Mechanical Art

[Michael]

Silverfox I owe you that symbology is a real term. I guess it's an argument of semantics. I don't agree that using symbology is more descriptive than symbolism because it all comes down to how it is worded. You wrote; "So there is a valid reason why the interiors of all Protestant Churches look exactly the same as any modern courtroom does, with its pews, alters, and officials garbed in black robes and white collars that presume to sit in judgement over other people's behavior...hmmm? Ever wonder about that, or all the common symbology?"
You correctly defined the term symbology ( one of the definitions ) as the study of symbols. Using that definition then to define your above paragraph, you begin by describing the common/similar elements of places of judgement; pews, alters black robes, and then pose the question; have you ever wondered about all of that ( the common elements ), or all of the common ( switching the word for your choice of definition ) study of symbols? I will risk being presumtuous, I don't think that is what you meant, the common study of symbols, because that last part is out of left field and isn't tied to anything or has no further desription applied to it. Whose common study of symbols? . What I think you meant was; all of the common ( symbolism ) or ( shared symbols ) between the two. And probably what you really meant was the probable shared symbols of the two deserve further study. Symbology. And still I must admit, my response is rooted in my annoyance of a current widespread use of a word that had little to no use until the popularity of Dan Brown's novels.

[nicbordeaux]

OK Silverfox, I think you may be overestimating my capacity for abstraction. Yes abstraction from the reality that surrounds me. Nevertheless, by ascribing things to "quantum level" when the whole quantum concept is but a feeble attempt at explaining the unexplainable and is no way proven is in itself an attempt to rationalize the universe (for want of a better word) in material and quantifiable terms, if not there would be no such thing as quantum physics. Or as you seem not to be pointing at physics, all speculation about quantum level would be pure opinion, unless, as a person who I know (no names, we don't name people here), you once as a foolish youngster administered to yourself by whatever means (no, not a neuroleptic suppository) some rather undue dose of some substance which induced a 24 hour slumber, and on being awakened forcibly told of having dreamed, or rather should I say having very tangibly lived a most amazing experience more real than any previously or henceforth felt experience, in which said person was a totally content and at peace (and non physically demanded upon) part of some extremely vivid and unworldly base coloured gigantic mechanism which it was recalled was the universe. The universe, according to this person who I won't name, was rather like some machinery out of Charlie and the Chocolate factory with pipes and gearwheels everywhere, the whole apparatus having no particular discernable purpose and the person's understanding of his role being that he was just a cog, and as such fulfilled some role well beyond his comprehension, and was totally at peace with himself and his surroundings and required no explanation or justification. This person once known by your's truly was on attempting to describe this marvelous, peaceful and incredibly deep understanding to a doctor advised to stick to beer in future, but it did rather alter his ideas as to what could be understood from a measly humanoid point of view, and he subsequently lost most interest in "understanding" or seeking "explanation" as to what could lie beyond his miserable earthly existence.

Well, that was just an hors d'oeuvre, let us now look at more important matters, such as free energy and making the world a better place.
Silverfox, I can assure you that though a rotten philistine I have conceived something of the order you are describing, but no amount of staring at wheels has so far succeeded in making wheels rotate, no amount of silent hollering "move, move I command you to move" , or even "would you please be so kind as to move and if there is a superior being or force there would you please make this thing move and I promise that I will be a better person", no such mental projection has produced any discernable effect.

Therefore, one is rather stuck with the tangible reality referred to somewhere in the above paragraphs, were this thing to contain paragraphs, the tangible reality where one is not a cog in some beautiful unworldly machinery, and must reason in terms and act in a manner which are consistent with this perceived reality (was it Greendoor who suggested an experiment involving banging oneself 300 times on the skull with a hammer as an experiment ? If so, well done lad). This involves playing with various toys until one develops a feel for why things are not working, and what could possibly make them work in this perceived dimension and reality, which in turn leads to seeing a chaos to order pattern, both having different visible decay rates and harnassable energy runtimes and appearing in the same sequence in different devices or systems of operation, the better of the two appearing to be chaos, and therefore seeking to recreate or rather emulate what one imagines as chaotic subatomic stuff behavior patterns by several expedients, one of which consists in setting a load of more or less balanced devices upon a metal plate suspended from each corner by a spring under some small amount of tension, and linking this to a medium which is known to be rather susceptible to slopping all over the place and forming waves and stuff in such a manner that when anything moves on the plate there is movement which is transmitted to other gizmos on the plate by vibes, plate tilt and whatnot and thence to the medium, and the medium transmits back to the plate which upsets a whole load more stuff, which in turn further upsets the medium which, by the way, is also "suspended" in rather the same way as the plate, so that by upsetting one puny gizmo you end up rocking in no uncertain manner a container of no uncertain weight (and how you harness that is another matter, and harness it you must otherwise serious damage will occur), whereupon one describes the phenomenon by analogy as being not subatomic unlike in that within confines dictated by springs and others such as floor an unpredictable sequence of events is occuring, and were one to be unable to perceive the restraints such as springs, ropes and floor and else one would perceive the system to be rather quantum like.

And with that, I rest my case, 'specially considering wot I already said too much about a system I worketh 'pon presently, and believe it or not all this arose from using empty shampoo bottles as baffles for studying the behavior pattern of bath fart bubbles as a child, this of course being well before having been a cog, because had one not performed experiments in the bath to see about bubbles and wave formation through water displacement, disturbance and whatnot, one may well never have seen any point in the whole exercise and spent one's life trying to make wheels turn by means of just waiting for gravity to shift some weights around, which is a complete waste of time, even Bessler used water in his wheel and if you don't believe me ask JC could well be he agrees. Yes, I know, I omitted the bit about chimps to cabbages and darwin and God, but I guess any readers will agree that that's quite all right thank you very much.

Nic...

Despite the fact that all physicality is merely and "effect" and an interraction of "effects" whose genuine causes all originate at a completely non-physical quantum level, you still seem to insinst on having purely "material" causes for everything and there simply aren't any.

Any and every material explanation is essentially a work of "fiction". A physical narrative that has no more to commend it than that the reality of the moment doesn't actually appear to contradict it and nothing else.

So any number of "convenient" interpretations can be postulated from that simplistic standpoint and "appear to be true" but only in that sense alone. That is about as much as can "truly" be said for any of them.

Don't confuse matter with the idea of what is or can be "real" rather than understanding that there are all kinds of things that are very "real" and even considerably more "real" and far less transitory than mere matter itself is, and the quantum state and what takes place in it is at the very top of that list.

Matter is the incidental result of invisible and inexhaustible forces and energies that are relentlessly at play with one another and not bound by either time or space. They are all quite "real" or we simply wouldn't be here at all.

Real enough, in fact, that with an adequate amount of the right kind of understanding they could be induced to transform this planet into a paradise beyond any dreams of one, or with the wrong kind just as swiftly transform it into something more desolate and lifeless than the moon.

If you want to know how the universe was created, the answer is really quite simple and short. It was created in the very same way it is being created in it's entirety right now, in this very instant, and just as completely and wholly created anew right along with everything in it in each and every other instant it has or ever will exist in. If it wasn't, it wouldn't, and couldn't exist at all, and neither could we.

What people don't seem to understand is that the unusual quality and characteristicss of any and every instant we ever experience as being "now" is due to the fact that it is actually being "created" around and with us, physically speaking. That is why the sensation of being "now" and being "alive" in it, is what it is, and no less makes it what it is.

You have deliberated at some length about the nature of "chaos" without considering that the very last thing missing from that picture is any "pattern" or that the real situation is simply a stage wherein all possible and potential patterns all exist simultaneously and undifferentiated simply from your own perspective, untill one of them is ultimately chosen from all the rest, and although you can't see it taking place, that is always and already underway in something of a pattern of it's own.

The implicate order of things is the order of things and nothing is ever random or accidental, even and especially if it looks that way. Reality doesn't conflict with the earth looking flat or with the Sun "rising" in the morning where even the simple and material truth itself is quite other than that. Just how much of a limb do you really think we're out on when it comes to far more serious and complex issues with that being the only, official, bona fide, or "reliable" measuring stick we're willing to use?

Eveything is the result of deliberate, continuous and ongoing "choices" at each and every level that steadily unfolds or refolds matter back into the quantum level it comes from...perpetually.

In any so-called "chaotic" state the atoms themselves will choose to obey and conform to the dictates of their own nature and always form the most attractive arrangements that are within their reach and abandon or pass over any others that aren't as they do.

As that occurs certain potential patterns will be automatically eliminated at every step while fewer and fewer move steadily forward until the only one there is, is. And one always does because it has to and there is no way to concievably ever prevent that from happening.

Were you able to examine each and every choice that went into that process they would be as predictable and perfectly logical as if they were fore-ordained, because in a manner of speaking, they are fore-ordained at the quantum level from which they all actually arise. What takes place physically is merely a reflection of what was already underway well ahead of it in that invisible realm.

Now new species are being found every single day, complete and fully formed and perfectly adapted to the environments they're discovered in. In no case has there ever been any tangible evidence of anything they could possibly have come from in any physical sense. They are quite simply "there" and as far as anyone knows they weren't before. That is common to them all and always has been.

To say they must have come from something else that already exists and then look for anything similar even if the closest example is several thousand miles away and simply say it just had to come from that is a gross rationalization based on a completely unfounded assumption that has never at any time ever been proven, much less conclusively.

Die hard evolutionists examine the fossilized remains of creatures long extinct and fail to see the evidence in their hands for exactly what it is. Not some distant relation but a casualty of nature, an extinct species that couldn't adapt and simply died out. The only thing they evolved into was the sad fossilized remains they hold in their hands. Each and every supposed link is an entirely different species that has suffered that same fate and that is all there is that genuinely connects any of them together in any way at all.

And where is the real logic, rather than pure imagination, in insisting that they must have changed into something else and continued on only to do that again and again?

Genetics allows for an infinite and limitless non-repeating creation of unique individuals within any particular species which it is profoundly and remarkably designed to do with absolutely no provision for that species to ever be anything other than what it is and every possible safeguard imaginable built in lock-step to prevent that from ever happening. Simple efforts to try and push adaptability itself in that direction invariably results in spontaneous abortion or sterility, take your pick. Nature is non-negiotiable on that particular sticking point.

Now the friendly chimpanzee may share many common genetic markers with us but so too does a cabbage along with far more unfamiliar stuff, so what, really?

That chimp is actually the new kid on our block and we have been around for tens of thousands of years longer, and that is has been rather well established.

So is it logical or reasonable to assume he must be descended from us or does that fall flat because he isn't actually a better and more improved model higher up on Dawkin's completely ridiculous Mount Improbable?

If he isn't, and he simply has to come from "something else" then that something else had to be living on this planet right alongside us at the very same time and as far back as our own mysterious beginnings. So what could that be and why isn't there anything or the remains of anything that would even begin to fit that description to be found anywhere at all and with such very good odds that there should be and of us unavoidably tripping over it?

And the rationale for why there simply must be such a progenitor, is what? Because it must? Because it simply has to? And the reason to insist and remain adamantly inflexible upon that point is based on what particular proof, may I ask?

The short answer is that all those who insist upon it, do so only because they are abject and unreasoning materialists, pure and simple, and they are only insisting because they are active proponents and promoting the wholly discredited philosophy of materialism while they're about it and lying through their teeth whenever they attempt to deny that simply isn't the case. Beyond that they have neither a rationale nor any physical evidence of any kind to support their position.

And "science" has merely become a convenient shield for that activity, and is subsequently presented in such a way that it is merely "unfortunate" if it actively searches out information that has nothing but potentially harmful and destructive applications because it's just "new knowledge" after all, and it isn't science's job to police whatever gets done with it. No, of course not, not even when it's being paid and told quite expressly what to look for and why by people whose intentions leave nothing to the imagination at all when it comes to that...hmmm?

Meanwhile quantum physics is at an impasse because it isn't allowed to explain anything other than in strictly Newtonian terms which cannot be done, and it has already committed the unpardonable sin of adding the word "consciousness" to it's lexicon and accepting that it can instigate and directly influence physical effects without being physical itself and with no physical evidence to even prove that consciousness itself exists beyond the fact that we all know it does or we wouldn't be able to know anything at all.

Any sense of reason and reasonableness is now utterly lost in those matters, as is any ability to simply think straight about almost anything.

You want the pattern of Perpetual Motion? Accept that if such a thing exists it must be perfectly logical and that it is you instead that isn't being that way if you cannot deduce what it is and set about to rectify that.

You have a left foot and a right one, do you not? You can start with either and commence to walk continuously with each step automatically calling forth the next and without any need to think about it and gravity is fully compliant with your desire to simply do that, isn't it?

How's that for a logical clue to begin with?

So in terms of a wheel how would you translate that if not one step equalling one full rotation that calls forth the next and another full rotation, and it a next, and so on? Doesn't that sound reasonable? Or is it too simple?

Walk accross the room and simply pay attention to what your own feet do and when they do it without any need to ask you. From behind to ahead, and from behind to ahead. A perfectly rhythmic and dynamically balanced interchange and a very nice way to descibe what's taking place, isn't it?

A matched set, equal in every respect, able to do naturally and with perfect timing with your own body weight what you yourself could not begin to mentally calculate without either falling flat on your face or flat on your ass before you could possibly send the necessary messages if you actually had to deliberately command each and every step. Think carefully about that.

You walk, like you ride a bike, and of course you never remember how you learned to do either because all you had to learn was to co-operate with gravity the way you were already perfectly designed to do and just let nature look after the rest. It always happens in an unguarded moment and without thinking and we suddenly realize we can do it and that it was simply trying to, and too hard at that, that was all that was ever holding us back. Finding Perpetual Motion can only come the same way...

[silverfox]

Well Michael...

Words are simply symbols themselves that we merely use to represent and transmit ideas. They aren't those ideas themselves, however, and those are all that genuinely matter.

I'd far rather you comment on those ideas rather than merely any words I happened to use to try and simply put them across. Believe it or not, I just write what comes to mind as it comes mind and can often be just as surpised to know what I really think about some things as anyone that reads it might be.

Writing is therapeutic, in that sense, and it helps me to kick some ideas around and maybe stir up a few new ones or simply kick a few that have outlived their usefullness out the door, is all.

I have slightly a different take on ideas, which simply come and go, as far as I'm concerned. So I don't feel any particular need to own or defend them in that sense, nor put anyone on the defensive about any of their own.

Nothing is any easier than changing our ideas. Having a few dumb ones doesn't make anyone dumb uunless they still insist on keeping them after they've actually found that out and if you don't share and get them out in the open and invite others to do the same you can never really find that out for yourself.

So I'm constantly on the look-out for new and better ideas and try to chuck out any that come up short by comparison and always feel better whenever I can and try to encourage others to do the same.

You don't have to use any round about ways to engage me, just say what's really on your mind. We have better things to discuss than how well any of us manages their words since everyone has a different set of talents and abilities when it comes to that, just as they do in everything else.









I write reasonably well and always have but I'm no more immune from making mistakes in my grammar or syntax as I try to put what I feel are the right words in place as fast as any of those thoughts come to me and before they get clean away.

[Michael]

Silverfox think no more about it, as I mentioned I didn't mean it against you, I admit my response was from a retention I feel about that word, just because I hear it being used over and over again. Merry Christmas.
Cheers.