/lit/ - Literature

>>12451678
I tried to look up teleoplexy. I have to give a brief phenomenology.
When I read I look for stopping points, for discrete ideas people are expressing. Discretely, in mu awareness, there is a flow element of speech and a quantised element superimposed on it like stones pushed along by a river.
And when I read Wilber or Hubbard or Greer or Lilly or Yogananda I get this smooth electrical channel and my own stops that I've picked up during the day get swept along and resolved, unspun.
When I read other writers of the modern and postmodern kinds, there's a jamming-function so that I have to clean them up with the light of my own awareness.
When I read Land and other people ITT, yourself included, the stops appear in such a ratio it's almost like you've reached a midway between rational numbers and irrational, and eventually one stop, if not eradicated with continuous perception, actually falls into and coincides with a later one.
The cool thing about dialecticw is that it features a two-into-one pattern which, in helping to evolve rational into postmodern writing, also presents me with the option to drop a stop into either of two possible channels. Anyone who's read the Sheldrake-McKenna-Abraham trialogues will recognise this as being to do with bifurcation theory.
The classic chaos theory imags is that of a ball on top of a hill. It can sway a lottle from side to side with a tolerance factor, but after a critical point one side is chosen and it rolls down the hill in that direction. Of course, the two-dimensional hill one imagines in a diagrammatic-philosophico-representational way is less realistic than a real hill with a real ball, which has channels and bumps and plateaus and so on.
But suppose we superimpose two of these events onto each other, by placing two ethereal subtle-energy balls in the same spacetime location on top of iur imaginary hill. Subjecting them to the exact same forces, we expect them to begin to fall in exactly the same way as if they were one ball. But because I have spoken of them as two balls, your internal model and the way it projects itself forward in anticipatin of possible future states to be brought forth in my argument begin to bifurcate anyway.

This is the nature of my experience when reading Cosmotechnics.

We also experience this phenomenon: faced with a person with whom we are biologically predisposed to find sympathy, a certain effort has to be made. Which of our two balls falls short of the mark of giving them sufficient attention and respect as fellow entities to count as having treated with them fairly and justly, equitably if you please? No trouble for the enlightened - all things fall within their awareness always and only as their own selves. Those of us on this other project are faced with how to respond to the knowledge that they have been observing and responding to these effects with compassion and clarity of awareness.