“Contour” 2011
“Information: the negative reciprocal value of probability.” – Claude Shannon
I’m beginning to think…everything is either about redefining ourselves…or fundamentally fooling ourselves…
every situation we find ourselves in is…a). has the potential to be workable….or…b). has absolutely no potential to work…what so ever…and I find the idea that taking either of those situations and willing trying to make them opposing to their natural probability seems by far the most destructive…time wasting…futile effort one could pursue…
I don’t know if we deserve or are entitled to anything…yet we can make conscious decisions that will allow our lives…to…remain the same…make it easier…or make it less easy…and difficult…and why we opt for the latter is voluntarily stepping out into traffic just because…we are capable of doing so…because we can…doesn’t always mean we should…and for every reason to do anything…there is one that is an equal and opposite reason not to do it…sort of emotional physics…
fooling ourselves really is all about being there everyday for the same grand opening and acting surprised…while knowing that it’s basically going to be about the same with an end result that sounds..smells and taste…just like the day before…where as redefining ourselves….maybe doesn’t make us any better or right…but allows the scenery to change…as we too change…maybe take a look at what is and see if it still fits…
I think it is more of an evaluation process initially as it takes a different eye to step away from what we know for something we know is going to be different…we just don’t know what that is…until we’re on the move…but we know that we can’t stay here…and I’m pretty certain redefining ourselves is a direct result of Critical Mass…or…the minimal amount of something to produce a given effect…and a good dose of being in flux….otherwise we remain…continue to fool ourselves…
most everyone I know is in a process of remaking themselves…understanding more what they are about rather than what they are capable of…I think that place offers a great deal of space to think…see how it feels…test drive it a little…and if it needs to change…then perhaps it does…
I had to jump over a high chain link fence the other day to retrieve my keys….after the experience of planning my assault…where I was going to land…was I capable of an olympic dismount…and if so…were we talking 9.7’s across the board….the reality of the leap and the fiction I had put into place were grossly different…yes I am capable of jumping a 7 foot chain link fence…and no it is not anything of beauty…but what I realized…I’m much more capable of carrying bolt cutters in my truck…and next time I find my keys on the other side of the locked gate…I’ll cut the chain….
“I’ve made an odd discovery. Every time I talk to a savant I feel quite sure that happiness is no longer a possibility. Yet when I talk with my gardener, I’m convinced of the opposite.” – Bertrand Russell
Noise from the High Desert 
Part of what Claude Shannon said dealt with information being the negative reciprocal of probability, but what he was getting at was the probability, in your situational assessment, the probability to be workable, P(W) (read as probability of being workable) and the probability to be not workable, P(NW) (read as probability of being not workable). So, if P(W) = 50%, then P(NW) = 50%, i.e., toss a fair coin to see whether something is workable or not (since P(W) + P(NW) = 100%). What if P(W) = 90%? Odds are in your favor of something being workable, que no? What Shannon formulated was the idea that P(W) and P(NW) have to Zen together. He did this using the spiffy formula E = -P(W) x LN(P(W)) – P(NW) x LN(P(NW)), where LN is the natural logarithm function. So, information is still –P(W) or –P(NW), but E is entropy, or uncertainty, if you will. Maximum uncertainty occurs when P(W) = P(NW), namely a coin toss. Minimum uncertainty occurs when P(W) is much much greater than P(NW) (or, vice-versa). Which is better? Well, for example, for species health in ecosystems, having all the P’s be identical for each species type means everyone has a chance to exist. If one of the P’s is much greater than the others, it means that one species will eat everything. In moral situations, hm, another question for another day. Maybe redefining ourselves or fooling ourselves is too limiting. It could be a bunch of redefinitions and fooly bears all at once. Maximum uncertainty then leaves many options to choose from. Oh well, one of the ironies of binary logics: they are great for electrical circuits but just don’t seem to fit human beans.
LikeLike
[Kenneth says] ..”Maybe redefining ourselves or fooling ourselves is too limiting.”..
Perhaps the opposite is closer to the truth when it comes to being human. Where would humanity be without the opportunity (or necessity) of fooling ourselves and “redefining” reality? Some think madness would be the only result.
After crossing the neurological Rubicon into the world of sentience, some speculate that absolute or “objective” reality would have proved so utterly crippling to homo sapiens as to make suicide the only logical option.
Is it just coincidence that there never was and isn’t now a tribe, nation, culture or group without paranormal beliefs of some kind?
Is “Maximum uncertainty” not another term for insanity?
LikeLike
To address Ms. Neutron’s last question first, it is not. Uncertainty is attributed to objective or subjective probabilities. Insanity is an emotive, a clinical, and a legal term. “You’re insane” can be a put down or a remark of concurrence and humor in general conversations. DSM-IV “insanity” is a two party arrangement. The objective is to give and to receive help to, from the Western perspective, cope with alternate realities (perceived, socially acceptable, etc.). From another perspective, insanity is closeness to the Gods, the stuff of which the poetry of love is made, or an un-understandable state from so-called sane minds. Legally, insane people cannot enter into contracts, etc., but one could argue they can hold elected or judicially appointed offices.
Maximum uncertainty simply means one has a lot of options. If you have no legs, the objective reality is you cannot walk without some form of assistance. The subjective reality – a type of sentience, if you will – means you can still feel, talk about, grieve, or desire to walk with the ghost limbs. Either way, your options are limited. On the other hand, if you a starting an art work with a blank canvas, as it was, your uncertainty is wide open. You can do whatever you want, and if you do not like what you have in/on the canvas, or sculpted, or written, you can start all over. (Whether that is good or bad is a moral judgment.)
Whether it is coincidence or simply a part of human nature that all societies, “primitive” or otherwise, recognize paranormal activity, it really does not matter. Perception is a human prerogative. When humans can communicate with apes or dolphins better, understand the stress (no pun intended) of rocks, or recognize the lack of validity and the misleading qualities of sense datum, the paranormal activity label will move to regular old normal.
Finally, I don’t understand the notion that “some” think madness would be the only result of fooling ourselves and/or redefining reality. It could be mad to opine the opposite.
LikeLike
It seems we must agree to disagree Kenneth. And, I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
…”Where would humanity be without the opportunity (or necessity) of fooling ourselves and “redefining” reality? Some think madness would be the only result.”… (was what I wrote.)
[you post] …”Whether it is coincidence or simply a part of human nature that all societies, “primitive” or otherwise, recognize paranormal activity, it really does not matter.”…
1. I don’t think it can be called a coincidence if it ALWAYS happens.
2. We are currently engaged in a very expensive war started by an American President who was assured, via private conversation with his Daddy in the sky, that said war should not only take place immediately, but…… God was on America’s side.
In all honesty Kenneth, if we are going to be concerned with exactly “what” it means to be human…. I can’t think of a topic less understood, yet more important TO understand than paranormal beliefs. They are not only ubiquitous, but, when accompanied by nuclear and biological weapons, serious issues indeed.
LikeLike
I say we all we simply need to do is mind our ‘P’s and Q’s’ and all will be hunky dory…
LikeLike