23 October 2006

Time in near-line and random thoughts

We all know what 'online' is: you are on the net or otherwise working on a computer.

And 'offline' is self-defining: you are out of technological contact with greater humanity.

From archiving systems there is also 'near line': being more or less available with some delay and could be not readily available for some time.

Near-line archival storage is something that you need and has physical retrieval time to get it. With modern systems that is usually a robotic arm taking some ancient tape out to get info for you. That information streams to a server, a RAID system, gets prettified and sent to you in a form that mere humans can understand it.

I am in 'near-line' for the next time period depending upon many things almost all of them depending upon Covad.

So, this state of not being able to do my usual attempts to make the world cohere in some form or another leads to a state of some decoherence. I love books, but my reading attention and reference span is not lengthy: previously in my life I could down a book a day of modern novel length and go a bit slower for technical works. The ability to track plotline, theme, characters and actual events in a novel is now limited. I can do so, but the enjoyment is gone due to changed mental structure for underlying physical causes.

Now, I have had a couple of people put forth that some portion of my works should be collected and put into dead-tree format. As my lady pointed out: my spelling is atrocious, my syntax strained and my grammer is awful. But, as Jackson pointed out, any man worth his salt should be able to spell a word at least *two ways*. Guilty as charged on the entirety of it, however.

Much if not all of what I write is very direct from my mental processes via fingers to keyboard to posting. Interrupting *that* are the computer itself, network connections and this free service which actually hosts this detritus of mine. So when I was actually more capable, mentally, say three years ago, I was, at that point in time, unable to give any sort of a coherent description of my actual thought processes although internal understand to myself recognized it and utilized it. The structure of my thoughts was self-analyzing and correcting but not in a linguistic or pictatorial form. Thus I could comprehend what that structure did, then, and my active thoughts would utilize that structure to change my active thoughts. This is a form of self-programming that everyone *must do* to exist, but we just pay no attention to it 99.999% of the time, and the rest we hand over to the psyche fields. We hope that if you put enough smart folks on the problem they might actually be able to define just what human thought and thought self-correction *is*. We have been waiting breathlessly since Freud for that analysis and insight so as to quantify human behavior, outlook, thought structure and its relationship to the actual multimodal colloidal structure known as the *brain*.

Some few have passed out and given up on the waiting, I do believe.

What this means for me, however, is that what I write is a partial reflection of some of those mental processes, but with the extremely fun trick that the part of me doing the writing appears to retain some better cognitive continuity with my former capability than my conscious self. In a roundabout way this is the old saw about 'typing so I know what I'm thinking' but is also about the only way I can get any reflection of changes happening to that underlying thought structure. Previously that was wholly internal to myself, but now the connectivity and possible actual lack of that area and insight capability are missing. This is very troubling as that seciton that does most of the actual document construction works in 'long form' which is expository in nature. The active conscious attentive part is limited to 'short form duration' understanding.

To you doing the distance reading and understanding, you are gaining a part of that previously internal dialogue now rendered into words, which my more conscious self then has to re-encode back into something comprehensible for the thought structure so I can understand its status. Fun, huh?

Now what my conscious mind can do, as it gets the streaming information heading to my fingers with a bit of 'look ahead' is act as censor, corrector and necessary 'break taker' as my body cannot take a lot of this any more. Parts of me are working very hard to start tightening that loop structure out of existence so I can go fully into internal feedback and understanding mode. But, to do that, I need what in computer debugging is known as "verbose output", or telling me the full amount of things going on. The 'long form' is compatible with that and thus, the entire expository structure of that output is rendered into human readible form, at least for this human. You, however, are stuck to your own devices.

As I have said to others: I write for myself and to get some ideas down and into some publicly accessible format so that they would not be lost forever. That handful of ideas went out long since past, but the thought structures that created them have come into the forefront. What I have found is that very few people think in the manner that I do. In point of fact I can only point to a very few individuals in history, here and there, that actually seem to have been working in this mode of thought. Not, necessarily, in the same manner or fields, however, but the mode itself becomes apparent as it leaves tell-tale signature marks on those individual's works.

What is common to this mode is the enjoyment of the way the thoughts go together and inter-relate with other thoughts, ideas and facts, that appear unrelated. So, when an idea like the primacy of precedence, or things coming before having precedence and over-riding and changing the next part down the line to come along, it works in all sorts of causational based fields. As an example, the First President of the US set the tone and tenor for decorum of all that would follow him to this very day. None measure up to Washington.

This stretches to the law, where the Constitution has primacy on those things it covers and then previous commonly held law is available for those things not properly covered under the laws of the land. That is, of course, in exact and I am sure that I have given at least a minor coronary to some legal scholar in tha writing. But, primacy also has scope in religion, where so many that want to use the "Word of God" as the sole basis for life only want to use the *translated* word. The very first word is untranslateable and brought rise to the Universe. It remains untainted by humans because we are contained by that single word. All following words are contained within it. Science is the art of finding out the exacting *meaning* of that first word as best as we are able to do so as to better understand this creation. And as that first word is still, to this day, direct and untainted by translation of any sort and available to all, it still speaks to us every single day. What the rest of the words will do is help an individidual to determine what the meaning of that word actually *means* to them. Thus morals and ethics are within those words to help us come to terms with the first word. What they cannot do is say the first word is a lie.

From that immediate precedence in my writing was inverse to first word primacy: the highly derived things came first as they encapsulated all that I had thought about and gotten to some provisional conclusions. At that point I could have quit, job done. But in that original writing I had it made obvious to myself that very few others saw the world lilke this. The James Burke idea from "Connections" and "The Day the Universe Changed" are seminal to this interior thought mode and I recognized that when the very FIRST of the "Connections" series aired. It looked at the 'pinball effect of history', while it was an apt description of my mode of thinking: joining up unrelated items and finding coherence to them.

Thus The Jacksonian Party is my attempt to give some regularity to that conception of individual freedom of thought to let *indivdiuals* join up with each other in that fashion. It is an attempt to demonstrate that honorable modes of thought can lead to wholly valid conclusion and can be worked not only on individuals but for Nations. Nations are the greatest construct that mankind has done and it embodies civilization and gives it chance to flourish. It has been a stunning success, as these things go. And our very lives depend upon this continuing success, for as James Burke pointed out: the other options are far, far worse than continual change. And for this CHANGE becomes the 'first word' of our civilization and we need to cope with that and understand it and that it does not denigrate, in and of itself. But it is a present force that must be understood. Standing back and hating it will end you up in a shack in the wilderness hand threading pipe, hand making nails, hand packing explosives, hand making packages and then mailing them to those you believe to be the *instigators* of change.

Do retreat if it is to find that personal 'touchstone', but then reach out and join us with *that* understanding.

That is what I have been attempting to do.

I perceive, recognize and understand the validity of the printed word on dead tree media using complex chemicals and putting them into human encoded language for you to decoade using that high resolution storage media known as a book. Truthfully, I lack vanity to publish my own works beyond what is seen here. Making sense of them is a very difficult thing to do, but highly necessary for me on a personal level. It is my responsibility and duty as a Citizen to offer ways to 'make a more perfect Union'. Perhaps not good ways, but they are, to my mind, better than what I have seen put out by others. I am not only not proud of that, but deeply troubled by it as, internally, I do not see myself as anyone extraordinary. I come up with many of the same conclusions that other people do, but via different means and thinking methods. And then there are the things I come up with that look to be obvious and wholly consistent due to that method and folks either scratch their heads or say 'of course, its obvious... but no one has said it before'.

They are, as Franklin said, self-evident truths so call them that.

Are We as a People not used to stating such things in honorable means so as to be understood?

I cannot 'sweeten condense' my writings.

I take simple and honorable stances and then work through them to complex and meaningful conclusions. Simplicity need not be 'simplistic', and when anyone, anywhere hands out a 'simplistic' nostrum I have always run far from them: simplistic conclusions are agenda items. Looking for a simplistic conclusion backtracks one into complex underlying reasons and causes that have non-determinate inter-relationships and are often not related to stated actions and 'intent'. Simple and honorable ways of addressing problems gets one to complex ramifications that *can* be traced back to an action or activity. Be it foreign policy or simply putting a printed work together, there must be honorable intent and understanding and statement of that.

So, I am poor human material for this endeavour. If I was whole, mentally, I would not have a problem, but as it is the stumbling blocks are immense. If you see great capability and understanding, understand that from my side I see ruins and gaping voids in myself. But I cannot fill in those gaps, they are now gone. I write to help myself and to see if what I understand can help *you*. I am not an outgoing or 'public' person and keep to myself for most things. I have explored many mental landscapes and strange places in the past, though not many of the physical sort.

I am a Citizen of the Republic of the United States of America.

Why would I want accolades or wealth or any such thing for *helping* my fellow Citizens undersand the world?

I do *not* want recognition of my person, of myself. I am striving to get my *ideas* out as they are what I have left to me and I am pushing myself to the maximum to do these things.

I created a political party of one person, because: "One man with courage makes a majority."

And no matter which political party anyone joins, individuals are *also* their own political party.

I used the structure of that concept to lay basis for a different formulation of politics and gives at least a way forward that I understand.

Is that enough to form an acutal, real party? Not and adhere to the current idea of what a politcal party *is*. That requires a different means that is fully 'network enabled'. Can *that* idea of each adhering and giving their ideas in common and joining togeth on those things that *are* in common while denigrating NONE and respecting the individual as individual work? A 'flat' party in which there is no attempt to enforce a doctrine or have a treasury to steal.

And is that strange notion worth promulgating?

I am thinking on many things...


John R said...

It often takes a couple of readings for my mind to wrap itself around what you have posted. Your postings are well worth it, they stretch my own internal dialog and are well worth the time it takes for me to internalize them.

Your postings are appreciated.

A Jacksonian said...

JR - My deepest thanks!

Trying to bring order to what passes for thinking is difficult and this sort of thing has helped me. But the way I write is often on the internal contact area and I try to ensure that my ideas are linked up with their underlying structure in a way that can be comprehended by others.

That, however, is not always possible.

Again, my thanks for reading and finding something of value here.