"I've actually gotten parallel multitasking to work several times. But I
always realize it -- with both minds -- and then the multitask
collapses. I think the trick lies in never letting them think similar
things, becuase that always brings them together.
Anyway, the point of this ramble is this: I am trying to *train* another
of your "sparks of life"... that is, I want *two*. I'll let you know if
and when I get 'em... since that would be some measure of evidence that
such things exist!"
ERiC
Eric,
There are tricks to "parallel multitasking". Try using a paradox as your
central point of departure/arrival. (Train yourself to say "that's it" for
example, meaning both "that's it" and "that's not it". When the multitasks
converge, say "that's it"--sends them shooting off in opposite directions
again; or, start with the concept that ALL things are different...you arrive
at a point that seems to be the same; but you have already set up that they
will be different.) I use a different method...I assume that ALL things are
exactly the same. Every time I get a thought (which implies association
between two different things), that must be a multitask: Things which
appear unrelated MUST be related, my thought and the comment on TV. You
can also set up two distinct personalities which cannot communicate with
each other (an idea I've been working on). If one personality forms a
logical conclusion, the other MUST form a different logical conclusion
(although there may or may not be simultaneous recognition of the fact; in
fact, to generate "power" between memespheres, there is evidence that moving
all of your eggs from one full basket to another generates this dissonence).
I also like to contemplate reality from two directions at once and converge
these in the center (from the idea of a prime cause and a prime effect, for
example).
*Two* sparks of life! Really beyond my intellectual ability to comprehend
why you would want to do this (but I only believe in a life instinct and not
a death instinct...a tree, but no "not-tree"...ie, no hell). You are in
good company with this endevor, however. There are those who seem to think
that the world would be a boring place if it were totally cooperative...they
need a double prime cause to explain how we can continue NOT to get along.
You may have given me a clue to your motivation when you said that there was
something missing in the circular systematic view (to which I agree). I
think one takes this circle into ones being and THEN continues to grow in a
linear fashion...to develop ( I also think that this circular "entity" is
the meme and that our continued development is the "irrigation project").
Still, try--if you can--to explain to me why the system which adds to 1 (or
one whole, The All, etc.) is inferior to a system which adds to two--as we
can always take on different roles within this singular grand drama. You
may can tell from this post that I am certainly interested in what you have
to say.
Brett
A couple of other points: In my studies, multitasking is related to
addiction--feeling the highs and then the lows and jonesing for the highs
again (first the one then the other mind). A house divided against itself
falls (and it is not good to watch you destroy yourself). Cautions against
practicing this "game" (forewarned is forearmed).
Also, did you look at Drakir's meme page? My "time chain" is at
http://members.tripod.com/~Drahcir/memes/meme_sigil.html and the first meme
is defined by that circular system you referred to "create/destroy" (as you
may or may not be aware of).
...At 09:39 PM 8/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>> I do believe that Everything is zero sum. On the other hand, I see
>In a sense, EVERYTHING is. But only collectively.
>> "efficiency" as being important. Take the illustration of a flooding river
>> (The Nile?). It has a quantity of water which adds to itself (is zero sum).
>> If irrigation ditches are created this energy is diffused and used
>> efficiently; but (in the purest sense), no new energy is created. the
>> destructive power of the river (atom, mind, meme), is harnessed and put to
>> work. The river which would have destroyed is used for a positive purpose.
>> Is the river made "bigger"? No; More complex? Perhaps. Is it "transmuted"?
>This is a good analogy. Reminds me of "responsible freedom", and the
>circular power generating systems we talked about earlier.
>BTW: it occured to me that *life* itself is in fact such a circular
>construct. We live, only to die. Circular! The trick, you see, is that
>such circular positions, while actually containing *nothing* (life is
>meaningless!), such circular platforms actually contain the entire
>world!
>Creation and destruction. The ultimate circular constructs!
>> I think the mind is capable of transfering energy from one meme to another.
>> I think it is efficient at using energy. I do--however--see a "spark of
>> life" which is needed to power it. I do not think that we are capable of
>> producing that spark internally. I see a "process" or meta-meme which has
>> an original inception (is the prime cause), which is capable of becoming
>> more complex and efficient but which is not capable of becoming *more*--one
>> original meta-meme which is organized and transmitted between the parts of
>> itself according to ones "capacity" to utilize it).
>hmmm. An "original spark of life". Looks like dangerous territory. An
>idea so similar to "soul" that you can't have missed it...
>I've be training my mind reciently to *consciously* double-task. I
>started with simple linear multitasks in Netscape... you know, open two
>windows and swich back and forth bewteen them every minuite, or every
>link.
>But I've moved up now to *parallel* tasks. Literally thinking about two
>things at once. We all do it sometimes... you know, walk and talk. But
>I'm trying to *internal* thought processes. Some very weird things
>happen.
>And I've stepped up the serial tasks... four or five windows...
>I've actually gotten parallel multitasking to work several times. But I
>always realize it -- with both minds -- and then the multitask
>collapses. I think the trick lies in never letting them think similar
>things, becuase that always brings them together.
>Anyway, the point of this ramble is this: I am trying to *train* another
>of your "sparks of life"... that is, I want *two*. I'll let you know if
>and when I get 'em... since that would be some measure of evidence that
>such things exist![1]
>ERiC
>[1] The current idea is that once I have two, I'll work on sending one
>to hell, and the other to heaven... don't want to miss out on any
>"afterlife" experiences! :->
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
The saying that beauty is but skin deep is but a skin deep
saying.
John Ruskin