Archive for August, 2008

« Older Entries

Why Religion is an Experience

Friday, August 29th, 2008

kundaliniMany people confuse Religion as a System of Rules with Religion as an Experience.

The same Religious Experience is shared by all the Religions of the World.

It is an Experience of Intense Love and Harmony.

People are able to Fight and Kill to enforce their Rules on other people.

When they have experienced the Love they will Stop Fighting.

You are able to share the Feeling of Love with others but you are unable to articulate this feeling in words.

Many mystics use the Metaphor of Earthly Love and talk about the Mystic Bride or the Mystic Marriage.

In contrary to a System of Rules nobody can deny or discuss a Feeling.

Feeling is a Personal Experience and a Personal Experience Is What Is.

Why are so many people unable to experience a Religious Experience?

The simple answer is that they are trying to find something and when you keep on looking for something you will never find what you are looking for.

When you finally stop looking the religious experience will appear. Many people stop looking when they are in a state of total distress.

They are totally blocked. Religious experiences often happen when you really don’t know where to go.

The Personal Religious Experience is a spectacular experience. It is overwhelming. The body and the mind are unable to experience this experience. When you are not prepared for this experience your System will break down.

Unfortunately many people in the West are not prepared at all. They really don’t know what to do. Some religious experiences have to be stopped. If they are not stopped you will die or you will get totally mad.

Unfortunately many people in the West are experimenting with all kinds of methods to experience a huge religious experience. They are practicing Kundalini Yoga or are taking drugs (mescaline, LSD).

When the Experience is ended the process of Cleaning or Purification starts. This is an awful experience. You will experience Confusion, Extreme Fear and Extreme Loneliness.

Your complete environment will change. You will lose your job, your wife or husband and many of your friends. Your body will become terribly ill. Everything will change.

When you go to a doctor or a psychiatrist they will diagnose all kind of mental and physical diseases and give you all kinds of treatments that will increase your problems heavily.

In the words of the current psychology the Ego starts to Fight Back.

ego

It starts to fight back because it is Losing Control.

The Ego wants to move back to the old game of seeking something in the Future.

The Ego is a strange combination of Control and Desire.

It wants to Control Others and Nature to Get what it Wants. It really does not matter what It is.

The feeling of being the Master is enough. Everytime when something is mastered it wants more.

The Ego is seperating everything into its own seperation. When you WANT to become Enlightened you will never reach Enlightment.

At a certain moment you have to Give Over. You have to Surrender to something that is not Forcing you to Surrender. You have to stop Being Religiouss to Become Religiouss.

The experience of Love is an experience of Union. The Ego wants to break this Union. Its aim is to Separate. When you have experienced the Whole you will become aware of the Separation.

The Ego (or the Pain Body) is a Powerfull Force. It is not only able to act Inside Your mind but it is also able to act in the Outside World.

The Ego will create many Situations to test if you really Want to Unite. The Power of the Ego in the Outside World is something People in the West are unable to Believe.

They don’t believe that You are creating Your Own Reality and the Ego is part of You.

When the State of Bliss is gone, the Ego will generate Doubt.

You want to find an Explanation for what has Happened but an Explanation for something that is not to explain is impossible.

When you start to find an Explanation you start Looking and when You start Looking you will find many Explanations.

The Explanations can be find in Science, Philosophy and Religion. They are contradictory because every explanation is a contradiction in itself.

The current state of Psychology is helping the Ego tremendously.

The experience is Caused By Chemical Substances in the brain or the experience is a Mental Disorder.

Not only Psychology is not helping you at all Religion in the sense of “Rules to Obey” is doing the same.

Many people were killed because they were just trying to articulate what they experienced.

Religion wants you to make a choice for a System of Rules.

It wants you to separate the whole, the essence of religion.

The Essence of Every Religion is Love.

crown

What To Do?

If you want to reach Enlightment prepare yourself for the moment it will happen.

Try to Understand what will happen with your Physical and Mental Body.

Remember that Enlightment comes in three stages, the Preparation, The Bliss and the Cleaning.

The amount of Cleaning after the Bliss is highly related to the amount of Cleaning you did before the Bliss.

You will Clean Yourself the most when you Practice the Essence of every Religion, Love.

When You Practice the Essence of Religion all the time You are Enlightened.

 

LINKS

My Awakening By OSHO

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Religion | No Comments »

Why An Event is Not a Collision

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

If you search the Internet with the phrase “What is an Event” nobody is able to give an answer. Most of the time an Event is simply “Something that Happens“. If we look at the Dutch Language an Event is called a “Gebeurtenis“. The Dutch verb “beuren” means “to bear“. In Dutch an Event is a Bearing.

Bear: O.E. beran “bear, bring, wear” (class IV strong verb; past tense bær, pp. boren), from P.Gmc. *beranan (cf. O.H.G. beran, O.N. bera, Goth. bairan “to carry”), from PIE root *bher- meaning both “give birth” (though only Eng. and Ger. strongly retain this sense, and Rus. has beremennaya “pregnant”) and “carry a burden, bring”. Many senses are from notion of “move onward by pressure.” O.E. past tense bær became M.E. bare; alternative bore began to appear c.1400, but bare remained the literary form till after 1600. Past participle distinction of borne for “carried” and born for “given birth” is 1775. Ball bearings “bear” the friction; bearing “way of carrying oneself” is in M.E.

Strangely enough an Event is related to the Birth of Something. An Event is Happening when Something is Set into Motion by Pressure (Tension). An Event is an Act of Creation.

Most of the time an Event is associated with a Very Short Duration, an Explosion. An Event can take much longer. An event can take one second or thousands of years. A Movie is an Event. The Great Pyramid is an Event. The Earth is an Event. You are an Event.

An Event changes its Intensity all the time. A Concert has a Start and an Apotheosis. The Great Pyramid was almost forgotten but at this moment many books are written about the mysterious background. An Event is a Wave or a Vibration and every Event has its Unique Pattern.

An Event has a Bearing (the direction or path along which something moves or along which it lies), it moves into a certain direction. An Event extends and compresses in Space/Time (A Hurricane). An Event is Born, Expands, Compresses, Dies and Dissepears. It follows a Life-Cycle.

If an Event is a Vibration it can be described by a combination of Harmonics and Sub-Harmonics. Dependent on the type of Vibration an Event “dies out” (Damping, converges to a limit) or keeps on moving into Eternity.

When Events are Vibrations or Waves they are able to Add Up. When an Event is “combined with” another Event a new Event is created. This is called Cause and Effect in the World of Particles.

The world of Particles was created by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle. He denied the existence of the Dynamic by stating ‘There cannot be motion of motion or becoming of becoming or in general change of change’. The Greek based their view on the world on Logic and Euclidean geometry. They considered the word As IT IS.

When you look at the Event of the”man who has just been run over” by a car, The Greek View is of two Colliding Parts. In this view somebody is responsible for the Accident. When you look at the Event from the perspective of the Wave the Accident is an Addition of Two Waves that are producing a Peak of High Intensity. There is no one to blame. The accident “Just Happened”. It was an Act of the Force of Creativity, The Elan Vital of Bergson.

Let’s have a look at the Design of Information Systems.

A long time ago the Designers of the Computer left the path of the Analogue Computer. An Analogue Computer is based on Waves. A Digital Computer is unable to represent Real numbers and Irrational numbers (π). It is also unable to represent many rational numbers (1/3). Many “real” problems are happening in Real and Irrational Space.

Digital Computers are representing the Dynamic World in a Static Way. A Program and a Database are Static Representations of Reality. The Static changes into the Dynamic because of the Regular Pulses of the Clock of the CPU (Central Processing Unit).

NIAM is still by far the most “advanced” way to define an Information System. It is hardly used because many designers don’t have the ability or have lost the ability to Listen to and to Analyze Sentences that are Spoken by the User of the System. The result of not-using NIAM is a highly chaotic internal structure of the Information System. The System is not representing Reality at all.

NIAM uses the concept of the Elementary Fact (an Elementary Event), A Man is-run-over-by A Car. An Elementary Fact is a connection between two Nouns (Man, Car) and a Verb (Run-Over-By). Mostly the Verb is forgotten. The Static is still Dominating the Dynamic. The Car (A Movement) and the Man (A Movement) are dominating The Accident, The Run-Over-By. Strangely Enough the Memory of the Car and the Man fade away much faster than the Memory of the Accident. A War is remembered. The Soldiers are forgotten.

I am afraid we have to wait a little while until the Very Strong Wave of the Particle has finally died out.

LINKS

“What is an Event”, About Whitehead and Deleuze by Steven Shaviro

Bergson, Mathematics, and Creativity by Pete A. Y. Gunter

About Events by Jerymy Dunham

About NIAM

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Philosophy | No Comments »

How the Proof of the Pudding is Really in the Eating

Monday, August 25th, 2008

When you want to know the truth you are looking for facts. This seems very evident but Philosophy and especially the field of Epistemology has spend a lot of time to find out if this Statement about Truth is really True.

The first step is to look up the definition of the word “fact“. We use Wordnet to do this. WordNet is a semantic lexicon for the English Language. The database contains about 150,000 words.

Fact: A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred.
Fact: A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
Fact: An event known to have happened or something known to have existed.
Fact: A concept whose truth can be proved.

The meaning of words changes in history. If you want to know how the meaning is changed you have to look up the Etymology of the word.

Fact: 1539, “action” especially “evil deed,” from L. factum “event, occurrence,” lit. “thing done,” from neut. pp. of facere “to do”. Usual modern sense of “thing known to be true” appeared 1632, from notion of “something that has actually occurred.”

When we combine the result of both dictionaries we see that the original meaning of the word “Fact” is-related to the word “Event”. Later around 1632 it changed into a concept “whose truth can be proved”.

To find more about the meaning of the word Event we can look for all the occurrences of this word in the sentences of English language. One the scientists who spend a lot of time researching the meaning of the word “Event” is George Lakoff. He defined The Event Structure Metaphor.

A Metaphor Is-A Mapping. A Mapping Is-A Relation between two Domains, the Source and the Target.

The Event Structure Metaphor is one of the most widespread of all the conceptual metaphors in the world. It maps from the source domain of Space to the target domain of Events, and leads to the following concepts:

A State Is-A Location (a bounded region in space).
A Change Is-A Movement (into or out of bounded region).
A Cause Is-A Force.
An Action Is-A Self-Propelled Movement.
A Purpose Is-A Destination.
A Mean Is-A Path to destinations.
A Difficulty Is-A Blockage.
Expected Progress Is-A Travel Schedule.
A Schedule Is-A Virtual Traveler, who reaches pre-arranged destinations at pre-arranged times.
An External Event Is-A Large Moving Object.
A Long-term, purposeful activity Is-A Journey.

An Event Is-A Blockage that prevents us to Move from One Destination to an other Destination in the Journey called Life. To Move from one Destination to an other Destination we are Propelling our Self. Sometimes we are propelled By something else, An External Event. If this Happens it feels like we are hit by a Large Moving Object.

When we are Hit by an External Event “things get out of hand” or “we are not able to keep a tight rein on the situation” or “we are not going with the flow” or “things take a turn for the worse“.

A Fact is an Event that Causes the Emotion of Frustration (Anger, Irritation, Sadness, Worry,..). An Event Forces us to Move Away from our Original Route, the Path that leads us to the Destination that we wanted to Reach in Life. We have to take a Detour.

What happened around 1632?

Around 1632 Francis Bacon advocated a new method for achieving knowledge, based on careful observation and eliminative induction. Bacon warned that effective reasoning must be freed from the “idolatrous” influence of human nature (Emotions & Imagination).

Francis Bacon started The Age of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative philosophical system which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality. Much later Emmual Kant dedicated his Critique of Pure Reason to Francis Bacon.

What happened?

Facts were moved from the Emotions to the Level of the Mind. With the help of Logic it would be possible to Prove Everything.

The Quest for the Eternal Logical Truth is still going on. Many very bright minds have tried to find a solution but the terrible thing is that the Truth of a logical proposition is entirely dependent on the Truth of the Facts that are put into the Proposition. We are again in a State of Infinite Regress.

One of these bright minds was Frank Plumpton Ramsey (1903-1930). Ramsey lived and worked in Cambridge and was befriended with Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, J. M. Keynes and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ramsey created a theory called Pragmatism.

In his paper ‘Truth and Probability’, written in 1926, Ramsey shows that if people in their behaviour obey a set of axioms or rules, the measure of our ‘degrees of belief’ will satisfy the laws of probability. The Truth is highly related to Judgment and “if we have analysed judgment we have solved the problem of truth“.

“..it is, for instance, possible to say that a chicken believes a certain sort of caterpillar to be poisonous, and mean by that merely that it abstains from eating such caterpillars on account of unpleasant experiences connected with them. … An exact analysis of this relation would be very difficult, but it might well be held that in regard to this kind of belief the pragmatist view was correct, i.e. that the relation between the chicken’s behaviour and the objective factors was that the actions were such as to be useful if, and only if, the caterpillars were actually poisonous. Thus any set of actions for whose utility p is a necessary and sufficient condition might be called a belief that p, and so would be true if p, i.e., if they are useful“.

What Ramsey is telling is that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating“.

What happened?

We are finally back to square one! After about 400 years of Enlightment we have to admit that the only way to find the Truth is to find out if what we Think is true is really True. We don’t have to use very complicated reasoning to prove what we are already experiencing in the Real World.

LINKS

About the Age of Reason

A Brief History of Truth, Stewart Candlish and Nic Damnjanovic

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Economy, Philosophy | No Comments »

About Model Driven Software Development

Saturday, August 23rd, 2008

In the beginning of Software Development Programmers just Programmed. They did not use any method. The program was punched on a stack of cards and the computer executed the code. It took many days to get a small program running.

In the early 1980s text editors were introduced. In this stage somebody else called an Analyst wrote down Specifications and the Programmer transformed the specifications into a Program.

The Programmers and Analysts had to fill in forms with a pencil. The forms were typed by a central department and returned to them for correction. Much later programmers and analysts were able to use their own text editor.

The Specifications and the Programs were represented by many competing diagramming techniques like DFD (Data Flow Diagrams), JSP (Jackson), ERD (Entity Relationship Diagrams, Bachman), NIAM, Yourdon, Nassi Schneidermann and ISAC (Langefors). The Programmers and Analysts used Pencils and Plastic Frames to draw the Diagrams.

The data about the programs and the databases were stored in a Dictionary. A Dictionary is a System to store and retrieve Relationships. The Dictionary Software generated Copybooks that were included into the (COBOL) Programs. One of the most important Dictionary Packages was called Datamanager.

Datamanager used a so called Inverted File Database Management System. The Inverted File or Inverted Index is optimized to store and find Relationships.

At that time there were many types of Database Management Systems (Hierarchical, Network, Relational and Object). They were optimized for a special type of storing and retrieving data.

Between 1980 and 1990 the competing Methods and Diagram Techniques were fused and expanded to cover many domains of IT. The Dictionary (Datamanager) was also expanded to contain many more Relationships.

Around 1990 the process of integration was finally accomplished. At that time Information Engineering (IE) of James Martin was the most comprehensive Methodology available on the Market.

Texas Instruments implemented IE on a mainframe computer and called it IEF. IE was also implemented in IEW (Knowlegdeware) and Excellerator (Index Technologies). Computer Assisted Software Engineering (CASE) was born.

You have to understand that Graphic User Interfaces and PC’s were at that time in their infancy. It was impossible to manipulate diagrams. We used mainframes and Dumb User Interfaces (Forms) to define the models but we got a long way with it.

The big innovation came when IBM announced AD/Cycle in 1990. They created an Alliance with Bachman Information Systems, Index Technology Corporation, and Knowledgeware to create the most advanced Model Driven Software Development Tool ever made.

The kernel of AD/Cycle would be a complete new Repository based on the Relation DBMS of IBM called DB2.

At that time ABN AMRO was in a merger and we had the idea that an alliance with IBM would help us to create a new innovative development environment. I was involved in everything IBM was doing in its labs to create AD/Cycle.

The project failed for one simple reason. The Repository of IBM was never finished. The main reason was the Complexity of the Meta-Model of the Repository. A Relational DBMS is simply not the way to implement a Datadictionary (now called a Repository).

Another reason the project failed was the rise of Object Oriented Programming and of course the huge interference of Microsoft.

To save the project we had to find another repository and used the original Repository of Knowledgeware called Rochade. Rochade is still on the market. It is still a very powerful tool.

The introduction of the PC and the Activities of Microsoft generated a disaster in the development process of software. We had to move to square one and start all over again.

The Destructive Activities of Microsoft began by selling isolated disconnected PC’s to Consumers (Employees are also Consumers!).

At that time we did not realize this would cause a major drawback. We even supported them by giving all the employees of the Bank a PC, to Play With.

What we did not know was that the Employees started to Develop software on their own to beat the backlog of the central development organization. Suddenly many illegal (Basic) programs and databases appeared and we had to find a way to avoid Total Chaos.

The Solution to this problem was to introduce End User Programming Tools (4GL’s) like AS and Focus.

To provide the End Users with Corporate Data we had to develop Datawarehouses.

We were forced to create different IT Environments to shield the Primary, Accountable, Data of the Bank.

We had to develop a New Theory and Approach to support a completely new field of IT now called Business Intelligence.

We had to find a way to solve the battlefield of IBM (OS/2) and Microsoft (Windows) on the level of the PC Operating System.

We had to find a way to connect the PC to the other Computer Systems now called Servers. The concept of Client/Server was developed.

We had to find a way to distribute the Right Data on the Right Computer.

What Happened?

We were Distracted for about TWENTY YEARS and all what we where doing is Reacting on Technological Innovations that were Immature. We did not know this at that time.

The Big Innovation did not happen on the Level of the Method but on the Level of the Infrastructure. The Infrastructure moved from the Expert Level to the Corporate Level to the Consumer Level and finally to World Level. At this moment the MainFrame is back but the Mainframe is distributed over many Computers connected by a Broadband Network. We are finally back at the Beginning. The Infrastructure shows itself as a Cloud.

In every phase of the Expansion of the Infrastructure new Programming Languages were constructed to support the transformation from One level to the Other level. Every Time the Model had to be Mapped to another Target System.

The IBM Repository failed because the Meta Model of the Repository was much to complex. The Complexity of the Model was not caused by the Logical Part (The Technology Independent Layer) but by the Technical Part of the Model. It was simply impossible to Map the What on the How.

The only way to solve this problem is to make the What and How the Same.

This is what happened with Object Oriented Programming (OO). Object-Oriented programming may be seen as a collection of Cooperating Objects. Each object is capable of receiving messages, processing data, and sending messages to other objects. Each object can be viewed as an independent little machine with a distinct role or responsibility.

The rise of OO started in the early 1990s. At this moment it is the major programming paradigm. OO fits very well with the major paradigm about our Reality. That is why it can be used to Design (What) and to Program (How). OO comes with its own Method called UML.

What is Wrong with OO?

The first and most important problem is the problem of the Different Perspectives. Although OO fits with the Western Model of Reality, We (the Humans) perceive Reality in our own Way. Every Designer experiences another Reality and it is almost impossible to Unite all the Perspectives.

To Solve this Problem we All have to Agree on a Shared Model of Reality. This is mainly accomplished by defining Standard Models of Reality. The problem with Standard Models of Reality is that they are EnForcing a Certain Point of View.

Enforcing one Point of View to many People generates Opposition and Opposition starts a Process of Adaptation. The Major Effect is a very Complex Implementation of an Inconsistent Model of Reality. The What and the How are not the Same anymore.

OO is creating the Problem they want to Solve.

What to Do?

The long process of integration of the Methods until the 1990’s showed that there is one major issue that has to be resolved when you want to create software.

This Issue is called Terminology. Its main issue is to Define What We are Talking About. If we don’t agree about what we are talking about (The Universe of Discourse) we will always be talking about what we are talking about. We will create Circular Dialogues.

Eugen Wüster was the creator of the Science of Terminology. His activities were taken over by Unesco. It founded a special Institute to coordinate Terminology in the World called Infoterm.

There are four distinct views on Terminology:

  • the Psychological View

Concepts are Human Observations. They have to be based on Facts.

  • the Linguistic view

Concepts are the meanings of general terms. They have to be Defined.

Concepts are Units of Knowledge. They have to True.

Concepts are abstractions of kinds, attributes or properties of general invariant patterns on the side of entities in the world. They have to be Related.

Sadly, elements of all four views are found mixed up together in almost all terminology-focused work in Informatics today.

We are Confusing even the Science to avoid Confusion.

LINKS

About the History of Terms

About CASE-Tools

About the History of Terminology

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Computer and Communication Technology, History | No Comments »

About Cradle to Cradle

Friday, August 15th, 2008

In 1998 William McDonough and Michael Braungart wrote an article called The NEXT Industrial Revolution. It was the start of a new sustainable design philosophy called Cradle to Cradle. Cradle to Cradle wants to restore the Natural Cycle.

Cradle to Cradle is based on three pillars: Equity (Social Justice), Economy (Market Viability), and Ecology (Environmental Intelligence).

 A citation out of the Next Industrial Revolution:

“Many people believe that new industrial revolutions are already taking place, with the rise of cybertechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. It is true that these are powerful tools for change. But they are only tools-hyperefficient engines for the steamship of the first Industrial Revolution. Similarly, eco-efficiency is a valuable and laudable tool, and a prelude to what should come next. But it, too, fails to move us beyond the first revolution. It is time for designs that are creative, abundant, prosperous, and intelligent from the start. The model for the Next Industrial Revolution may well have been right in front of us the whole time: a tree“.

A citation out of Carl Jung, Prologue from “Memories, Dreams, Reflections“:

“Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away-an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains“.

In the introduction chapter of A Thousands Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, characterize the rhizome by six principles:

  • Connectivity

The capacity to aggregate by making connections at any point on and within itself.

  • Heterogeneity

The capacity to connect anything with anything other, the linking of unlike elements.

  • Multiplicity

Consisting of multiple singularities synthesized into a “whole” by relations of exteriority.

  • Asignifying rupture

Not becoming any less of a rhizome when being severely ruptured, the ability to allow a system to function and even flourish despite local breakdowns.

  • Cartography

A method of mapping for orientation from any point of entry within a “whole”, rather than by the method of tracing that re-presents an a priori path.

  • Decalcomania

Forming through continuous negotiation with its context, constantly adapting by experimentation

Cradle to Cradle (CtC) is a Design Philosophy. Design (Mapping Ideas unto A Model) is the first step in a Cyclic Process or even better a Spiraling Spiral Process.

I don’t know what the Philosphy of CtC is about the other “phases” of the Spiraling Spiral. I have not spend the time to read the Book. I am almost sure CtC is applying the Paradigm of the Age of Enlightment that lies behind the Industrial Revolution. Cradle to Cradle wants to CONTROL Nature by COPYING Nature.

The Question is Do We (and CtC) really Understand How Nature Works?

Is Nature Working at all?

Is Nature Functioning “like-a” Machine?

Are we able to Copy something we don’t Understand?

What are We Copying?

Is Copying without Insight perhaps a Way to Create something New?

Does it Matter if we are Creating Something New without Knowing what We are Doing”?

Is Life Itself not just a Creating Force exploring Every Possibility Available?

What is Wrong and What is Right?

The most interesting point in the article about the Next Industrial Revolution is the Use of the Tree Metaphor.

The Tree is a very old Symbol. It represents something that starts at the Bottom (Earth) and Moves Up. When it Moves Up is expands into a Hierarchical Network. At the top of the Tree of Life (or the Axis Mundi) the Ultimate Power, the Giver of Movement and Measure, is situated. Behind the New Industrial Revolution the Hierarchy (UP) and the Part (One;Tree) of the Whole (Many;Forest) becomes visible. If we are Moving UP we are Abstracting (or Imagining with Reason).

Jung, Deleuze & Guattari look at the The Down, the Primal Source, The Unknowable, the Invisible or the Unconsciousness. The Invisible is covered by Dark Earth. It is indestructible, connected, divers, not-linear, experimenting and adapting. The Invisible is the Rhizome. Every Year out of the Invisible Rhizome A Beautifull Rose Grows and Blossoms. “What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains“. (Jung).

If we Move Down we are Acting In The World instead of Looking at the World (The Observer).

When we move Down we have to become Practical.

What is the Practical Use, The Engineering Perspective, of the Rhizome?

There are Infinite Perspectives on our Reality and Engineering is just One of Them. We could add a Social Perspective and an Ecomic Perspective just like Cradle to Cradle is trying to do but there is more. We could add a Poetic and an Artistic Perspective but there is more. We could add an Animal perspective. We could look with the Eyes of the Ape, the Cat, The Fish, the Tiger, The Bacterium, The Sea, The Clouds, The Weather. We could use our Empathy to Imagine how the Earth, The Sun, The Universe, Molecules, Cells, Atoms, Higgs Particles, Cars, Aeroplanes, Ipods are “looking” at the Ecology of My Garden, Our Village, Your Country, Their Culture. We could even Look at Ourselves.

Are we able to Unite all of these Perspectives? Yes and No.

No: they are Different.

Yes: They are Perspectives and Perspectives are Looking at the Same Thing.

They are looking at the Whole but the Whole is not a Thing. It is a interconnected Adapting Diversity. It is a highly Complex Dynamic Network of Networks of Events. We cannot detect Causality because Causality is related to a Liniair Perspective.  Every Act is the Cause and the Effect of any other Act.

If we look from a Distance (the Observer) we See Repeating Cyclic Patterns that are Self-References.

If we Find these Patterns (Frames of Reference) we Know where the Flow of Nature is moving to for a little while. The Pattern becomes Repetitive. At a sudden moment the Flow moves in another Way and we have to Observe again. If we Move with the Flow we will know Where we are “Allowed” to Build and to Grow. If we Feel the Field we will See that A Building or an Engine is already Designed and wants to Move to Reality. We don’t have to Design. The Design is Immanent. We just have to help to Materialize.

The most interesting Self-Reference to explore is I (You).

I am in the World and the World is in Me.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Ecology, Philosophy | No Comments »

About the Future of Radio

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

When I was young (I am 57) the only link to the outside world was radio. My parents were poor and it took a very long time until they were able to buy a television. Until that time we went to friends to look at television shows that were the top of the bill (the Black & White Minstrel Show!).

 Together with my friend Fred we built a radio receiver and a radio transmitter. We started to make our own radio programs and were exited when we found out that others we able to listen to us. We were also very afraid the police would find us. At that time many young and old people were exploiting their own small “illegal” radio station. Some of them have never stopped.

When the television finally appeared in our home everything changed. My parents (especially my father) wanted to look and listen to almost everything. We had to keep our mouths shut. The television dominated our family and everything we did together like playing games stopped. I hated television and I must say I never fell in love with the Medium. It is taking too much of my time without giving anything back.

The best thing that happened to me was You Tube and other tools that make it possible to look/listen to something I want to see/hear at the right time and the right place. I am finally in control of my own time again.

I am still a friend of the Radio. The first reason is that radio is not dominant. I can listen to the radio and read a book. It is easy to drive a car and listen to the Radio.

Radio is also exiting when it comes to Events. I still prefer to listen to a soccer-game instead of watching the soccer-game on television. The combination is really fun. It has to do with the Emotions of the reporter and the Details he is presenting.

Radio is all about Emotions.

Radio brings you in a certain mood. Because mood changes with the moment Radio has to specialize. It also has to specialize because people have all kind of different interests. They want to know about what is happening in their local community but they also want to know what is happening in the world. They want to know more about Science, Sports, Politics or Spirituality.

What is the Future of Radio?

At this moment radio stations are essentially bought and paid for by the record companies through what is known as Payola. They are not in the business of helping you and I enjoy music, they are in the business of making money. At the end of the day, organizations have to make money to stay in business, but if making money is all that they care about, they will need to figure out a way to do without relying on people listening to the radio. The current scheme will be gone in the near future.

 

Increasingly, program directors are using computer programs to choose the records their stations will play. They are creating a Digital JuBox. Once everything is put in the music library the director can give the program a series of instructions and let the program produce a playlist. Is programmed Radio, Radio with a Heart?

 

 

The Radio of the Future is all about Listeners becoming the Stars and the Core contributors and Producers of the content that a radio will air. There will be free tools, facilities and access to content to allow individuals to search, edit and compile unique documentaries, investigative reports, artistic montages and new kinds of music. The Radio of the Future will be a tool to support Creativity and Passion.

  • Radio as a Digital Jubox

There is no need to listen to a Digital Jubox if everybody is able to program his own Digital Jubox.

  • Radio as a Commercial Tool

Everybody hates Commercials.

  • Radio is Life Itself

The real strength of radio is its ability to be truly “live”. Broadcasting can take place from nearly any place or location to report, chronicle or create “live” news and events. Being able to listen to something that is happening at this very second in another place is something that most humans get fascinated by.

  • Radio is the Human Voice

The live human voice is a totally different experience than any other one. It is powerful, touching and engaging.

  • Think Global, Act Local

Start at the Lowest level of Interaction, The Local Community. Give them the News and Interaction they Need. Create As Many Levels You want to Abstract the Local News. Create a Political View, an Ecological View, a Scientific View on the Your Content. Mix World News with Local News but when Local News becomes World News (or National News or …) be the first to be at The Right Place at the Right Moment.

  • Do it Yourself Radio

Give Listeners the opportunity to create and broadcast their own radio programs. It will generate new music, alternative news and reporting talent.

  • Radio is a Two Way Channel

Not only give Listeners the opportunity to broadcast but give them also the opportunity to react real-time and create groups to deepen an issue. Give them the opportunity to report their findings. If this happens it will close the feedback loop.

  • Specialize

Everything is a niche. Specific kinds of music, news or commentary are becoming clearly more important than typical generalized radio content that needs to appeal to as large as possible an audience.

  • People want to be surprised

Commercial radio today is less concerned with finding music that will draw listeners in than with eliminating music that might drive listeners out. The result is numbing repetition. People like repetition for a little while but when a format is completely predictable they will “zap” for something else. Some people like being surprised by strange sounds they have never heard before.

  • Archive, Classify and Search

Allow access to each and every show, interview or news item ever broadcast. People want to listen at their time to what they want to hear. Make it easy to look for what they want.

  • Create and experiment with as many channels and formats as you want

 

It is very easy to subdivide and multiply content into multiple channels with no major additional costs in infrastructure. If a channel or a format is not attracting enough listeners simply reconfigurate your content and start a new one.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Media | 2 Comments »

About Ontology

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

magic chaldrounMetaphysics is a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality.

A major part of Metaphysics is concerned with the Static Part of the Reality, Being (Ontos, Ontology). The main issues of Metaphysics can be simply derived by playing with the verb to-be.

Behind Ontology (Being) is the verb to Be. The noun Being is-a-State-of to Be. When we take the first-derative, the difference of Being, Being becomes Becoming.

When you apply Causal Reasoning you have to find out Who is the Cause of the change of Being to Becoming. You also have to find out how a Static System changes into a Dynamic System.

A solution is to Imagine an Ultimate Being (The Absolute) who changed his Being into Becoming. This Absolute Being is the One. The change from the Static to the Dynamic is called Creation.

There are two possibilities. The Creator is Outside the Becoming or the Being is part of the Becoming. In the first case we are talking about an Ultimate Being, God, the Void, who is the creator of the Dynamic System.  In the second case God IS the Dynamic System. Let’s call this Being “All That Is“.

The Difference between God and “All That Is” is the way the Act of Creation takes place. The Act of Creation of God is an Explosion, a Unique Act. The Act of Creation of “All That is” is an enfolding. Creation as an Enfolding moves slowly. Every new Expressions of the Unfolding show itself at the Right Time and the Right Moment.

The distinction between Being and Becoming has resulted in a major Fight on every Scientific Battleground we can imagine.

Let’s have a short look at Information Technology.

Data-oriented methodologies emphasize the representation of the Static relationships between the parts of the whole, the Data or the Database. On the other hand, process-oriented methodologies emphasize the actions Performed By a software artifact, a Program.

When we dig a little deeper into this subject we see that A Program (something written in a Programming Language) is a Static (Stored) Representation of a Process. When the Computer Executes a Program it Becomes a Process.

So the Dynamic is Stored in the Static and the Static becomes Dynamic because something called a Computer (An Actor, the Operating System) activates the Static. Interesting Enough the Computer is also a Program that is stored in itself. The basic part of the Computer is the Clock. The Clock generates a Rhythm.

So the Static is really a Dynamic and the Essence (The Metaphysics) of the Computer is a Clock, A Rhythm.

The Dynamic Structure of the Computer is an Enfolding of the Basic Structure of the Computer Itself which is Stored in Itself, which is a Rhythm. During the Rhythm the Computer moves through a Cycle.

I don’t want to dig deeper but I hope you see that the Computer Metaphor is a representation of the idea of “All What Is”.

The interesting point is that in the Reality of the Computer Metaphor there are Many Beings (Monads).

If we dig a little deeper we see that the Many Beings Communicate (by the Internet Protocol). They Unite on a deeper Level and transform into a Network. The Network is What it Is.

To a Human Observer the Network makes no Sense. We are unable to understand the essence (The Metaphysics) of the Network. We understand our Part but don’t see the Whole.

The Whole, the One, is beyond our Understanding. It is Unknowable (”neti neti“, “not this, not that“).

Language is a Static Representation of the Dynamics of Speech. A Human executes Language to perform the Process of Speech but Speech is not captured by Language. Human Speech is constantly adapting to Practice and Language is adapting to Practice. New (Computer) Languages are created all the time.

A Computer Language is a sub-set of Human Languages called Logic. Logic is a sub-set of Human Speech called Reasoning but Reasoning is not able to Understand the Whole.

Theory is a Static Representation of the Dynamics of Practice. A Human executes a Theory to perform the Process of Practicing. But Practice is not able to Understand the Whole so When a Practice fails we create a new Theory. Theory is adapted Practice and Practice is applied Theory. Being is adapted Becoming.

Being changes in Time because we are Experiencing (Being (t) = Being (t-1) + Experience). Experience is the Difference of Being is Becoming. The Becoming who is The One is generating Experience.

God is the Experience of God.

roseAs You see it is possible to create many concepts and theories of Metaphysics just by Playing with the Verb To Be.

There is one more Language Game to Play. If we Play this Game we are entering the World of Deleuze.

Deleuze was fascinated by the Mathematician and Philosopher Leibniz. Leibniz invented a new Mathematical Game called Differentials. When you calculate a differential you calculate the way a function is changing in time.

Leibniz found a way to move from being to becoming and his formula is very easy. Becoming = Lim (t -> 0) (Being (t+1)-Being (t)). Find the smallest distance between two moments of Being. The smallest distance between two Beings is an Event.

The basis Structure of our Reality is not a Substance (The Static) but something that Moves Us (Emotion). The basic Structure of our Universe are Moments, Nows.

We are Points of View that are Experiencing a Beautifull Fluent Crystal, a HyperDiamond. Every Point of the Multi Dimensional Diamond is an Event.

 We are trying to explain the Beauty of this Crystal to the other Points of View but we are unable to do this because we are only able to see a very small part and we are looking from our own angle.

 We will never See the Whole until we are able to become a Circular Point of View, A Communion.

LINKS

A Website about Ontology

About Events, Time, Being and Becoming in Physics

About Leibniz and Differentials

The Relationship between Events and Free Will

Deleuze and Events

Why the Universe is a Configuration of Nows

 About Spinoza, The Philosopher of the Emotion

About the Relationship between Events and Creativity, the Ontology of Deleuze

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Computer and Communication Technology, Philosophy | No Comments »

How to Resolve an Infinite Chain of Conflicts

Saturday, August 9th, 2008

Humans attach much greater weight to future losses than to future gains, especially when the former are certain and immediate and the latter are uncertain. Humans take unwise risks to avoid certain and immediate losses.

They don’t want to take risks to pursue gains or will unwisely turn down proposed changes or concessions that offer a mix of gains and losses, even when the promised gains are objectively greater than the losses.

To calculate a loss a Human chooses a personal reference point which is usually the individual’s status quo.

Human beings reject or devalue whatever is freely available to them. They strive for whatever is denied them. They want to fight because when you win a fight you don’t lose a fight. Humans get exited when they have removed an Obstacle.

Without an obstacle Life is Boring. To remove an Obstacle Humans create Imaginary Obstacles. They need a Challenge.

They don’t believe their adversary offers a compromise because when he offers a compromise he is losing. Somewhere behind the compromise is a hidden tactic. The adversary will attack out of the blue and will suddenly win. On the other hand when the compromise is sincere the enemy is getting weaker and it is possible to increase the demands in the negocation.

The total effect is that future compromises and package deals decrease in attractiveness once they are offered especially when they are put there by one’s adversary rather than by a third party (Reactive Devaluation).

The Effect of Future Losses on Human Decision Making is researched in Prospect Theory.

The basic Stategy of Humans is to avoid the Emotions of Loss (Anger, Frustration, Grief, Fear, Sadness, Yearning, Pity, and Sorrow). This is not strange because the Emotions of Loss have a negative impact on the body. They influence the Immune System and are the cause of many ilnesses.

When two parties imagine a joined future where both of them lose they will never cooperate. In terms of the prisoners dilemma this is called a lose/lose-situation.

When two parties have seen a win/win situation and the realization changes into a lose they are in conflict. They have to envision a new win/win or break the cooperation.

Sometimes it is impossible to break a cooperation because both parties share vital resources or don’t know how to divide the assets of the former cooperation. In this case they are in a the win/lose-mode of the (Iterated) Prisonners Dilemma, constantly switching between losing and winning.

When a party wants to move from a lose to a win he has to apply the tactic of Tit-for-Tat. When you apply Tit-for-Tat you simply copy the behaviour of the other. When one of the parties sustains his unwillingness to cooperate both of them are in an Infinite Chain of Conflicts.

When two parties were united it is very difficult to recreate independent disconnected units. Many of the joined activities where performed without negotiation and were never formalized. When two parties cooperate they are acting as one Mind and one Soul.

Moving out of a Cooperative Relationship needs a Cooperative Relationship. When this relationship is broken two parties are needed who enter into a Cooperative Relationship to resolve the Cooperative Relationship on the lower level. When this Cooperative Relationship fails another level has to be created. If all the levels fail they are in an Infinite Chain of Conflicts.

If a Conflict of Interest arises the first action is to avoid the conflict or to speed up the conflict. In the last case the Primary Emotions (Desire, The Emotion of Loss) are bothering them. To avoid a Conflict we have to Articulate our Emotions at the Right Moment in a Respectful Way. We have to Communicate.

Most Conflicts in Nature are violent. Humans have found a way to abstract from Violence. We have created Imaginary Violence. We Fight our Case in Court. We don’t fight our Case in the Court Yard. We have replaced the material Sword of Iron by the Imaginary Silver Sword of Words.

If both parties are unable to define the conflict in a coherent model the conflict will not resolve. They need help to do this. If the advisors of the two parties are unable to do this the conflict has to move to a higher level of abstraction. When the conflict is resolved on this level somebody has to translate the consistent model to the lower level. When this is not possible the conflict starts again. They are in an Infinite Chain of Conflicts.

When an Abstract Model is always Moving Up and Down, the Model is not in Harmony. Harmoniouss Models are applicable on Every Level of Abstraction. Models that are The Same on Every Level are Self-Referencial. When a Conflict is Modelled as a Conflict it will never be solved.

The solution to this problem is to Extend the Context of the Conflict until a Balance has been found. Both Parties have to Widen their Perspective. They have to step out of the Status Quo and Imagine a Bright Future. A Future where the Darkness of the Night has been replaced by the Light of the Day. They have to wake up out of their joint Nightmare and Face Reality.

A Conflict is resolved when all the parties that are involved are Satisfied. They are satisfied when they experience a Balancing of their Emotions. A Victim is satisfied when his Emotion of Revenge is resolved. The Killer is Killed or put into prison for many years. The Emotion of the Killer is balanced by the Emotion of his Victim(s).

To Balance Emotions we have to Objectify Emotions. When we are buying a Car we have to pay Money. The Car is an Objectified Emotion (The feeling of the Freedom to Move) and Money is an Objectified Emotion (The feeling of Freedom to do what we want to Do). The Potential of Money is balanced by the Potential to Move. When we buy we are balancing Potentials.

Humans use Mental Accounting to define what their Potential is. They divide their Potential in many “Isolated” boxes and are unable to combine the boxes. A savings account is meant to save money and not to spend money. If Humans put their Potentials in “closed” Boxes they are Poor although they are Rich.

When they feel Poor they will experience every potential solution of a conflict as a loss. When a Human accepts that the Future is not the Past he will realize that there are many possibilities he has never seen. When a Human accepts that his Potential is his Creativity he is able to negociate with an Open Mind.

Many people believe the Juridical System is the most objective system in our Society. Sadly enough this is not true. The Law is highly confusing. Judges don’t have the background to understand what has really happened. Lawyers are telling their own biased story and most of the cases are very complex. The System is a System of Last Resort. It is used when many future and current losses are accumulating.

The Judicial System is meant to resolve Infinite Chains of Conflict without Applying Violence. This is accomplished by Balancing Emotions by Objectifying Emotions by Articulating the Emotions in Words by Combining the Words into a Model by comparing the Model with an Abstract Juridical Model by Solving the Conflict Applying this Model by Translating the Model to a lower Level by Explaining the Model to the Parties hoping they will Agree so the Emotions are Balanced so both Parties are Satisfied.

If this is not happening the whole process starts all over again until somebody (a Judge, Somebody who Speaks Law) utters a Solomon’s Verdict.

I hope You see why it is much better to settle a Conflict on a Lower Level.

LINKS

Papers about Conflict Resolution

About Prospect Theory

About Prospect Theory and the Financial Market

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Completed, Law, Philosophy | No Comments »

« Older Entries