A donut is a simple torus. An inflated inner tube is a torus. The magnetic
field of a bar magnet is in this shape. Planets have roughly toroidal
magnetic fields. The torus I speak of is comparable to an electron shell of
an atom in that it is a cloud of probability vectors, in this case the force
vectors are various magnitudes and survival potentials of life. In this
model a person's individual perspective is at the center of the hole of the
donut. The main life vector proceeds straight up. The curving back vectors
represent death that takes us back to the basics from which we evolved. The
rest of the "hole" is the mass of life that has coevolved with us. I've
drawn a little diagram. Want me to include it as an attached graphic file?
Can I do that and what format would be best, i.e. bmp, jpg, tif, gif, etc.
>
>>..... How well we share is the key to attaining immortality as an ever more
>> subjectively observable phenomenon. Currently, sharing is a low priority
>> that has been only sparingly incorporated into the social structure.
>
>
>I am unaware of any sharing that can occur outside of a social structure.
As soon as
>you ave two people, you have a social structure.
>
Aye, but sharing isn't the only thing that happens and grant me the
observation that there are many more generally describable social
experiments going on than just one on one relationships.
>
>
>> ...Interested in the social engineering implications of the torus model?
>
>
>Sure, lay it on.
>
A mathematical formulation of the ideal social state exists. I wouldn't
have come across it in June of '76 without my general cosmological model. I
could post more on it separately as I don't want this thread to be too long.
I could post an essay I wrote "A New Social Theory" and see what you think.
It is 2,000 words long. Any problem with that?
>
>> ...I don't like the term "Virus" for the handle or meme for this religion
that
>> is being expostulated. Consistency is lost. "Virus" means one thing in
>> most science. Why postulate a new religion that requires a new definition
>> in contradiction with known science?...
>
>
>I don't perceive any contradiction. Does anybody else? A virus infects a
host and is
>transmitted by a host. Viruses in computers were called that because they
behave like
>organic viruses.
>
>
> Do we want a religion that adheres to
>> and adds to present science? I would reccommend that the name be something
>> like "Life" or "Life-ism." This would require some explanation as some
>> little known religious concepts incorporate the word "life" or "living" in
>> their handle.
>
>
>
>I think we are losing sense of what memes *are* in this thread. (Like, I'm
one to
>talk. I still have to read the books.) But my first take on memes were that
they were
>not just linguistic ideas, but concepts. That is an idea that, when
studied, gives a
>clue to the environment it came from. Like what Vicki called the "background".
>
>Analysis of a theatre event has, in recent decades, come to include the
"mis en
>scene" of the play. That is, not just the text, but the production values,
the style
>of the costumes, set, and consideration of the audience on a given night.
eg. Hamlet
>performed by working class irish for a working class audience is a completely
>different meme complex than a Hamlet done in Stratford.
>
>Memes are ideas, but they are also a kind of barium that throws the ideals
of a
>culture into sharp profile. They give us a way of apprehending the context.
>
I understand. Still I think something is lost here. In a high information
environment a person may have need to referring to a virus in the biological
sense as well as a "virus" in an extra bit of self-replicating software code
and as a paradigm for a quickly growing and "invasive" idea of religion. At
such times the meme may lead to more confusion than clarification. What is
the mathematical description of a virus? Is there a graphical casual
relationship scheme that is "virus"? This would be the better set of
descriptors to use and it would be universal, just as "torus" is a general
model that has many manifestations in our experiences. I suppose this is
not so important, the map not being the territory, the label not the thing.
Whatever works in the context of the moment would be best.
>
>