renaissance:perspective // now:4d

[thigle]

as an artist, i am deeply interested in interpretations & specifically forms of visual representations. one of non-final climaxes in history of representation was the flip in consciousness in renaissance. the meanings of 'subject' & 'object' flipped. how come ? etymologicaly(=really) sub.jicere comes from 'to throw under' while ob.jicere from 'to throw forth/in front of'. the position of pre-renaissance consciousness was one of being not yet in.dividual in sense we understand it today. human sentient beings were feeling themselves being the objects of the world, which was the subject, i.e. the world was not object for them yet, at least not in the form it is for us today. they were 'thrown under'.
now with the renaissance invention of representing the projection-mechanisms, among which was the 'classical' perspectival system (usually flat, which later substituted the general pattern of spatial experience of embodied space, and was identified/superimposed with the 'real space', which seems to hold for many even until today), the very act of seeing became seen, represented. the reflection mechanism became reflected. the world became an object. the individual focus took over.

in one post, wendy states the same connection as the name of this thread. any suggestions ? here is a controversial one, in praise of imagination.(from deoxy.org)
*
The Geometric Model_Terence McKenna, Imagination In The Light Of Nature)

I've come to what I call the "geometric model of the psychedelic experience." I certainly don't represent it as the end of the intellectual road, but it is a provisional model which is the best I can do at the moment. I think that, and it seems logically compelling to me, that consciousness as ordinarily experienced is a human ability shaped by evolutionary pressure, and since evolutionary threat and harm usually comes at us in three dimensional space, this is where consciousness has been forced ... to concentrate and define itself.
Let me restate it. Because of the possibility of being stepped on by woolly mammoths and eaten by sabre-tooth tigers, the primitive evolving mind of human beings concentrated on nearby space and time because that's where threat comes from, the kind of threat that has to be immediately responded to by running away or fighting or something like that. But ... if the psychedelics prove anything, they prove that consciousness is an incredibly plastic and malleable medium. So what happens, when you take a compound like psilocybin in silent darkness, in a situation of no threat and low anxiety and low input from the exterior world is that this function, which is essentially in most situations a closed fist ready to strike out at something coming from nearby, unfolds into something much more beautiful, much more interesting, and much more true to itself. In other words, not defined by an exterior context or situation, but defined by its own mechanics.
*
well, whatever anyone thinks, to me, thigle, this would imply, and it truly seems to me, that as was the renaissance the age of global visualisation of physical priciples of outer vision, today is the age of bringing to the explicit social field the principles of inner vision: the multidimensional mechanics of consciousness and nature. this would correspond to dimensionalities under/beyond 3d, integrating unconscious patterns of psychophysic processes into consciousness, in other words, becoming socially conscious of 4dimensional properties, or rather aspects, of imaginary reality saturated from individuals until it overflows like magma into social field. integrality of previously fragmented (3d 'reality') and dwelling in hyperspace of our minds.

in other words, by the hegemony of vision, it comes to fruition as Vision. the idolatry of symbol (& thus the metaphysical era) transforms to next phase. we learn to lessen our internal viscosities of minds so that our mindspaces become superconductive milieu of superfluid/supraluminal experience-flows. sharp diffusion ? imagination embeds 'reality', reality accepts active imagination. we embody collective dreamscape, transtemporal & transpatial ?

what do you think ?

[wendy]

i tend to think in terms of actual vs real. actual defies explanition, because it is purely a continium state. the mind deals in discrete objects, so we make a mass of dots into a 'tree' or a 'bus'.

but the act of realising a mass of dots makes one reality different to the next. nature is the first order above actuality: dots identified. how nature works, is more a mind-construction. the further one goes from nature, one is more likely to be different to someone else.

nature is the shared commonness of diverse theories: the things that have a direct measurable inpact for all. one can not measure the distance to the stars. one sees the light of the stars from afar. and this is the common existance to the ancient shell-model of the skies, and the modern astronomy.

in the other end, there are the abstractions that also appear to be common, viz 'love', 'god', &c. how we finally connect love to physical acts etc is more an explination: eg 'i love him when i .... '

and yet the whole point of christianity is that one gets away from the direct connexion between devotion &c, and a physical act. one does not earn more merit points for sacrificing more goats. god tends to look at proportion, rather than raw count. [parabole of the two pennies].

this means that there are many layers of word between the thought and the action. this is what i see.

[thigle]

perfect. how many myriads of word-systems are possible, saying the same differently. how many infinities, i might ask naively. or maybe not so.

to sum up what struck me from your reply and pushed me further, is:

_(actual) vs (real) with (nature) [in between] (nature as shared commoness of diverse thories)
_(thought) vs (action) with (many layers of words) [in between]
_(devotion, love, god) & (physical acts) in (direct connection)
...

these seem like basic trialities (or trinities? or triads ? what/is there a difference? ). or do i overlook something and overidentify? consider these concepts for sheer comparision:

* (energy) / (nature) / (essence)
* (actuality) / (possibility, potentiality) / (virtuality)
* (responsiveness) / (actuality) / (facticity)
* (body) / (soul) / (spirit)
* (action) / (perception,experience) / (thought)
* (body) / (voice,speech,sound) / (mind)
* (nirmanakaya) / (sambhogakaya) / (dharmakaya)
* (indivisibility) / (clarity, continuity) / (emptiness)
* (massive beings) / (light beings / (abstract(formless) beings)
* (desire realm,being) / (form realm,beings) / (formless realm,beings)
...

well, the 'many layers of word' are its many contexts ? or are the many layers of word the many ways of re.presentation through which words can be interpreted/represented ? how does that relate to (rennaissance:perspective / now:4d) ? is this multi-dimensionality popping up in so many fields the same as these many layers of words ? layer of word being a semantic level ?
can we span the opening between the thought and action, i.e. can we truly (or actually, in your terms) be multidimensional not only in perception but also in expression? for me, this experientially mean: if, then how can we get through words into gnosemic languaguing realms, i.e how can we get conscious beyond the 3d construct we posses and caress within our habitualy rigid 3d minds, and integrate that consciousness with our 'ordinary' actions [of minds/voices(breaths)/bodies during the cycle of day&night]. is this what is happening ?

reminds me of the sf novel 'the city'. it's author clifford simak spans some 300000 years of human, dogs, ant, robot, mutant, and some other's prolly future. among many streams of this transtemporal meta-narrative, there is one tiny thread talking about human mutant Joe. this guy stoles an unfinished theory of communication, made by a being from Mars or wherever(my memory is dim...), which could propel humankind in its understanding by hundreds of thousands years forward. it was unfinished because the only guy(human) able to do surgery of this et-man's brain was agoraphobic due to change in cultural style & technologies (well, rather by his inability to understand himself). then later, Joe visits the descendants of that family, shows finished theory but doesn't give it, leaves and 'forgets' a kaleidoscope of a special kind. now the guy looks 'accidentaly' in it, and... ther's no way back. his mind is caught by the proportions of the transformation of the light patterns, and he can never more not understand what his fellow human beings FEEL and MEAN, he cannot misunderstand, he cannot be misunderstood. some flip happens. the 'abstract' & 'specific' interpenetrate. or are just realized awareness as/ by their indivisibililty ? as if the subjective was being pushed more out into the open and open sucked into the experiential realm of ordinary humans.

is this nondual ? i don't know. this is how i look.

[wendy]

There is no magic number of layers between things. It's not as if we're making trinities, or hexinities or whatever. It's kind of like this.

Actuallity is like a television screen. A television just shows a mass of dots, and then spits out another mass of dots. It makes us no sense, so we form patterns of the dots.

Actually is then like the ground, and words are clouds that cover the ground. We understand things by covering the ground with clouds, and clouds to make sense of clouds. There is no magic number of clouds one can cover. Each cloud is a mind-word.

When we speak, we say only the words, and not the connexions. You can read the clouds i use, but you must infer the connexions i make. For this, you might assume certian things exist, certian connexions exist that do not. Or the cloud might be by you two different words, which you have to pick the right one.

Your reality then lies in the way you make and use these mind-clouds. It is different to mine, because i use these differently.

People who are autostic can not form clouds easily, so they deal with the raw ground much closer than normal folk do. It is easy to show, by trying to draw a picture upside-down vs the right way up. The upside down picture is a better copy, because the mind is not saying "this is an eye", and drawing an eye. The right-way-up picture looks more like egyptian art. That is, the upside-down view does not have the mind trying to shuffle the 'eye' cloud into the picture.

The idea that there are different layers of notion is for many people very hard to understand. For me i see this easily, and think in this way all the time. It makes it hard for people to read what i say, because my clouds are much smaller and well defined.

When for example, i decry the use of apeirogon to mean an infinite-sided polygon, it is because my notion of infinite-in-space and infinite-in-count do not overlap as infinity.

I don't necessarily buy this notion of fixed layers like reality / nature / actuality. Reality and actuality are ends we can never reach. What we do is to try and hide the actualoty in modules we can operate on.

And in the end, any kind of description of actuality is a particular reality.