Modes of Representation &

The problem of knowledge transfer

(scientific-human, or physical-mental)

- getting us lost in ungrounded representations -


‘I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them’.  – Baruch Spinoza –


Valuing prevents gauging topologically and fragments.

 
If you have a mind to play with discernments, the way Buddhists and philosophers do, try this. This section describes how we deploy them, and how they lead us to getting lost in ungrounded representations, loosing sight of actual situations. The following is in line with what several philosophers have expressed about the ‘geometry of the mind’, in particular Spinoza**, in his ‘Improvement of the Understanding’. [See other authors in the book, Appendix F5 on Gauging thinkers.] This geometry is also a geometry of experience and sensory perception, and manifests in our various languages and other cultural expressions. It arises from a moving geometry that senses 'whence' things come and 'where-to' they go, which is lost in the still geometries of our conventionalised representations. It still partly manifests, however, in unrecognised aspects of sensation, and a certain form of gestured ‘primitive talk’ that some of us use in daily life. These can reconstruct a 'nexial' topology, but it is not quite the same as the non-nexial 'basic' topology. This text  points to  a more 'basic' way of apprehending situations, aside from mental and sensate constructions rooted in exclusive sensory perception and interpretation, which have inherent limitations. There are two ways of apprehending it:

The first is to perform the two cognitive experiments to observe one’s own ways of representing situations, and then contemplate the animations on the website with a direct reference to all aspects of daily life (e.g. the body, psyche, intellect, medicine, spirituality, life events, etc.).

The second is to apprehend this through philosophy and understanding the ‘mind maps’. This is what we do here, to free the mind philosophically and from exclusive sensory perception. One major benefit concerns the following problem.

The problem of knowledge transfer

between scientific and human domains: inversion of valuations

The method of nexial-topology highlights an unrecognised problem that is built-in in our representations.  Differentiating theory from practice, or human from physical, leads to transferring strategies from one to the other and vice versa. There is a  double problem, both theoretical and practical, in knowledge transfer between scientific and human domains:

-valuations are inverted (what is 'improvement' in one is a worsening in the other and vice versa)

-there is a global auto-reinforced 'pushing high', to edges or to critical conditions, due to a logically circular, mutual reinforcement.

An example in medicine: One result is that in health and medicine, nearly all our strategies aim to and operate a 'high'-jacking of both brain and mind, but this is to the detriment of basic physical soundness (See proto-health):  many hormones and other substances are high-jacked by the brain  and act on the brain. Both the individuals and cultures seek  this high-jacking, and promote  it, systematically, justifying it now with notions of adapting in stressed states, fuelling them, and recovering  correcting, healing, or reconstructing the body after stress, [with the correlate negative judgement of socially 'maladapted to stress' if this does not work normally), or  with needs to develop powerful, spirited or extreme  behaviours (including in the  patterns of detail the mind can process for problem solving, complex tasks, multi-tracking and multi-tasking, which go with sensory limitation).  Yet, the cost is high: many hormones and other substances are high-jacked by the brain and do not do their physiological job in the body when they are needed:  more basically: to raise necessary resources during strain but without damaging tissues, without taking them as a replaceable and expendable 'resource' that appears infinite, until mid-life 'ageing' degenerations set in, or until we 'fall' into diseases, critical medical events., or simply behavioural/emotional instability ('emotional lability'). This 'pushing high' results in many phenomena related to topologic edges, in both critical events and boundary forms, which are built-in properties of topologic redeployment. This 'pushing' is a 'deployment' and repeated re-deployment (going 'high'), which ends up in a loss of grounding in non-critical physical living, free of both limited and unlimited boundaries and in auto-reinforced instability events, susceptibilities of all kinds, including counter-productive effects of the various forms or orders of 'immunity'. One form of this is known in mathematics (built into the deployment of mathematics to complex tools): 'self-organised criticality'. 

What is being ignored is the ability of the physical body-brain to stay sound without constant intervention of brain induced production of specific substances targeting locations in the body, and without constant intervention of mind, will, choice, decision, intent, etc. - without brain central control and self-control. This ability is here called proto-health. This has major implications for the way we 'raise' children, the way medicine conceives pregnancy and interferes with birth delivery when there is no emergency [See for example the Reflections attached to the medical case report, on the use of oxytocin in birth induction], and treats body-mind states that are not emergency with medical practices derived from emergency practice and knowledge of emergency and major diseases (the treatment ends up inducing worse conditions).

This operates as well a mutual reinforcement of culture and civilising practices, such as technology, trade, and medical or 'health system' practices, and the mores of living in society. They also ultimately lead to pressure (especially economic and ecologic 'human pressure'), to edges of all kinds, and to long-periodic critical instability and boundary limitations and unlimited operational boundaries (e.g. infinite economic growth, or unchecked cell growth in cancer).

These problems have no effective modelling in the store of knowledge. Two of them involve both the physical and the human: population and 'human' behaviour ('human' because correlated to our definitions of what is 'human'). It leads us right back to very primitive problems about sources of water and food, the strain of survival, and how our genius to improve the land (now the planet) that supports our physical living has turned (more than once in history and pre-history) to plundering it to the point of making our lifestyles unsustainable and dangerous and bringing the prospect of looming and most primitive crises, such as starvation. The combination and mutual reinforcement of culture and civilising practices is directly implicated in the auto-reinforcing behaviours that bring endless population growth, and yet we have abandoned, in the last forty years, trying to model how this occurs (and how to stop it without stopping birth rates and our species survival). We just monitor statistically, and keep pushing economic development although, in facts,  this has not resulted, in that time, in a reduced world population. Nexial-topology is apt to modelling this origin-and-end property and to provide access to other options.

Whence the models of deployment come: geometric representation of the body

Here is an extract from a book of anatomy, concerning the development of the embryo into a fully formed human baby:

'Week 4: the body takes shape                                                                                                                                                                 Folding                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The embryo achieves a cylindrical body shape when its sides fold medially and it lifts off the yolk sack and protrudes into the amnioitic cavity. In the simplest sense, this resembles three stacked sheets of paper folding into a tube. At the same time, the head and tail regions fold under. The reason the embryonic disc bulges upward is that it is growing so much faster than the yolk sack below it. Its lateral folding is caused by the fast growth of the somites, whereas the folding at the head and tail is caused by expansion of the brain and lengthening of the spinal cord.
Derivatives of the germ layers                                                                                                                                                                    By day 28, the basic human body plan has been attained. Figure3.9c is a cross section through the trunk of a 1-month old embryo that can be compared directly to the adult body section in figure 3.2. We can use a comparison to explain the adult derivatives of the germ layers.'
(Human anatomy, by Marieb & Mallat, 2003, Pearson Education, p.66)

Other terms used in the further explanation:  spherical centers, wall, buds, limbs, tubes; and give rise, divides into three parts, migrate externally, migrate internally, migrate medially, grows ventrally until it extends the entire... height...

The words in italic demonstrate abundantly the geometric nature of the representations of the body . These are directly related to the geometry of sensory perception, itself related to our body shape and vertical standing. The 'body' is another geometric figure of description: an envelope, a bag of skin with cavities (sub-bags), a container separate from its environment. This description from biology demonstrates a clear awareness that it is a representation: the geometry resembles what actually occurs in the growth of an egg into an embryo, a fully formed human baby, and an adult of the human species.

The words in purple  and the titles exemplify the topologic nature of the effects of changing topography, the progressive 'taking shape' involves geometric transformations.  Topology describes progressive changes in geometry, the geometric transformations and properties that come with extension  (migrate, fold, lift, protrude, bulge upward, lengthen...) There are many , many names for 'deployment' (the most general I could find) - the most ubiquitous in human culture is the notion of growth        

These terms of geometry and topology allow comparisons of the representations [figures in the book of anatomy), to show how the adult body is grown from or derived from the egg. Some topologic phenomena are less known: what grows faster 'below' brings folding under, folding at head and/or tail, a 'falling'. 

The term caused by denotes the usefulness of the topologic approach: comparing different topographies in terms of a changing geometry allows to derive explanations. These explanations can be spatial, as in describing the various forms that an embryo takes in its growth. They can also be projected into a timed development, as in this particular description.

Some terms are used in both physical sciences and human sciences. The physical deployments are 'derived' and their shapes are 'derivations'. This same term is employed in linguistic (semantic derivation) and logic (reasoned derivations of meaning, deriving an exPlanation). [Deriving an explanation is in itself a deployment of mental faculties, applied on top of sensory and instrumental observation. Causal explanations are a particular kind of explanation derived from a linear logic. There are many other types of explanation.] 'Derivation' is a generalised term, similar to deployment, applicable to many fields of observation.  General terms that are commonly used include: deployment, extension, localisation, derivation - (these terms relate to philosophy and logic; see further in this page); spinning, rising, raising - (these are 'primitive' terms found in archaic texts), pressure, activation, expansion, production, drive - (these terms bring many physicalised localisations and human attributions). They bring over-extensions such as redeployment, meta-derivation, leading, reduction, falling, spinning out of control, falling, folding under,de-activation (decompensation, dePression, deconditioning, deprogramming, and leading to notions of reconditioning, reprogramming...), etc.
However, there is a crucial difference. In the physical realm,
the changing geometry is known clearly to resemble directly the shapes our senses (or instruments) show us in what we observe. In the human realm, these terms of geometry and topology resemble indirectly what we understand, through our mind, exPerience and exPlanations. They are deemed by theorists to be 'metaphors' (e.g. the metaphor of growth in spirituality or economy), but most people take them literally, or as unchallengeable truths, unaware that they are just representations, and fairly deployed at that. There are countless terms hi-jacked from physical sciences (particularly in social sciences) that are now applied to the human domain (many only recently). For example: 'achieving growth' implies a mental intent to reach a goal - an embryo has no such anthropomorphised intent for 'finality' (final shape). The drive to achieve growth in societal terms is nothing like an inevitable truth or a necessary behaviour of humans - it is driven by representations. These representations themselves are driven by sensory perception derived from the physiological state of deployment that limits external perception to the sensory/instrumental in those deriving these ideas (which we like to put on a pedestal because that makes them also 'leaders' at the head or top), and limits internal sensations to sensing only extremes. [This is why so many diseases such as heart attack appear to have no symptoms until the crisis occurs: people, including doctors, do not see the 'early signs', and patients do not feel the precursor signals inside their body.] The metaphor of growth in human culture is present throughout history and worldwide; it is a physikemorphed projection [term explained later in this page] that comes because our senses show this to us in nature. It gives rise to all sorts of naturalistic explanations and "It is natural"  rationalisations of infinite increases (and falls), as necessary or inevitable. But it has lost all physical grounding: for example, physical growth is not infinite; it is stunted if it occurs too fast, with too much intensity, too young (etc.). Cranking back up and keeping up is a strain that drains resources and leads to pain and damage, in any field. Under chronic/acute strain, stress produces countless counter-productive effects.  The same physikemorphism, derived into anthropomorphis, governs the evaluation problems related to the notion of evolution.

Detailing the implications of this passage from a book of anatomy shows the crucial role that representation (and its origin in the sensations we have of the body and limited observations of the world) plays in the ways we deploy. We deploy individual behaviour, body type, personality, brain and mind behaviour as we breed ourselves for problem solving intelligence and greatness... right up to taming and civilising practices (that produce physical degeneration of our species), culture and technology, and societal institutions. Hidden is this is our collective and individual sense of the heavy sensations of gravity in strain, of the great effort we feel in stress (neither being politically correct since this is expressing a 'negativity'), of being driven by need (and countless needs we have to meet, which never seem to reduce in any quite permanent way but instead keep creating 'fundamental problems' and recreating the baseline issues of the 'dark side' of 'human nature', including greedy and needy behaviours), of survival emergency (and urgent targeted action needed) - our sense of critically grave situations.
The form these representations take govern the effects they have on us as individuals, on our human-material world, and by consequence on the rest of the planet.

Forms of representation  (see book, chapter 8, p.186)

The following figure is a map of certain aspects of ‘human nature’ in representation, and is drawn from discernment that is reflected in etymology and cultures, but also from the daily life experience and sensations expressed by many people.

 

The word ‘ExPERIence’ names  [see etymology] the stabilised vague sense of peril, emergency, feeling threatened,  danger, urgency, acute sense of stress, or the chronic  high effort of the ‘survival mode’,  of strain, sense of need, and struggle to ‘cope', to 'raise' our capacity to survive (read: live under pressure), to 'try to’  keep up by SurViving the body-brain, in a life of repetitive problems  ad infinitum and forever reformulated solutions that only bring new problems, revamped general strategies that reactivate the old ones… And yet we loose the ability for peaceful joie-de-vivre in feeling free of gravity and graveness, the ability to live in most cases without aggressive-defensive strategies, whether physical (e.g. non-innate  or learned 'immune' system defense) or mental (selfish ego, self insensitive to the body) - we are  limited to reacting and extremes, and robbed of the ability to simply be unaffected.

The word ‘ExPLANation’ images [see geometry of perception] the establishment of collectively accepted explanations , of a 'laying out flat of the problem'; this is a geometry of our representations in topographic ‘plane’ models. (There are extensions into other surface models and reductions into linear models). These involve a limitation to sensory information, geometrically relative to the human body’s head-brain, the limitation of understanding  of the presenting situation to a geography of re-presentations based on topographies in perspectives (see book, chapters 4, 5 and 6) and biased valuations (see below).

The word ‘ExPRESSions’ names the unfolding nexial activity of our creativity, inventive genius, and inTuitive understanding discernment, but also the deployments correlated to our living permanently under pressure (directed activity of ‘activation’ that bring topologic knots and any kind of nexus binding and limits/limitation). These correlate with the loss of the ability to ‘come back down’ and keep grounded and sound.

The word 'EmPIRIcal' relates to the most deployed of our forms, involving various notions of 'fire'. 'Evidence' includes only accepted expressions. What basically 'presents' but is difficult to rePresent is not culturally acceptable and, for all intents and purposes, simply does not EX-ist for the representing mind nor is felt by the habituated brain, and is not taken into account in decisions, even if an individual knows what to do and this does not fit with acceptable decisions.

The forms of representation can be classified in broad categories:

· localisations and projections, [geometric]

· extensions and attributions,  [explanatory]

· especially: anthrophomorphic, ‘physikemorphic’, and ‘spiromorphic’.  [existential or experiential]

The word 'explanation' also involves the limitation of valuations that are relative to self and its head-mind-brain, and evaluations relative to the adult or ‘fully human’ being  ('raised’ by means of adrenarche and menarche, or 'adapted' to 'survival'), whether normal, supernormal (‘spirited’) or subnormal (with ‘spiralling’ behaviour). If we value or evaluate we loose the ability to apprehend the topology of how the situation 'presents' directly, without being 'represented', that is, projected or attributed. Here is an example that shows the difficulty:

From a course of ethology:  http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol261/Ethogram/EthoBody.htm#Catalog  

<In your field work, you first must characterize the range of behaviors you see... Distinguish between what you see and what you interpret as consequences. Define behaviors in terms of the animal's actions, and not the perceived function. For example, if a squirrle buries an acorn, it should be described as digging, placing an acorn in the hole and covering. It should not be described as "storing food". The latter is a perceived function - it may be very reasonable as a  hypothesis, but it is an interpretation rather than a direct observation. One of the hardest lessons of animal behavior is learning to avoid projection (either of adaptive function or anthropomorphism.>

Adaptation for survival is a widespread framework of thought and interpretation of the behaviour of living bodies,  especially in medicine and psycho-social sciences, but is only that: an interpretation drawn from biased observations of animal behaviour, an assumption made by humans (usually, whose experience and physiological condition makes them feel that life is all about surviving and the hard work of adapting, and hence think in this biased way).

The expression ‘EmPIRIcal evidence’ images the enfolding topography of our physikemorphed realities (localised, placed), including the ‘body’ and ‘environment’ we drive and control, the ‘self’ and ‘world’ we cannot manage completely, and the unstoppable fire of emotions (ex- motions) and spirited survival reactions so self-centred that they have counter-productive effects, including loosing our ability to stay humane

The most ancient stories contain remnants of understanding of the global implications of this for human daily living, as does etymology. The basic form of topology without ‘holes’ or ‘tearing’ could help ‘read’ them, as well as read our current global situation, show how all these nexial productions occur, and how to stop them by using the ‘basic options’ that do not involve these productions, which are limited projections. They are not quite ‘illusions’, they are so real to us, but they are limited projections. One of the most difficult to free experience from, is the physikemorphic projection that involves the ‘body’ plagued by high emotions of fear and anger – survival reactions. They are no illusion, so very real to many, on a daily basis, but they are a limited form of living: life as a survival mode. For others, they are ‘illusions’ of a psyche plagued by emotions, and projected into anthropomorphic explanations and experiences. Both of these are the deepest impairment to accessing the ‘basic’ options (seeing them and allowing them practically). Either way, they are an artificial or virtual ‘world’ that represents the situation in perspective.

The map in figure 1 represents what the mind does: it puts the situation in perspective.

How we deploy the modes of representation & ungrounded re-deployments

This map can be generalised to also represent the generic processes of representation, which yield the ‘advanced’ or integrated explanations of experience, but also the ‘fundamental problems’ of theory, and the ‘global emergencies’ of the world of humans.


 

Figure 2. Map of modes of representation


Projections:

· space or/and time, or physical body or/and mind productions;

· perspectival geometry of configuration, conformation, morphology, topography, geography, landscapes; these relate particularly to mathematics. [drift: constitution, composition, construction, arrangement, organisation, combinations, layout, plan, design, self-organisation, projective geometry….]

Attributions:

· Anthropomorphic: H-human, cultural, mental, social, relative to money & skill

· Physikemorphic: Sc-scientific, physical, material, technical, relative to machine &    

   technology

· Spiromorphic: spinning, spiralling up, spiriting, …. Ultimately: critical spiralling

  up-and-down

These relate particularly to logics.  [drift: resonance; ‘self-organised criticality’ in mathematics]

These generally involve ‘nexial’* representations.

‘Nexial’ representations:

The shapes of these representations have built-in properties governed by the rules of mathematical (measured or counted) representation of all geometric shapes. These shapes and topographies are used as the icons of theoretical models and philosophies, they are present in experience (sensory perceptions, internal sensations, gestures….), and in language, both underlying (present in the etymology), and overlying: languages of all kinds give a bewildering array of words and realistic or naturalistic expressions to signify these shapes. 

One particular form of nexial representation is described in the section on the 'Climacteric' problem, with an image of its basic form  (the Vertex-Vortex image of left-right or up-down), and images of advanced forms of this way of thinking. This is particularly relevant to female 'emotional lability' and menopause, to our reactions to global climate change (and disasters), and to the expansive-invasive-driven behaviours related to survival (in humans, animals, or plants).

The deployment of ‘nexial’ topologies produces a vast array of such shapes:

· Extension: expansions in many forms: unfold & enfold, envelop, wrap up

-Spiromorphic: Sc-H-‘natural’, ‘Life’, definition of ‘Human’ and 'Human Pressure' (ecologic,: population economic or emotional); this is represented by the notion of spin, spirals or cones

But also critical spiralling up-and-down: Spirals (up or down, or both, or left-right): dark side, dark energy, ‘Below’, the endless pit, primary or secondary, underlying or overarching, origin or end, source or growth,  hidden or dark, mysterious or veiled;

This framework is further differentiated through notions of 'process' of (de)formation:

-Distortion, deformation, disturbance, knots, inFormation, resonance; ‘self-organised criticality’ in mathematics

-Generative bindings & processes: infinite growth, exponential expansion, evolution, unfolding, opening, maturing, sprouting, spreading,

-Development & re-developments, with counter-productive effects of degeneration, deterioration

… and ultimately:

   -Scatter: cloud, vapour, mist, noise, fragmentation, disintegration

     - Endless paths of expansion or spreading: past, latent, potential, possible (or impossible), or a

    future, endless path towards an 'inside' centre, and 'soon' on track (e.g. eternal promises

    of Progress)

-Drifts such as semantic drift, epigenetic drift, and other such slow or hidden progressive changes changes with EX-plosive beginnings

· Boundary & surface phenomena: (this is where topology helps)

Topologically, all these phenomena involve operational limits and connective limitation in boundaries. They are represented by:

· Localisation: placed in a timed-space  directional activation; a combined operational-connective boundary (not separating them) produces 'climacteric' phenomena - those 'not well understood' in medicine, 'mysterious' in human sciences, and altogether problematic because solutions reverse into inverted effects and into problems, and this goes in vicious circles, sometimes with an inverted  valuation that deems them virtuous cycles (with inevitable, normal, necessary or 'natural' damage and disasters).

· Compaction (wholes, full, ‘one’ or 1): universe, world, ‘the earth’, systems, organisms, subjects, objects, bodies, recognisable or ‘sensible’/sensory patterns of activity, concretions, ‘things’ and their ‘coalescence’.  Topologically, a compaction reduces what presents by 1 order of dimension, so it can be represented, and drawn geometrically. For example, a ‘ball’ becomes a ‘sphere’ with a limit surface and an inside (usually represented by shadowing in perspective). This view is the inverse of the perspectival interpretation that these are ‘expansions’.

· Tearing (holes, empty, ‘zero point’ or 0): core (a 3-dimensional notion),  or 0-dimensional point or centre, or a 1-D wormhole, staff, tree trunk, vertical axis, etc.; this is also called 'passing' a  2-D gate, door, 0-D point of no return (e.g. irreversibility), or a breakthrough, etc. This is either positive and wanted (human domain) or, in physical sciences, a catastrophe, danger related to chaos, entropy, a risk that comes with disorganisation, etc., and in medicine the one thing, irreversibility, that cannot be treated.

Both '1' and '0' are problematic in advanced mathematical models (they cause the ‘bad behaviour’ of equations), yet the notion of 'one' and 'empty' are crucial to the building of logics (they are the root, source, origin, and end of the ‘fire in the equations’).

The ultimate result of these deployments and undeployments is an ungrounded view that looses view of basic physical living ('animal' rather than 'human', and yet bringing up the worst of human nature, the 'animalistic' behaviours). It is ungrounded also because it looses access to 'basic' options.


How the deployment initiates and re-deploys

This is the core of many fundamental questions in theory and modelling controversies in academia, as well as nagging questions in the practical domain (How did we get there?, How did it go that far?  Why am I surviving?), but also in the world models of nature and humans and the philosophies of life on which many of our 'higher' ways rely. The main question is:

How does it begin, initiate,  (a)rise, start 'going', how is it induced?... or "How did it begin?"

In archaic literature, the question is 'whence' it comes - 'where' is 'it'?

There are 3 common ways to project this: the first 2 (see left columns below) are the most common; the 3rd produces advanced models.  This third way is that of re-deployment; how it is conceived (or experienced) depends on how the parameters described below are combined. The deployment  and redeployments can be viewed as:

Simplified table: Views on Deployment and redeployment :

(topologic ‘orienting’)

N2d-

Directional flow

(simple arrow, vector or orientation)

 

N3p-

Circular Flow or

Cycles

Spiromorphic:    N3p-oscillating

                      or N3p-N3p-'keep up'

                          and Expansion, 'rise & rise again'

ReDeployment: N2d-alternating

                     or  N2d-N2d-repetitive

                          and Spreading

‘Great Cycles’ with 'new beginnings' (often interpreted as universal, ultimate, absolute… or eternal, timeless )

Continuous

 

Discontinuous

 

Flow Inversion (or reversal)

or InterAction

Sequential

(or linear)        

See animation 4

 

Simultaneous

    

See animation 5

Relative  [a matter of geometric Frames of Reference]

This relates directly to all our general frameworks or Perspectives and to ‘new approaches’, and post-modernist revisions

Time

(or linear) 

Space

Quantised timed-spaces  (quantic jump, singularity)  

Sudden change in spatial forms (non-linear)

Timing of patterns of activity (rhythmic, resonant & ‘live’ active patterns... or patterned activity)

Progressive

or Developmental

Formative

or Evolutionary

Periodic critical instability

             (catastrophe - or emergence +);

named 'self-organised criticality' in maths

Mutation (e.g. genetic: high-grade structural DNA or low-grade ‘dysfunctional’ RNA expression)

TransFormation


See here the Animations 4 and 5 that accompany the book and Ph.D. thesis

'Sudden' or 'discontinuous' give rise to operational or connective frameworks and terms such as: quantisation, emergence, evolutionary mutation.

For more details:

· Download the full table that details how topologic ‘orienting’ is projected in various ways of deployment and redeployment, and how this ways themselves come in a progression of deployment of the ways of thinking, and

· Read in the book, chapter 7, Deployment of Perspectives.

Despite the complex concepts involved in this table, these 3 ways of projection are as simple to compare, as people's idiosyncratic interpretations of the mathematical notion of interval (see in chapter 7). (Think of the ideas floating in cyberspace about when the new millennium was actually beginning, how the dating related to Jesus' timeline.) A similar 'confusion' exists with respect to notions of sphere and 'ball' in mathematics (discussed in Appendix C10, in the book).

As basic as what a viewer ‘sees’ in a drawing of intervals:

-a ‘one’, ‘whole’, or ‘1’; or a ‘zero’, ‘empty’, or ‘hole’

-a dual left-right, or up/down, or beginning/end,

-a ternary one-side/inside or middle/other-side,

 [Compare this to <PPT4 Einstein\ Slide 2 and 8>)]

-a topologic containment, a ‘bubble-world’ [nexial-topology] (e.g. a notion of ‘island’).

An 'advanced' cognitive process    (see Aboriginal culture example below)

These notions arise in theory in all the fields I have reviewed, in both physical and human sciences,  in all sorts of theories, philosophies, and models (see PPT2 Models collected), but these truths are also 'found' empirically in our realities. I found some of these notions experimentally, and the others are simply part of the 'fabric of my life' (another expression that has topologic meaning: a 'fabric' is a  topographic sheet). Realising these notions and processes constitutes in itself a cognitive, physical and mental, process that occurs in 'advanced' thinkers, and often involves logic or mathematics. This process is an advanced deployment of the mind. If, more importantly, it involves geometry, it gives rise to culture-changing theories that challenge entire systems of representation (think of Einstein) and introduce relativity in one form or another - which as a direct  geometric implication for all our representations in perspective.

But it also brings a different view as well, which remains, in the domain of collective culture, as  an 'obscure' but 'deep' and confusing question (see Appendix F9 p.272 in book), not taken in by  most. This view replaces perspectives, the formalised or conventionalised representations that have underlying or overlying mathematised topologies (e.g. based on point-set defined systems). This view is

-non-algorithmic (non-mathematised, non-logical, non-systematised),

-non-linguistic (appears without logic or  to be 'loosing information', and is impossible to express  purely in words, those of culture and of academic published papers, or their numbers and symbols),  

-non-imagistic (the imaging is geometric and requires the animation of topology but not realistic or naturalistic images of the 'real world' of humans and models the appearance of the flat geometries of symbols of every kind rather than merely use them),    

It is a direct or 'basic' apprehension of 'likeness' (as opposed to comparison, analogy, and metaPhor), and indirect rePresentations. It is an apprehension of  a situation as it 'presents' rather than  interpreted through its re-presentations, sensate and mental. This mode of cognitive imaging, of 'sensing' or 'thinking in image',  is not developed into clear formulations (of geometric/topologic nature, or further explanations)  by people who have not undergone this advanced cognitive process - this is an uncommon cognitive capacity.

However, this way of apprehending can also be a native ability. It is nevertheless accessed directly (without clear formulation), and used all the time, by some individuals who take into account the hidden physiological struggle of the body or of one's life without distinctions. I would suspect more people than we know do this. This  'native' cognitive mode is, in most people, systematically repressed externally, suppressed internally (by learned enculturation), and  is both trained and educated out of 'primitive' people and  small children. In this way,this cognitive ability is the most basic and freeing view, because it  allows to sense in an immediate manner 'whence' and 'where-to' a situation  local to oneself  (even if involving others and physical conditions) comes and goes, to see what 'pushing too far' means and know how to stop it, and it gives access to the 'basic' options that are invalidated and devalued by other ways of thinking and their biased perspectives. It basically allows to 'know what to do' without complications (problems later or elsewhere or of another kind, would say a normal perspective), without inducing  redeployments and counter-productive effects.

Parameters of representation

This generic vocabulary (‘nexial topologic’ vocabulary – see the long table 9 in the book, p. 207) is found in all domains of culture including counter-cultures and all languages (including logic and mathematics), under various guises. It is a source and a result of advanced deployment of the discursive, algorithmic, and symbolic 'mind of detail' (general or specific). It is a way of formulating:

 ‘Directional activation’ (e.g. activating, raising, rising, ‘going’, initiating, inducing, stimulating, enacting, acting out, and forms of pressure…) is a notion fundamental to representation.                                    

It uses 2 fundamental parameters:

·         N2d-diRection (dual, binary, stereo, division…) and

·         N3p-polar motion (circling, spinning, resonance...)

These parameters can be separated, combined with themselves, or with each other, but they  ultimately result, necessarily or inevitably, in notions of boundary and critical phenomena (this is a built-in  generic property of the topologic geometry in perspective, if it is re-deployed – i.e. through flat geometries and landscapes). ‘Directional activation’ is both an ‘origin’ to our representations, which are based on discerning its aspects through perspective, and the ultimate result of combining or integrating perspective-based representations into 'wholes' or ‘advanced’ models and practices.

They are also a differentiation or division of a covariant topologic notion of ‘oriented activity’, which is what happens at boundary, or under pressure (a gradient). The topologic approach brings out the operational symmetry between directional activation and global de-activation (also built-in). Conventionalised representations cannot see this because it is the basis for their system of representation in perspective, and this is what the ‘basic options’ allow to access.

'Basic' as 'un-deployment' & recovering access to 'basic' options

'Basic' as 'not over-extending resources'

The principle of conventionalised representations is to locate objects by direction and tracking motions. The principle of conventional explanation is to describe experience in terms of expressions relative to us, humans, as subjects and processes we undergo or cause. These involve, therefore, a deployment of localisations and extensions that are expressed through spatial and time projections ('physikemorphic'), anthropomorphic attributions, and various notions of spiralling or expansion (including emotion - see the note at the end of the Walkabout section). From an existential viewpoint, these 'correspond' with notions of survival and struggle in a diversity of forms. From a topologic viewpoint, these use 'nexial' topologies. But there is a simple form of geometric topology that does not deploy nexial shapes.
Looking at a situation without these conventionalised re-Presentations, but at how it 'presents', through this basic animated geometry (figured through the animations associated with the book), means not operating these localisations and projections. Then, one can see 'what the situation looks like' in a new light. Certain phenomena become understandable, whereas other frameworks attribute them to chance or destiny, or to meaningful or pointless activities, and apply various ways of valuing them. Here lies the access to these basic options, which comes with not valuing (or devaluing), and not discern details that have to be localised or attributed. Chapter 6 in the book, discusses forms of valuing, evidence, and validity.

These explanations are quite complicated, yes. They are an advanced differentiation, of our cognitive processes,  and therefore not accessible to all minds, but some like playing with such general ideas.     One way to realise the confusions all this causes, and how it hides existential aspects of experience,that are little known, not studied and neglected in practice, is to read some of the accounts in the Appendices of the  book and doctorate thesis.  

The simplest way to apprehend all this, however, is to explore it directly through the cognitive experiments, self-observation (mental and physical) and through observing ‘the world’ (this can only be done from the local vantage point, or geometric centre of projection for perspective, located in one’s head), reserving judgement, eliminating re-presentations, and without valuations (see chapter 6, and end of chapter 7 in the book), because valuing is a function of representing in perspective.

May be it is time to stop projecting into perspective(s), stop all our myriad of ways of attributing blame, and start looking at our situation as it is and at what we actually feel and want: increases, critical boundaries, and climacteric phenomena, or ease? The cognitive experiments provided in the book are there to help the reader determine this directly.

----------------------------------------------

 * a ‘nexus’ is basically a knot, a binding (and this can be a limit or boundary); the notion is now also used for energetic spiralling resonance (full definition in Appendix C5, p.226 in the book). This is so, whether it is evaluated as positive (e.g. 'spirited', 'vibrant' or 'resonates with me') or as negative (e.g. mechanical resonance produces mechanical strain, stress, and eventually shattering, falling apart), or as 'below' par and below standard (e.g. 'nexial resonance' up-and-down is a geometric image for critical states of various orders, which correlate with connective operations below baseline, with 'less than expected' performance, in particular human performance in the 'real world', or a valuing 'below' the 'face value', value visible or apparent 'on the surface').

----------------------------------------------

**3  Sources for Spinoza's On the improvement of the understanding (or On the emendation of the intellect):

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Spinoza/TIE/

http://www.spinozacsack.net78.net/On%20the%20Improvement%20of%20the%20Understanding,%20Benedict%20de%20Spinoza.pdf                        

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1016

----------------------------------------------

Application: human problems of valuing and causality

 [For a formal analysis, see chapter 6 Validity, evidence, and valuing‘ in book]

 

‘Just because aspirin may cure a headache, does not mean that a headache is caused by a lack of aspirin’… or a failure to take it.

 

Many statements with inadequate generalisations cause incalculable suffering, some even inflicted by New Age perspectives; here are a few examples:

Negative value attributions

-‘you are doing this to yourself’ (referring to victimising living conditions imposed on individuals, or their stress-triggered emotional uproars and downs): e.g. ‘you gave yourself your disease’ or 'your bad decisions keep you in poverty')

-‘poor people make poor financial decisions’ (uttered by an Australian politician)

-an alcoholic, addict, or smoker ‘has weak will’ (and smoking is fast becoming the source of all evils in the media)

-loss of personal worth in the eyes of society (including older adults, teenagers, single mothers etc.) interpreted as ‘low self-esteem’

-de-Pression talk as a ‘negative attitude’ that one has to snap out of, or learn to compensate by positive thinking, will skills to counter it.

But this is not limited to the human domain. Medical scientists get lost in the complexities of such attributions too:

-‘menopausal health damage is caused by lack of sex hormones’

-‘childhood illnesses are normal and most people grow out of them’

Just because raising stress hormones, sex hormones, and substance use (including ‘dark’ drinks such as coffee, coke or herbals, and foods such as sugar or chocolate) can all push the envelope of the adaptive-reactive capacity does not mean that the long-term damage and widespread systemic degeneration, and crises that correlate with high-dose extremes and chronic raising, are ‘caused’ by a ‘bad’ brain chemical balance, a ‘lack of’ chemicals, a ‘failure to produce’ chemicals, or a personal ‘failure’ of coping skills (including communication and learning), of decision, choice, or free will.

Positive value generalisations

-‘you can do anything in your life’ (ignoring physical limitation and physiologic/stress limits)

-‘you create your reality’ [This statement, applied to the physical realm, was the main question of the Ph.D. research concerning modes of representation.. did I create the mess of this world? I must be the Devil! Did I create my pains? I must be masochistic! Did I create societal marginalisation and loss of access to undamaged land? I must be crazy!]

The adaptive- reactive-creative problem solving capacity can be raised in particular situations, but it is logically inadequate to generalise its curing-fixing-normalising capacity (or aggressive defence) into a universal “Law of Life” applicable to all, all the time, in all circumstances.

Because, in specific emergency situation involving not only physical elements we can choose which type of targeted reaction we have and so have some degree of control over the evolution of the situation, does not mean that we always have decision options (think of an automatic spine-governed reaction to a snake appearing on the track). Even less is it logically valid to infer some universal H-moral responsibility in our body’s Sc-physical reactions and its diseased states consequent to repeated chronic stress reactions, or moral character failure in the behavioural consequences of reinitiated traumatic acute stress. Typical of this unduly generalised (and Sc- --> H- shifted causality) is the statement: ‘you are doing this to yourself’. In parallel, it is a logical error to attribute to ‘Nature’ or to others the source of personally aggressive or defensive behaviours that arise from internal and brain activations (e.g. sex predation on children or women, or violence, war, terrorism). A typical statement is: ‘Your behaviour made me’. And yet this is a culturally accepted framework that exists worldwide. Physical causality is not transferable to human responsibility (an anthropomorphism). Inversely, the internal source of activation, related to physical pressures does have roots in the world that others create for those who become aggressive (or auto-destructive), in the living conditions that are imposed on them (not by nature). Human responsibility is not transferable back to Mother Nature as if she was some extended human entity (a compounded anthropomorphism) or to the 'bad brain' (a physikeorphism, common in medicines that study addiction, thus abdicating any responsibility of medical science in the  damaging lifestyles we develop).

These are rationalisations, no more valid logically than the ‘evolutionary reasons why’ for having become one way or another (especially the occurrence of ‘dark side of human nature’). The latter are a posteriori reconstructions of human meaning aimed at justifying current behaviours, accepted culturally, or justify not trying to  understand or not wanting to see 'whence' they come, and not physical causes that would drive operational change in genes or appearance. The notion of evolution was designed to explain physical variations, not to justify human 'bad behaviour' (this is not its valid domain of application). 'Whence' often involves living conditions  (including diet) that keep re-initiating survival mechanisms involving fear, angry aggression,  loss of capacity or even ability to care for the body, one's own and others' (not just human), and critical and boundary phenomena (the latter being an unexamined assumption in our representations).

These problems disappear if situations are not systematically put through the filters of human and measured values and improvement evaluations, but 'gauged' as they are, for their deployment.


Sc-‘Law of Life’ or H-‘Natural Law’:

rule of adaptive-reactive-creative activation to extremes in critical response

Worse, it is fundamentally inadequate to impose this rule of adaptive-reactive-creative activation to extremes (a survival mechanism related to aggressive defence) on everyone, including children and ‘primitive’ people who are then viewed as ‘not fully human’ [not fully ‘grown’ or ‘raised’] or even subhuman, not ‘Great’, or simply ‘maladapted’ to our ‘real world’, ‘incapable’ of keeping up even when forced. Yet, not having to use this capacity all the time, and consequently to exhaust the resources of both planet and body that it takes, does not mean loss of access to this capacity, especially does not mean ‘lower’ intelligence – just less creation of useless ‘toys’ of all kinds, that do not resolve anything less getting lost in details that do not matter for anything fundamental to human living or crucial to physical survival. Not being forced into this also means far fewer problems of lost integrity that require work to fix. It is logically inadequate to apply this rule outside its domain of application, outside the context that gives rise to it, in situations that do not require critical response and have not reached boundary conditions.

The problem lies in our representations, in transferring the logical and non-valuing notion of causality into evaluated notions of cure, fixing, or solved problem that involve human perspectives and actions, and then transferring back pro-active, goal-seeking [redeployment] actions into value-biased logics of passive ‘responsibility’ that is blameable (fault) or shameable (failure).

In attempts to stop the counter-productive human effects of these attributions and valuations, we use various projecting and localising strategies, such as:

-medicalising to remove human devaluation;

-shifting the causal role from body to brain to remove the helpless sense that the body is ‘our weakness’ because we cannot see whence its resource exhausting comes;

-shifting the causal role from brain to mind or from mind to brain, to shift the helpless sense of  being hostage to ‘lower instincts’ or ‘animalistic’ behaviours, the source of which is still obscure to our cultures and not in collective agreement in our store of knowledge;

-attributing the labels of generally ‘Natural’ or specifically ‘Human’ to what we cannot control, (especially the counter-productive effects of our selfish survival behaviours) to remove altogether the sense of ‘not quite right’ and not have to ask questions or challenge the surVival baseline;

-some go as far as transferring back yet again the value-biased logics of responsibility into an apparently impersonal logical realm with 'neutral' value, by actually adding up both positive and negative value, or combining ups and downs, for a ‘balance’. This limited, dualist-synthetic form of understanding ‘integration’ completes a circumnavigation of the problems of valuing, and appears to ‘go back to origin’ by making the self and head and their 'drive' or spirited directing the source of All, but it only ‘goes back to square one’: It makes the critical responses of survival behaviour, with their centering on sensory localisation (with head as ‘centre of the world’) and brain-central-controlled behaviour, the only way to exist. It also still hides the physiologic plight of the masses of malnourished and stress-related subclinically malnourished, and  the 'not well understood' drifting basline of malhydration in humans.

The result of manipulating all sorts of human values, mathematical values, and symbolic representations, valuations, and visible benefit or improvement value (that hides degradation, degeneration, damage) is not quite the same as not valuing if there is no crisis that requires evaluation and localisation of a cause or trigger to ‘do something about it’. This robs us of the ability to know what to do outside of critical conditions, ‘before’ the crisis, or ‘elsewhere’ than where the crisis comes to a head, or if it happens to other humans. Yet ‘seeing it coming’ means knowing what to do to stop these deployments.

It is NOT at all the same as ‘GAUGING’, being able to sense a coming crisis, being able to sense ‘whence’ it comes, 'where' it is going (to various aspects of crisis), and so to know what to do to prevent its eventuation, its deployment. Preventing its happening can prevent having to raise survival reaction behaviours and re-deploy into extremes, which inherently bring ‘dark side’ manifestations. Topology shows visually how this is geometrically inherent, built-in, deploying into nexial phenomena; no amount of greatness or creativity or power can erase the limits, limitation, boundaries and barriers: inherent in critical and boundary surface phenomena (we just keep making more of them, and breaking through them or breaking them  [respectively] to remake them, exhausting our resources of change, drifting into damage, degeneration, degradation).

For example, in medicine, applying emergency procedures or mechanisms to stop major diseases in a body that is not in emergency situation brings on survival mechanism that put the body in emergency or disease states, set thresholds for that, and ultimately cause more drastic damage rather than fix the low-grade original state of need.

The counter-productive effects of all these valuations include much man-made societal human suffering, much iatrogenic sources of pain and sick states (including stress, anxiety, depression, instability, etc.), as well as include human delusions of grandeur and arrogant beliefs in our capacity to control , tame, or dominate ‘nature’, physical or human, which we want(ed) to ‘improve’, and could (can), but only to a limited extent – that of deployment without re-deployment. Re-deployment can be altered in particular aspects, shifting problems to other spheres, but the geometric result is always of the same geometric kind: (scattering, wasting, fall-apart - see conclusions in the book). 

Some examples:

An example of inversions and advanced reasoning whose logic bites its tail:

There are countless such examples in all activist and sustainability literatures, informal or formal and scientific. This circular logic is a very general tendency that spreads even to native  people fighting economic marginalisation and destruction of their lands. For example, in a text from the United Nations, [http://www.unep.org/wed/2010/english/biodiversity.asp] we read:

<The transfer in ownership of ecosystem resources often excludes local communities, and the products of their exploitation are not destined for the local market.> and yet: <What actions can be taken to conserve biodiversity? ... transfers of ownership rights to private individuals, can provide economic incentives to conserve biodiversity and to use ecosystem services sustainably.>
Conserved biodiversity accessible to whom?

<Many ecosystem services, such as groundwater, are available freely to those who use them and so again their degradation is not reflected by standard economic valuation methods.> <What competing goals can affect biodiversity? In the long term, the value of services lost may greatly exceed the short-term economic benefits that are gained from transforming ecosystems.> and yet:  <What is the value of biodiversity for human well-being? ... Degradation of ecosystem services could be significantly slowed or reversed if their full economic value were taken into account in decision-making.>...  <on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.>
So why colonise ecology with this inadequate economic vocabulary, after colonising the 'health system'?
Economic and human benefit for whom?  How does one value sick animals, mosquitoes or invasive species?
What 'ecosystem service' do they perform for humans, and if none, should they just be destroyed?
Full economic valuation of human benefit for those who have access to the bounty of nature ('those who use it') - now called an economic "sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services" [sic!])... but what about  those who have no direct and free access to it but pay for access through those 'who use it'? Those who do not have access to the free bounty of nature have to reduce their needs, and use less. But NOT using up resources or not spending always more, is not only 'not reflected in the economic system', but is societally devalued ('the poor', 'the primitive', children are not 'at the top' and meagre savings never actually 'grow'), and it is actively punished by barring access to nourishing foods, rest, and human-friendly wilderness places, or transporting oneself to the places where this is possible. Although this is an unrecognised counter-productive effect, and economically 'negative', neglecting it  is what allows to justify the use of economic vocabulary in matters of body and physical world - with an invisible but major and drifting global loss. Those who suffer economic marginalisation, whose numbers are rising, also suffer ecologic marginalisation (who owns the house on the sunny side of the street?), and endure also emotional pressure, stress, physiologic strain (e.g. from reduced vitamin D from sunshine), and  the 'silent', stress-strain related illnesses that medicine likes to call 'psycho-somatic' or emotionally 'all in your head', and they are simply ignored while they slowly die out.

<What factors lead to biodiversity loss? key drivers … that tend to amplify each other For example, population and income growth…> <What competing goals can affect biodiversity? When humans modify an ecosystem to improve one of the services it provides this generally results in changes to other ecosystem services. For example, actions to increase food production can lead to reduced water availability ... and degraded water quality. > and yet : <To achieve greater progress towards biodiversity conservation,  it will be necessary – but not sufficient – to urgently strengthen actions on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.> <Positive action> (website heading)
What lies in the 'not sufficient'? No one says. The 'urgent strong positive action' for survival of various populations always involves 'raising' money, 'raising' awareness, and all sorts of other increases or expansions... Will that resolve the survival drives and  increasing sense of urgent need? The pie of human economic benefit simply can never quite replace or compensate for what is hidden or stolen: being able to live without pressing need and having to survive (for animals as well as humans).

An example of 'advanced' cognition:

An unrecognised aspect of Australian Aboriginal 'Dreamtime' representation related to health

Here is an example of 'advanced' cognition, which may also be viewed as 'primitive' cognition (there are many, some others are used in the Ph.D. thesis):

Legend of the coloured sands at Rainbow Beach (coastal queenland, Australia):
<According to Aboriginal Legend the colour sands at Rainbow Beach were formed when the Rainbow Spirit was shattered by a boomeran in a fight over a woman. The pieced fell onto the sand cliffs, colouring them forever.>
(from a tourism brochure 'Gympie Cooloola Region', 2010, Cooloola Regional Development Bureau, Gympie, QLD).

The 'Dreamtime' is usually interpreted as representing hazy archaic history, as a spiritual world (elsewhere than in the real world: in  the human mind) , or myths that tell timelines stories of Creation. It can be viewed as a more basic kind of topologic 'situation representation' produced by 'advanced' minds, which can be projected into timed spaces, and anthrophomorphic, physikemorphic, and spiromorphic forms ['nexial' topologies and their multi-deployments], or may not [non-nexial 'basic' view].

In this instance, compare the imaging vocabulary of this extract, to findings about 'perspectives' described in the Ph.D. thesis:

 <According to Aboriginal Legend the coloured sands at Rainbow Beach were formed when the Rainbow Spirit was shattered by a boomerang in a fight over a woman. The pieces fell onto the sand cliffs, colouring them forever.>

Ignore the material localisations, and timing expressed in verbs, and replace 'when' by a linear-logic 'as' or 'if'. Formation is a name for deployments and the appearance of perspectives. The Rainbow Spirit is an image for a spiralling, often found as 'snake' in archaic myths, and in modern representations as spirals (e.g. DNA, viruses, and notions of spinning). A boomerang is an object that spins fast, and 'comes back'. As situations spiral out of hand, they produce shattering (e.g. ecological scattering of ecosystems, mechanical-resonance physical fragmentation, or the daily life colloquial 'falling apart') that breaks things apart, into parts. Physically, we observe a 'falling' to the ground with gravity. In nexial-topologic expressions, the notion is wider: situations 'fall' into dark holes (in physics, but also for humans: 'fallen man' in the Bible, or daily life 'falling' into 'bad behaviour', or 'below par' -see bottom of page), but also appear to 'come back', or 'return' or 'invert' or 'revert'. The nexial-topologic 'fall' into 'below' or 'dark' is associated with vertical rising in various styles of projected understanding: a cliff is a vertical rising: pieces fall on what is vertical  (cliffs) and with apparent 'reverting' to a state that is de-valued. The end is a scattering of coloured vision, coloured perspectives, and has direct similarity (not with a topologic modelling) with the 'beginning', a coloured spinning (Rainbow). Deployment that starts from the variation of 'valuing' ends up in even more deployed perspectives that are no more than coloured opinions, or the multi-aspects of complex situations, which, basically, just continue their scattering.

This story is a re-Presentation of a topologic apprehension of how critical situations form: it localises and gives a time line, and places the 'original' critical event in a 'fight over a woman'; the result is a 'fall'. The Ph.D. thesis uses a similar example, that of the snake that comes out of the water hole and comes back into it, and the associated traditional images.

Compare this to what 'advance science' is doing in medicine. The 'not well understood' manifestations of degeneration in women (e.g. loss of bone density: a scattering of its mass)  and academic controversies over them, are now producing papers that synthesise the measures of spread/scatterings of statistics and the inevitable-necessary property of 'advanced' scientific knowledge of being uncertain (or approximate). [This additional synthesis is not a true 'integration']. See the recent article (see conclusions):  http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2474-11-59.pdf  The authors approach the problem of inconsistent knowledge that is rather a question of opinion or ways of looking at things, of perspective, to eventually conclude that this approach makes it impossible to know, know why bones scatters in this case.


"because of... and difficulty in interpretation... "it is not possible to make any cause-and-effect inference on ...."

'Advanced' representations start in 'scattering', and end up in falling to pieces (another scattering) in an 'eternal' spiral that just gets more complicated, 'forever'. This was known by Aboriginal thinkers who developed Dreamtime stories, and in many other cultural 'myths', yet we do not take heed and keep 'forever' re-expressing these complicated perspectives in 'multi-factorial' rePresentations, under an infinity of diverse vocabularies that demonstrate our mental genius. The Dreamtime stories  are deemed to preserve an understanding, so we do not forget, but  we are 'eternally' stuck in this cultural spiral, it seems, in all the increasingly many projections and attributions, localisations and extensions, ancient and modern... and nowhere closer to knowing how to have any kind of non-critical ease.

The above article also concludes: "this finding reinforces the concept...". These 'advanced' perspectives always come down to reinforcing and increasing what we already do. For a recent example of the consequences and implications of the civilising practices we have developed to make ourselves strong survivors and minds, including energy diets, see conclusions in: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/11/20

In this double modern medical story that represents a fragment of our situation. The problem is (1) the female chronic or hidden substance loss, its relationship to being fat or having muscle, and the differences of opinion about it; and (2) the effect of increased energy diets that help survive the demands for a time but make women fat, that appear to improve their health and yet increase their physiologic damage to the critical point of our current global health degeneration (the phenomenon does not affect only women). With different time lines and localised projections, anthropomorphic and physikemorphic attributions, the origin is the same: increase, the result is the same: a fall into bad behaviour (that of the internal body, in this case).

What is new in this medical story? Only details, words, new projections and attributions (e.g. the 'snake' is now DNA and viruses, but remains an expression of spirited survival or 'immunity'). But the origins and ends, the real consequences and mental-cultural implications, the geometric-imaging nature inherent in the generic vocabularies, and the parameters are the same, as are the physical consequences of surVival driven behaviours, which our frameworks deem 'natural'. Is living only surviving and pushing?


Perhaps, it is time to change our research methods and methodologies, stop fragmenting always further, stop confusing 'integration' with synthesis or with addition or multiplication (for example, separating then adding the physical and human aspects involves a crucial loss in the process), stop requiring multi-researchers authoring and complex frameworks that only add 'data' (approximate and uncertain) or multiply perspectival hypotheses and theories, for little improvement.

Perhaps we should, in all areas, stop spreading myths of the Great Human Achievement of SurVival as the only way to be, exist or live, and stop economic valuations of everything  (including us) in an effort to 'raise awareness' - the consequences of  willful 'house management' (etymologic meaning of ecology) are far from benign for most.

Inverting values leads to confusing forever 'increasing' (resources use and exhausting human effort , whether mental work, learning, or physical labour...) to 'reduce' survival-driven needs (constantly re-increased by man's hand, and recreated by man-made culture, technology, lifestyles,  beliefs, civilising practices, and biased 'health' perspectives on the body and physical world). This very different from stopping the state of need, its correlate damages, the hidden sensations of feeling ill at ease often in both physical and human 'environments', and unsafe.

May be it might be a good idea to actually do something about our situations, especially if we have a sense of 'knowing what to do' about the sense of being unsafe, and to allow people to do this, even if it does not fit our representations and explanations, collectively  agreed on the basis of the experience in head-leaders and the majority, of need.
Perhaps seeing the underlying commonality in geometric and topologic properties would help us see whence it all comes and where it is taking us - not to ease, it seems.

-Website of Dr marika bouchon -