Teh Encyclopaedia de Tchadwick [archived]

Why? Why is it so unique? Why is it so off base?

So I haven't written here in a long time.

Truth is, I haven't published any of my thoughts,
besides on facebook and a few other things.

My thoughts need to be highly documented.

I am convinced that I have an idea that many other people do not have.

Dealing with this information is incredibly stressful.

So, here are some random snippets:

"I'm tellin ya, if you put water on the crops, it might actually......
No, it will, [make the crops grow]!!!"

Ok so.

The main hypothesis here is as follows:

The human mind works in a sort of binary / hierarchal / relational way.
That is, from its initiation into consciousness and memory/expectation,
it equates things such as "this source gives life (breasts) and I will
search for similar forms when I mate" and "this form does these things,
they must be right" [in reference to the parent].... etc ... it builds
information based on "this means that, so this must mean that" and also
(matts input) also (based on these things) random "fuzzy" matching,
illogical and "jump" matches, but overall, based on these things ...

As Einstein said, (paraphrased) "what you perceive is a cumulation of what
you know and have experienced" - from the nonlocality talk, what you see
as possible and will attempt, is a 'reflection' of what you know. So this
was my supposition.

If what you know is hierarchal, and builds on what "was true" -- as culture
advances, as knowledge 'increases' - how do such "fundamental" ideas change
the knowing of later acquired information?

In the computer world, the analogy would be: the kernel/framework/foundation
changes, and all modules, and programs, need a 'slight' update to work
properly - that is, all programs that were properly planned in the first place.

So how does this equate to culture?

I believe culture to be a 'legacy' - that is, all popular culture, all consensus
reality, is a uniformly accepted 'transmission' of information, that essentially
is a past reflection and exaggeration of events that were not transmitted as they
happened objectively - a 'caricature' of what was 'now' and 'reality' at some point.

So, the supposition is as follows:

If we build our knowledge in a hierarchal nature - and one of the quite fundamental
relations changes state - how do we update the consequentially related information?

What is the 'apt-get dist-upgrade' to culture??

I will put forth that as man ages, the nature of his consciousness changes, and also how he acquires and equates information, which heavily effects his perspective
on the world and _also_ his expectations of what he is capable of, which ultimately adds up to there being a current cognitive dissonance which is widely accept as being "ok" in popular culture, which is greatly aged and stagnant, and needs to be updated.

Hot stuff ya'll. This is where we are. Religion and history as a self-reflective
record of where our thought and energy has been focused.

What do you spend most of your mental energy on?

As we think, connections are reinforced, other connections are way-sided,
and solutions are increased.

So what happens as we age? To our memory? And our ability to learn?
And our ability to concentrate and choose what to focus on? And our perspective?

And the ability to judge new information, and integrate it into our
entire world-view?