Archive for December, 2009

Oddly enough, almost anything which lends itself to recursive evolution is similistic in nature. I might use a movie as an example. Seen as an ordered aggregate of frames, the concept of the “next” frame is really tied to the information that is repeated in that frame. That is a sort of recursive development in which the information is fed back into the next event and variation occurs. The fact that there is space between the frames is irrelevant to the way we interpret the experience.

However, this space is not at all irrelevant to the way similations work. I will come back to this illusion of connectedness later. For now, imagine that you take the film strip and you cut it into piles of randomly stacked frames. Even with the most fortunate of accidents, there is no way to prove that any assembly is like the original (unless, of course, you have an original to compare it with). In fact, it is similistically unlike the original. The recursive quality of frame following frame has been muddled. I would venture to say that this would be readily apparent to the viewer even if it were not easily analyzed objectively.

 In fact, it cannot be objectively analyzed because  we cannot come up with a rule which will tell us how much information must be shared between subsequent frames for the order to be the same as the original. One might say, “It varies.”

And this brings up another loose end in our quest for similation. This is the notion of prior knowledge, intention, affecting the outcome of the experiment—something else that we will explore later.

Last night I was given another epiphany. I know that there is hardly anything worse than someone who has just had an epiphany because they surely feel the need to go around explaining to everyone how profound their experience was and how important and how necessary it is that everyone should share in their revelation.

 So let me set this aside and merely say that the experience was like being touched by a hand and having my sight extended into the darkness.

 Similation. That all things are created in the image of the Unnamed. I might even interpret this as being in Her name. I see now, upon further reflection, that mine was the vision of self similarity in which I could suddenly sense what is really meant by something called Oneness or Unity. Silly, really. The simplicity of it all. I guess that’s why it is called an epiphany.

 Once before I had the “epiphany of form” in which I sat eating breakfast on the porch of a little Mexican restaurant in Jackson, California. The sun had barely risen that Sunday morning. The short stack of pancakes seemed especially good, and the taste of the butter and honey was rich and went well with the dark roast coffee. I was looking across the valley at a hillside. How well I remember all those trees and bushes, rocks and rills, suddenly coalescing into a single form with an incomplete, yet profound beauty that held me in thrall for several moments before a delivery truck drove in front of me and dissipated the connection. But during that short time, I absolutely knew how I was connected to that hillside, and what that meant.

 Last night Oneness suddenly made complete, visceral sense. I “saw” the pattern emerge and where I fit within it. I don’t want to be metaphysical about this. I don’t want you to think this was experience occurring at a higher plane of existence. No, it was a simple, raw, and perhaps momentarily frightening experience in which I seemed to drift away and touch the universe.

 So, if this is the second time that I’ve had a “similar” epiphany does it “mean” anything? I suppose that if I’m true to my philosophy, it is significant. Will there be a third revelation in which all things will be made clear? I think not.

Don’t mistake personality traits for motivation. People may have the same traits for wildly different reasons. Traits may change through experience, while motivation usually remains unchanged throughout our lives. Motivation comes out of the process of actualizing your intent. For example, two people appear to be very helpful by sharing information with a client. However, one is sharing information because he intends to sell the information to another client. The other is sharing information because they take pride in being needed. Both are equally friendly, helpful people, but over time and in other situations, you determine that their motivations are quite different.

Seeing past personality and into motivation is not only very useful for judging the likely future behavior of others, it is also a way to understand your own behavior and to take intelligent advantage of your real strengths. In this example, you must understand your intent as energized by avarice in the first case and pride in the second case. Neither one is superior to the other. The merits of each case are decided by how the benefit resulting from the action is used.

Search
Categories
Archives

You are currently browsing the Similistics blog archives for December, 2009.