How We Forget, (an example)

The interesting topic today is superficially about a subject Jan Cox found  enthralling,  as indeed, he found all things he encountered or sought out, worth pursuing to understand how they work. I refer to cellular structure. 

The link below is to an article discussing a new approach to understanding the cell. This approach involves taking old but valuable words, and giving them new antithetical definitions. When this happens, especially at the rarified intellectual level, the loss in the possibilities of learning may outweigh any gains. At least in this article, and the part I will quote, there is an  awareness of the shift, though not the significance of it.

So from the article at this link,

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/597334/?sc=swhn

we excerpt--

"What's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets. In this way, we see not only what is already known, but also potentially new biological components and processes – the bases for new hypotheses," said Dutkowski.

Originally devised by philosophers attempting to explain the nature of existence, ontologies are now broadly used to encapsulate everything known about a subject in a hierarchy of terms and relationships. Intelligent information systems, such as iPhone's Siri, are built on ontologies to enable reasoning about the real world. Ontologies are also used by scientists to structure knowledge about subjects like taxonomy, anatomy and development, bioactive compounds, disease and clinical diagnosis.

The original purpose, the whole inquiry, denoted by the word ontology, is lost. 

How now should we inquire about existence per se?  Now instead of the edges, the source of existence itself, we mean, if we are a scientist, simply, that which is known about a topic. Any exploration must happen within a verbal framework.

This loss happened before the new approach outlined in the article to which we link. Still, this misuse of a valuable tool, the word, 'ontology', makes any recovery of the original purpose even more challenging. Insights are lost. Yes, the crucial insights must always be won again, by the individual knower. Yes words are a hindrance in real effort. Yet, it helps to be able to point, to have certain words. You never communicate to another, over any expanse of time, without -- words. Even if, as with the works of Jan Cox, what is being communicated, is the ways verbalizations can hinder, sincere effort. 

Pig Man

This quote from a wikipedia article about a religious figure is relevant in our discussions here about the mysticism of Jan Cox. It is relevant because of the etymology of Swithin, Jan said that if you did not understand the etymology of a word you did not understand the word. I point to the meaning of pig man for this saint. It may reflect a genuine apprehension of what is necessary to continue on the path Jan Cox pointed to.


Swithun (or Swithin, Old English: Swīþhūn; died c. 862) was an Anglo-Saxon bishop of Winchester and subsequently patron saint of Winchester Cathedral. His historical importance as bishop is overshadowed by his reputation for posthumous miracle-working. According to tradition, the weather on his feast day (15 July) will continue for forty days. The precise meaning and origin of St Swithin's name is unknown, but it is largely considered to mean 'Pig Man'.^[1] Another possible meaning is "strong".

Platonic perfection and plastic saucers

How man came up with words and writing is a topic some find fascinating and no doubt part of that is the insoluble aspect to the question. But seeing the full moon, made me wonder if our planet had had no moon, would the lack of what seems a perfect sphere, in a world so obviously not, have resulted in our missing this -- a lack impossible to imagine, that we never made the evolutionary leap, to a cerebral stage. 

Suck it in guys

Basic stuff.

In Praise Of, uh, modern culture

One of the most elusive and complex aspects of the great machinery, is the role of the destructive flow in the happening and processing of levels of the great machinery, as Jan Cox called it. There can be no real criticism of, selfish rich people, political tyrannies, once the nature of how the world works is glimpsed. 

Along these lines is the role of imagination. If there is one thing that unites the variety of schools descendent of Gurdjieff it is that identification is a negative thing. Yet let us step back a moment. What may be a stumbling block for the earnest inquirer, could well be, on a larger scale, a critical component of progress. An example of this may be novels. Surely a sober perspective would scrutinize this wanton leap into total imagination, that leap that happens when you open a book of fiction, or tune in some dramatic series. In these circumstances there is no distance between one's attention and the washing machine jumble of externally controlled fantasy. 

And yet, looking at the history of the last few centuries, a characteristic would be just this loosening of imagination, these circumstances and intent which encourage man to live more in utter fantasy. It does not exhaust the subject to remind readers that Jan Cox pointed out how imagination was critical to scientific progress because such imagination allows a rearrangement of the external world, as a guide to what and how things can be changed.

My own assessment of this major characteristic of modernity was that the enormous increase in the flow of imagination was necessary to sop up the extra time now available on the local cerebral level. Now something else is clear.

So far my thoughts are just an elaboration of Jan's point. My point is, as the machinery becomes more complex, and the evolution of Humanity quickens, (another of Jan's points, though he always said these changes were invisible at the life span of an individual), that this evolution is requiring a greater cerebral percolation of imagination. 

My fresh enhancement of this intellectual perspective, is that this growth of imagination must be of major importance to our group survival. And -- that the blindness imagination encourages, is necessary, to actually bring about changes in the external world. Any real grasp of what is going on, might be so alarming as to be debilitating. The machinery as a whole needs this blindness to facilitate change. 

Where the action really is

The article excerpted below hightlights a point Jan Cox made. That processing is necessary for the human brain to assign a meaning to anything.

Matt Dickinson, author of the Mortal Chaos series and one of the Brits who has reached the summit of Mount Everest, offered a surprising insight into life on top of the world once when we met. He said: "When you get up to the very top of Mount Everest there is a remarkable amount of rubbish that has been left behind - old rope, discarded oxygen cylinders, broken tents, beer cans and bottles."

A group of artists have now turned eight tonnes of this trash - including the remains of a helicopter - into works of art and sculpture to highlight the issue of littering on the slopes of Everest. It took 65 porters and 75 yaks to carry down the rubbish from the mountain over two Spring expeditions.

The exhibition of 75 pieces commissioned for the 'Everest 8848 Art Project' is on display in the Nepalese capital Kathmandu before it moves to Pokhara next week.

Project organiser Kripa Rana Shahi said: "We thought that this would help promote the artists as well as contribute to making Everest clean. We were happy to get the trash and (the waste collectors) were happy to get rid of it."

Fifteen Nepalese artists spent a month preparing pieces for the exhibition. In one of the works, by painter and poet Sunita Rana, white shards of aluminium from drinks cans are fashioned into medals signifying the bravery of mountaineers, while black metal tent poles are transformed into a wind chime

Jan's point was that a sincere quester would look NOT the "to" or the "fro", of living, but the inbetween. Not the Everest peak, or Kathmandu, but the trip itself. 

The difference between Jan Cox and the best of academe

 Strunk and White  advised writers to "omit needless words,"  when addressing others. Jan Cox said to "omit words" addressing yourself.