The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Spacelight, continuing.

    Share
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 74
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Wed May 16, 2018 3:27 pm

    Below is a mail I wrote roughly around midnight your time last night.

    ::

    Dunno if you're still on your road trip, and if you are, or if you just got back, I don't want to disturb you, so I'm writing a mail instead. Just took a trip, and still coming back from it, for the first time in months. It was the species and dosage I had my "spacelight" idea on, and again, they turned out a great pick. That idea may have to become known as my "one great idea". Walking along a canal while eating pita gyros pork recently, I already figured that my idea means it's not really true that the stars we see in the sky no longer exist; what we see is part of their activity all those zillion light years ago... That whole space is part and parcel of their activity. Yet that also means what's happening now in our tiny corner of the universe, belongs to the gold and oil splendour of the stars. The universe is as glorious as ever, but we're living in the age of past glory. Yes, some of the past is still great, but it's becoming ever less. And I've been nothing if not a brilliant reflector on that greatness ("the one in the shades", I applied to myself as a description even during my songwriting days).

    At this point I really had to eat something, so my trip will probably really wear off now. Yet it's precisely my task to keep such insight alive. Day insight is dazzling, but night insight really probes what it comes down to: those precious impressions made by our fathers in their heyday, absorbed (as we are) in their rich heritage, the heritage of knights and kings and everything best in man. Rosy-coloured, sure, but aren't those the best colours? "Roseate metallic blue" etcetera?

    I'm thinking now of posting this on my forum. Earlier, I'd played with the thought of posting it on your Facebook wall--as a comment on that waterfall photo, for example.

    ::

    That's it. Later, when I was trying to get to sleep, I wrote the following memo on my phone:

    "Space is light that has not yet lit. It is all the times light can lig[ht.]"

    We should also think of lighting as in "A Little Bird Lit Down On Henry Lee": light only lights when it lights down on our retinas, for example.

    My first spacelight trip was especially inspired by quantum entanglement.
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 74
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Thu May 17, 2018 1:17 am

    When starlight lights on your retinas, the space it was--all the way from the star to your eyes--becomes zero. Of course, that just goes for that "one" wave/particle of spacelight. Countless others still exist, so the spacetime between the star and your eyes remains--until there's no more of its light to reach you (i.e., when you've seen past the death of the star).¹

    This also explains quantum entanglement: the two wave/particles or whatever are really a single space, until one of them "lights" (starts spinning): then the space becomes zero, and all this causes the other wave/particle or whatever to starts spinning in the opposite direction. There's really no spooky action at a distance here; before they started spinning, they were the distance...

    I think "spacelight"--or "spacelite"!--is the perfect name for this layman's (poet's!) take on cosmology.

    ¹ EDIT: This goes for any lightsource, not just for stars. Also, there can never be total darkness anywhere, as that would require absolute vacuum--nothingness. Where there is no spacelight, there are objects--and on the subatomic level within the objects, there is spacelight. And what is not spacelight about the objects is spacelight that has lit, and is therefore neither space nor light, but now spinning/particles. "Inert" light.


    _________________
    "The will to power takes the place which the eros--the striving for 'the good in itself'--occupies in Plato's thought. But the eros is not 'the pure mind' (der reine Geist). Whatever may be the relation between the eros and the pure mind according to Plato, in Nietzsche's thought the will to power takes the place of both eros and the pure mind. Accordingly philosophizing becomes a mode or modification of the will to power: it is the most spiritual (der geistigste) will to power; it consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9); it is not love of the true that is independent of will or decision. Whereas according to Plato, the pure mind grasps the truth, according to Nietzsche the impure mind, or a certain kind of impure mind, is the sole source of truth." (Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 74
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sat May 19, 2018 1:23 am

    Note that I thought of this post while doing my daily Holosync and vaping weed. The writing was done increasingly less high and more stoned. It may be a case of mihi ipsi scripsi in retrospect: I think it reads like rambling, raving even. Still, the ideas in there are at least more sound than the style may let on. I may clarify/expand on them here in the future.

    ::

    Barl the Bald wrote:Where there is no spacelight, there are objects--and on the subatomic level within the objects, there is spacelight. And what is not spacelight about the objects is spacelight that has lit, and is therefore neither space nor light, but now spinning/particles. "Inert" light.

    Of course, I don't use the word "object" lightly (no pun intended). An object is supposedly something about which the question "what's it like to be that thing" is meaningless. I therefore assert we can ultimately make no sense of things like that, since we, ourselves, are things it's something like to be.

    But, one may interrupt, didn't you basically contrast objects with spacelight? So doesn't that mean space/light is not a subject in this sense? Well, perhaps! Perhaps spacelight is not a subject--which I understand as a self-valuing, of course.

    If I may assert (myself) a bit: spacelight can perhaps be understood as a self-valuing, but space itself (i.e., space as an empty concept separated from time, which latter is also empty if separated from space) is mere valuing, without self-reflection yet.

    The last paragraph may be disregarded. I will assert baldly now: spacetime, the universe, the Big Bang, the White Hole, is a Deigning to be valued. It is a taking that's at the same time a giving, of itself completely. Giving to what, then? Well, to itself, for it's the taking that is the giving. Same for the taking...

    The Big Bang is a movement in all dimensions which is thereby not just one movement but also dual (not to mention triple and more yet), for it's then a movement in all opposite dimensions. And the two, its simplest self-division, cannot be equal, for then it wouldn't be two different sides. The ever so slightly hotter parts of the Big Bang became star clusters, the less hot ones the space between them.

    But wait, this means the hotter parts became the light sources while the less hot ones became the light--namely, the space, the spacelight. However that may be, let's look at a single lightsource, or the White Hole as a whole, or any such Deigning. So long as it's not impeded by something else, it radiates outward in all directions. This occurs in waves--one may think of when one drops a stone in water and looks at it from straight above (this makes it two-dimensional, for now). What I'm saying is that quantum entanglement means that two opposite wave/particles of that wave, or two opposite "cones" within that wave (and one completely round wave can be thought of as one or multiple wave-cones whose angle is 360 degrees (or more))--that two opposite wave-cones are to be thought of as a single round wave: when one of the cones is impeded by something--say, a stone breaking the water surface--, this "something" causes a return wave which affects the whole original wave, but in the opposite direction of that wave-cone.

    Now the Deigning I spoke of is an allowing for this to happen. It is a condescending from--what, nothingness? to have one's valuing, the valuing that one is, be valued by another valuing and thereby only be able to be(come) a self-valuing. It is a dishonoring of oneself, from the self-sufficiency of nothingness (...)--it is a loving. In loving however one honours and dishonors oneself and the other(s) at the same time. (I write "dishonor" the American way so as to honour Dishonored 2, and the series as a whole!) One honours the other with one's stooping, one's kneeling. Love is simply when this is intended/hoped to be, or when it actually is, mutual. I call this Honour of Love.

    Fixed Cross has said--and I quote or paraphrase from heart only--that he's never distinguished between mind (geest) and heart. I would now like to say: Yes, and this means heart-mind and mind-heart are one. VO is indeed the teaching that does not take itself, or its student/teacher, out of the equation. As such, it's a revelation.

    ::

    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 74
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sun May 20, 2018 10:19 pm

    Having read it again, I no longer think it reads like raving. Also, of course I meant VO as encompassing the teaching of the will to power.

    ::

    What I'm basically saying with "spacelight" is that light is not a wave, but a wave-function... But let's really get back to basics.

    A mathematical point has no dimensions. We can simulate this with a pencil whose tip sits still on paper. Sure, we had to move through space and time to get to that situation, but let's suppose it spontaneously came about. Now the simplest way to move the pencil across the paper is in one dimension: this makes it draw a line, let's call it the length line. If we could now move this line across the paper--whether straight up, straight down, or by rotating it--, this occurs in the second dimension. Thus we can call the whole paper, when flat, the length-breadth plane [or area plane]. And, when looking straight at the paper while both we and it are suspended in vacuum, we can move it closer and farther from us. This vacuum room we can call the length-breadth-height room [or space room].

    Now what I'm saying is that, whereas other waves move in a medium (are the moving of a medium)--water, say, or air (e.g., sound)--, light is actually space, a three-dimensional space; but not a length-breadth-height space, but a space one of whose three dimensions is time (it doesn't matter which, it's just a matter of perspective). Space/light is a wave that doesn't move toward us, say in depth (I see now I could also have said length-height-width), but which has always already been "with" us, stretched out from its source to us. But for us, it only becomes "three-dimensional" (namely, four-dimensional!) when we interfere with it, causing it to spin for example (giving it an extra dimension). This however changes the wave function that it is, retroactively or "instantaneously" giving it an opposite spin on the other side of the "pond".

    A lightsource as big as a star has considerable mass, meaning it massively affects "the fabric of spacetime". But any thing with mass, in fact "having mass" itself actually means giving a fourth dimension to--let's call it the depth-width-time plane, the blank canvas lighttime. But I'm beginning to befuddle myself even, so let me leave it at this, for now.
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 74
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:46 am

    Here's some stuff I wrote a week ago:

    ::

    [Here's a song] that spontaneously got into my head in the course of my forelast experience with shrooms:



    [... I]t perfectly represented the theme of that trip, my spacelight idea. It came into my head from my memory, even as starlight comes to us from many lightyears in the past (yes, I'm aware that a lightyear is a measure of distance, not time...). Space, "dark, empty space", is light; there is no total darkness anywhere. But before a light gives light, it gives space; when it gives light, when it lights down on a retina, say, this decreases the space ever so slightly (other things being equal). Thus my last notebook entry on my idea reads:

    "When a spacelight quantum 'lights', the electron (say) that absorbs it becomes slightly more charged and thereby slightly more heavy, increasing its gravity ever so slightly."

    And one before it even puts it as simpl(isticall)y as "radiation = -gravitation"... [...]

    ::

    My other unpublished "notebook entries" on my idea read:

    "rubber glove" (this image combines the expansion of the universe with spacetime curvature);

    and:

    "heat = mass".
    avatar
    Mitra-Sauwelios
    Admin

    Posts : 74
    Join date : 2018-02-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Amsterdam

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Mitra-Sauwelios on Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:19 am

    Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:My other unpublished "notebook entries" on my idea read:

    "rubber glove" (this image combines the expansion of the universe with spacetime curvature);

    and:

    "heat = mass".

    So make that "rubber glove with holes at the fingertips" (really not a glove but an expanding balloon that's bumped "in" from the inside).

    ::

    Next notes:

    1.

    Light is [what happens] when the darkness is valued.

    ("Dark, empty space"...)


    2.

    The reason the expansion of the universe first accelerated, then decelerated and then accelerated again is
    1) that the Big Bang was the transition from no expansion to expansion, which could therefore only be accelerating expansion (or rather, the Big Bang is that expansion itself, which thereby contrasts with no expansion);
    2) that, whereas this Something first asserted itself in accelerating away from the "Nothing" in its past, the reverse side hereof had to be its decelerating away from the "Nothing" in its future;
    3) that the "Nothing" is now tearing it apart. [Or rather, the Something is pushing itself apart, since there's Nothing to stop it. I think the last two changes can only be explained by looking at what concretely happened within the system, not by thinking about it abstractly like I've done here.]

    The initial acceleration phase is the Creation phase (the universe's coming into "Being"); the deceleration phase is the Preservation phase (the universe's "Being"); the current acceleration phase is the Destruction phase (the universe's approximating Nothing).

    Sponsored content

    Re: Spacelight, continuing.

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:20 pm