This is just a few unorganised notes that I hope to set out more clearly some time soon.

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Dandelions

 

The world is made of dandelions

dandelions consist of knowledge

Knowledge consists of connections

An entity consists of connections converging like the spokes on a grey dandelion head, or a thistledown floating thru the air.

At the center of the dandelion, there is nothing but the converging connections - there is no kernel.  On that small (sic) scale you pass a perception-horizon (which could be called the edge of the universe for that person/truth) in the same way as there's a limit outward.  (Here the visual image is misleading; I'm not sure the small and the outward are not the same thing).  However there's no reason to suppose the connections couldn't continue up/down to infinity with an infinity of worlds.  These worlds, and other dandelions, would they make parallel connections with closer, more perceptible d's.?

The spokes radiating from the entity diverge to make connections with other entities.

The ball formed by one set of spokes will, as a whole, make connections into larger balls to form larger entities.

The physical world, the sensory world, the ideal world, the verbal world, is a load of balls.

            Each ball can constitue an autonomous universe (an autonomous truth) or connect with other universes and merge and conglomerate.  !! An image of universes' being distinct and separate from each other (by dint, at least, of their having higher valency - making more connections) is probably bad because that will need a benchmark by which to measure their distance from each other in space (?) nr. of connections within and without, valencies of components, ...

           

            The set of spokes that form a word will connect with those that form a concept

            to create a dumbell shape; likewise concept and percept, and other pairs.

            Multiple connections will form more complicated shapes

The shape of a combination of dandelions can be parallel with one or more other combinations.  And it will be parallel in more than one dimension: time, species (and family resemblance), metaphor,  rhyme, verbal world with physical etc., large with small, present with soon and recent,

Artistic thought involves the parallesism between groups of dandelions: scientific thought is the enlargement of the groups by adding new dandelions, either inwards - details - or outwards: logic, a third category, is the tidying of the structure to make it 'coherent' according to rules whose validity can be questioned.  Why, for instance, is a circular argument thought inferior?

Scientists have always sought atoms, GUT's etc.: they'll always find smaller subdivisions.  These subdivisions are limited by the size of their consciousness - a

            consciousness that lives in hemidemisemi-leptons couldn't connect with that of   

            elephants and hotdogs.

Consciousness, Universe and Truth can be regarded as the same thing, with the same possibilities of size and valency.

A conscious entity is a dandelion comprising all its sense data, thoughts, memories etc.

The larger the number of spokes, the larger the consciousness.

Universes consist of the dandelions they contain.

            Traditionally unconscious things have consciousness in that they connect with other consciousnesses.  Helvellyn connects with the consciousness of all who have seen it, in person or in a picture, or who have heard of it, and those spokes constitute the Helvellyn dandelion, creating Helvellyn's consciousness.  Other constituents of Helvellyn - sub-     dandelions - will be the mice and grasses and birds and rocks and snow of which it is made.  A n individual human will not regard Helvellyn as conscious because the dandelions connecting him with Helvellyn will be too few, but Helvellyn will connect with many different humans and other entities over the millennia and in that way have enough spokes to be as conscious as anything else. 

The consciousness of his left big toe contributes to the consciousness of Cecil Parkinson, and his consciousness contributes to that of Gaia.  A consciousness need not be large to make any contribution.

 Dandelions at the periphery of consciousness/universes will have fewer connections with the center, but their own (conscious) centers will continue to have connections beyond it.  (I know Fred/rabbits, Fred knows me, Fred knows more about Fred than I do.  Fred knows Charlie/grass, but I've only ever been told about Charlie.  Charlie knows Ermintrude/hills, whom I've never heard of.  Ermintrude (as an individual) is not in my universe, but is a conscious entity, comprising as many connections as me.)

An entity cannot be aware of the consciousness of another entity if there are too few connecting spokes.

Universes don't have limits but event horizons.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man dandeleien.

Stoppers:

correct

prime mover/prime authority

loony/mad/dishonest/foreigner/phase

... curved space

understandabuh then

GUT

Papal infallibility

atoms

the Law

retort: 'Just doin ma job'

 

 

            If planes communicate (by checking similarities?) what lubricant might be needed?

            "Oblique connection"? allowing migration of meaning.

            Sub-dandelion within a plane normally conncting with a similar dandelion in the same plane might connect with similr d's in a dif't place on the next plane.

            So a high frequeny - a scattering - of similar dandelions will help oblique connections, lubricate migration.

            'Jumping planes' would mean leaving out intermediate planes or moving to a new, contiguous plane in a new direction/dimension?

            Constellations might connect with more than one constellatin on the nextplane.  This could also aply to the next planein other directions, making a kind of cross.  Could this be seen as a transverse plaen?(Or line).  Would the size of the plane depend on how far the conconstellations are copied form 1 (vertical) plane to the next?  Or continue to infinity with infinite changes by infinitesimal degrees? 

            An entity/person is determined by:

            length of a line?

            Its belonging to a larger entity

            Might it e said tht the mechanism for intorducing variations (faults) is the creation of a new plane?

            we must be introduced : we might just be there?

            Sparkler as a metaphor for a set of ideas presented in a lilnear way such as an essay.  (timelapse foto showing full lengthof burning firework) Elements of line being made up of sidelines.

            Image of lots of lines together, like an (untwisted) rope equals lots of planes thogether like pages in a (blank) book.

            about the stone in the 13. C filosofy existing in the mind and in the matter as the only way for the stone to be perceived. 

            Variations in a plane can be changes in the structure of in the stone or difference in the ways connections ramify out beyond the confines of the stone itself; eg. time, different person perceiving

            Similarity is involved in the movement of (?) all ideas: is it a channel or an engine or ...

            Important to know that dandelion and plane are synonyms as a means of talking and no more than a visual display. 

... so by having differences only in the connections beyonditself, the stone can contiue to be entirely inctact, unchaned in the mind and in matter.

            Sequences of plane converging to a single dandelion on a plane: a new dandelion whose arms are mde up not of nothing.  Ie. two arms need not be just aof sense data (if describing a conrete thing) but of the various eg. position in time if ieach point is infinite(?) different consequences in different universes.  In this case a dandelion will have infinite arms.  Therefore a point, eg. a concrete object, will conect with many different universes: time travel?  Travel to other universes such as "contrafactual" history?

 

 

            !!!!!!

            Imagine two billiard balls.   No, not Hobbesian balls that bash about and interact.  Imagine two things that are identical in every way except a few: duration through time, location, and colour.  I won't count material as, unless you're a billiardballologist, you probably won't have thought about plastic or ivory or pigment and unless you're a microchemicalbilliardballologist you won't have thought about atoms or polycarbonated valencies and if I do then we're not talking about the two billiard balls you imagined.  No shifting the goalposts please.  No you didn't consider duration in time either. 

            So the colours are different, and they're in different places.  But they also have many things which are the same: sphericity, same size (whatever size that is), habit of rolling about on green tablecloths, habit of knocking together.  You might even have thought of Thomas Hobbes, as billiard balls are the cliché illustration of his materialism and physics.  Now you know what Thomas Hobbes is like, you know what billiards is like, you know what balls' knocking together is like, but it's very hard to say what a colour is like.  The most famous example of someone who tried is John Locke's friend who'd been blind from birth and proudly declared that red was like the sound of a trumpet.  (Actually, I think I know what he means, but for the time being let's suppose he just showed he had no idea of colours and say that colours are a-tomic - indivisible into smaller components or quantities - and indescribable.)

            Each of these features and many others will combine to constitute the meaning, for you, of  'two billiard balls' just as a spoke will combine with other spokes to constitute a wheel.  At the end of the billiard spoke are the rules of the game, similar games such as snooker, hitting with a cue; at the end of the roundness spoke are Platonic spheres, the earthly globe, squares and polyhedra; at the end of the Thomas Hobbes spoke are materialism, Philosophy 101 and a splendid moustache; at the end of the green (or red or ...) spoke is something you can't easily define or compile a list of its components.  It seems to be a dead-end spoke.  A broken spoke.  Except that you can't take the spoke out or cycle on till the next bike shop because it's an intrinsic part of what we understand about a billiard ball, even if we just envision it and don't consider the colours' functions in the games.  It cannot be said to be part of the wheel because it contributes nothing to its meaning, it's not a conduit to Hobbes or green tablecloths, it seems to carry no meaning, as a constituent of the meaning-wheel, except to say 'don't confuse me and my brother'.  A dummy spoke.  A token spoke.  Nowadays we'll think of light wavelengths and pigments and electrons jumping orbits but nobody could have done a few centuries ago; the concept of a colour remained atomic and indescribable just as, taken at its simplest without an overlay of  science, it does now. 

            If location is to be considered it will need time, which I'll talk about later, otherwise they might swap places while you're not looking, and then, apart from the colours, you couldn't tell which is which.  This dummy, colour-spoke seems to have the function of distinguishing things which are otherwise identical, but the other spokes, with their associations with other meanings, seem to constitute the meaning of 'two billiard balls' in a much more palpable way and conversely to constitute the meaning of 'Hobbes' and 'snooker' and 'sphere'.  They are the connections not to a rim and a rubber tyre - that's where the analogy breaks down - but to other hubs with a different set of spokes leading to more hubs similarly consisting of a number of spokes and so on.  And at the hub itself, to break with the wheel analogy again, is nothing.  It's the point of convergence of the spokes, and apart from that it has no function other than as something we can grasp as a "concept" - a taken-together. 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            The spokes connect to other hubs to other hubs [sic] and clumping occurs.  Compound concepts.  Clumping is important.  Without adhesion the spokes wouldn't stay with the hubs (ie. the other spokes in the concept) - no I don't know  what the glue is that holds them together other than that the spokes are the glue - and with adhesion things are bound to stick together.  Amorphous clumps are bound to appear - and they will function at least as the compounds that make up the spokes in more complex dandelions - but there seem also to be structured clumps (it's tempting to say 'crystals') which we see as hierarchies, grids, circularities (such as that glue), equations, and  which may be of more importance in directing the structuring of the universe.  [What difference would be made by man or God making the universe?]  They are at least given more respect in the thinking of most human societies.  I think.  !!!!!! But some are given more respect than others, even though it's hard to think of many propositions, about things abstract or concrete, that don't depend on a circularity or an infinite regress.  

 

 

Dandelion