stuff, you know? I'd like to talk to Terrence Howard. He's not stupid at all. He just needs to have a few things pointed out to him, and then he can get around a few of these obstacles that he's run into because of the same fucking obstacles we all run into. And he, too, is looking towards.

He's trying to find an ontological model from which to examine our reality. So, anyway, so Eric Weinstein, he's a deep, deep, deep, deep gritologists. The deep, deep, deep grittologists, you'll find, are the theoretical physicists and the mathematicians. And they're real. Mostly, they're really fucked arts, because they're grittologists, and they think that grit can glom together in that they're close and that they'll understand it and so on.

It doesn't work that way anyway. So in doing our isolation. Okay, so in doing our ontological examination, we discovered that isolation is a key. Okay, well, this is cool. And you can.

Obviously, in the materium itself, is designed to provide isolation for consciousness. Now, it's also obvious. Or if you think about it, how could you easily do or what would be one of the best ways to separate consciousness? Right. And this is an idea that a lot of people, you know, don't just go over their heads, I think, because they don't really understand how.

How fundamental it all is. But you can easily. And we find this in the materium itself. You can easily separate things with space and time, okay? So those two aspects of the creation of the materium are designed only for separation.

And they prove that the ontological model, their existence, proves the way that they are, that they were created, and so on, proves that the ontological model is much more valid than the gritology.

So time can isolate consciousness as space can isolate it. If we're separated by a thousand miles, we're physically separated. Physics comes in. Matter comes in. But time is also an aspect of matter, okay?

And it has, as Cozy Rev had examined it. So cozy rev, all scientists, even if they're really fucking brilliant, they've all come up through this in the last hundred, 50 years. They've all come up through this einsteinian mind fuck, okay? By going to schools. And so Cozy Rev and all these people were astrophysicists.

They had ultimate fucking degrees and so on. So they were as mind controlled as anybody else. Their premises were wrong. What they discovered and so on was basically as an aspect of them busting out, as an aspect of them breaking out of the mind control that had been put on them by the schooling. So it's not education.

It's schooling. You're schooled like a fish. You're told where to swim. You know what area to go to. So cozy Rev discovers all these active aspects of time and sees time, and even then sees time as a separate part that can be reduced in its examination of this complication that is the materium.

Only it's not a complication. It's a complexity. And so he missed so much about time that he would have been able to see had he had the ontological model from which to propel his thoughts. And, you know, so I don't give anybody shit in the past for what they've discovered. So Buckminster Fuller was a great thinker, and he busted out of the paradigm in many, many, many regards.

Cozy rift did so on and so on. And these luminaries, Walter Russell and all these kind of things. I actually think Terrence Howard will become one of these guys, right? That over his lifetime. And he's, like, only in his fifties, so he's probably got at least another ten or 20 or 30 years of thinking about shit.

I don't know what his health is like, but anyway, so I think he'll become one of these people. He's a very smart guy. Eric Weinstein, he's not so smart. Okay, maybe he could have been smart had he not been schooled, but he's trapped in the milieu that he has built around himself from his choices, okay? So he's a grittologist, and he won't easily acknowledge the ontological approach to things because it invalidates everything he's ever done and basically puts him at right back at the beginning personally.

Okay, so let me just inject a little bit of stuff there. I'm a Zen meditator, right? And if you go into Zen, you don't have to go very far before you discover something. Zen mind is beginner's mind. So here I am at 70, approaching 71, and I love being a beginner.

I love it. I love it. I cannot find anything better than to. So I'm like consciousness. I love novelty, right?

And there's nothing more novel than trying to begin something in order to achieve it or master it or so on, right? So in that regard, you know, I'm harmonizing with ultimate consciousness in its hunt for novelty. And here, this is the point that I'm gonna wrap it up because I gotta make a couple of turns and go and deal with some people here. But here's the point of this, right? That if you were to understand that you are part of the complexity, right?

And that whatever you do in the complexity promotes the complexity, participates in ithemenae, enhances it, enlarges it, makes it more complex, and so on. If you understand that, then you can say to yourself, hmm, you know, there's, like, waves and forces in this complexity, and some of them aren't so good. So if I go and, like, walk into a volcano, it hurts my feet, right? And I don't want to do that. So I won't do that.

So I will harmonize with the complexity by not walking in fire. Okay? And so the idea is, oh, look, my feet don't hurt because I didn't walk in fire. So this was a successful harmonization. This is a trivial kind of an example, but you get the point that you can, in fact, put your energy, your little subset of energy that you, as individualized consciousness in a meat suit, have, and you can use that to harmonize with the larger waves, to resonate with the larger waves that roll through the the materium, through consciousness, because the materium is an illusion.

And you can harmonize with these waves of energy that are going through the consciousness. And you will be rewarded by that, because your efforts will be magnified by the resonance, by the pumping out of the additional energy into the direction that you want to go down here in the materium, because you're harmonizing with a larger wave that is external to the material, right? So the larger waves in consciousness don't exist in the material yet you can harmonize with these larger waves and you get benefit from them. I can provide you with all kinds of trivial examples. I've got to stop here real quick, so I'm not going to bother.

But you see here in our ontological complexity examination, right? Because we're not doing a reduction. We want to understand this. And if we reduce, then we're eliminating things that we need in our understanding. So anyway, so you can see that this is the way that this would be a decent approach to the understanding of a great complex thing in terms of taking it not as a reductionist aspect, but taking it in its particulars, understanding each one to a certain extent, finding all of the various different other aspects of it and then, you know, going on to the next one and putting them all together.

Right.

Anyway, so gotta go, guys. Oh, this early in the morning there not a lot of fighting for the parking spots. This is cool. Okay, I gotta get back. I gotta meet people.

We got deliveries today, so this is rush, rush, rush. Okay. I'll do another one of these on the way back. I think this ontological model takes a.