A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in...

38
A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems in the curious way the Blind Brain 1 / “Predictive Process 2 ” model causes consciousness to emerge. Nothing delusional about that. Daniel J. McKaughan's info-packed paper From Ugly Duckling to Swan: Charles Sanders Peirce https://muse.jhu.edu/article/252833 well summarizes the life and work of a now revered logician, mathematician, cognitive scientist as well as a founder of semiotics & precursor of post-modern philosophy. In From Ugly Duckling, Kepler's “Aha!'s” are offered as examples of abductive rea- soning; as contrasted with deduction and induction, “abduction” being the very curious way that when confronted with often conflicting observations, our potentially enormously creative mind- ing and re-minding processes can often end up with reasonable hypotheses worthy of exploration. In McKaughan's paper, a step-by-step case is proposed that abductive reasoning was utilized by Kepler to solve the hugely complex riddle of the harmony of the spheres. Whether or not Kepler's above lyrical outburst about the sun of enlightenment gradually bursting through the darkness of ignorance was appropriate, such a prophet of science might well be excused for what seems to us to be merely a light show of pure ego. In any case, Kepler did not let Tycho Brahe's Gordian Knot treasure trove of planetary wendings get in the way of elegantly cutting through and then past many seemingly antagonistic planetary motion conflicts, once thought of as inherent within the age-old harmony of the spheres. His Three Laws: 1) The orbit of each planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of each ellipse's two foci (this first law repeating Copernicus' paradigm-changing hypothesis to concoct a world-view dangerously counter to prevailing common sense); 2) A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time (this second law very similar to Ptolemy's “equant” – as well as Copernicus' use of an extra epicycle/ circle circling a circle); and 3) The square of the orbital period of a planet being proportional to the cube of the semi-axis of the major axis of its orbit (this last “Aha!” being the lever/key which enab- led Newton to unlock the door to his own Three Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.) Though not the kind of “miracles” hoped for when many folks use A Course In Miracles, cannot a case be made that all such abductive guesses which are based on observations that foster more and closer looks, are a variety of miracle? If so, can't a case be made our cups runneth over with “miracles”; major non-linear scientific and mathematical “Aha!'s” that cause us to exclaim joy- ful awe with utterances such as “Oh God!”& “Oh Lordie!” & “Mira, Mira, Look. Look!”, when

Transcript of A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in...

Page 1: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding:Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems in the curious way the Blind Brain1/“Predictive Process2” model causes consciousness to emerge. Nothing delusional about that.

Daniel J. McKaughan's info-packed paper From Ugly Duckling to Swan: Charles Sanders Peirce https://muse.jhu.edu/article/252833 well summarizes the life and work of a now revered logician, mathematician, cognitive scientist as well as a founder of semiotics & precursor of post-modern philosophy. In From Ugly Duckling, Kepler's “Aha!'s” are offered as examples of abductive rea-soning; as contrasted with deduction and induction, “abduction” being the very curious way that when confronted with often conflicting observations, our potentially enormously creative mind-ing and re-minding processes can often end up with reasonable hypotheses worthy of exploration.In McKaughan's paper, a step-by-step case is proposed that abductive reasoning was utilized by Kepler to solve the hugely complex riddle of the harmony of the spheres. Whether or not Kepler'sabove lyrical outburst about the sun of enlightenment gradually bursting through the darkness ofignorance was appropriate, such a prophet of science might well be excused for what seems to us to be merely a light show of pure ego. In any case, Kepler did not let Tycho Brahe's Gordian Knot treasure trove of planetary wendings get in the way of elegantly cutting through and then past many seemingly antagonistic planetary motion conflicts, once thought of as inherent within the age-old harmony of the spheres. His Three Laws: 1) The orbit of each planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of each ellipse's two foci (this first law repeating Copernicus' paradigm-changing hypothesis to concoct a world-view dangerously counter to prevailing common sense); 2) A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time (this second law very similar to Ptolemy's “equant” – as well as Copernicus' use of an extra epicycle/ circle circling a circle); and 3) The square of the orbital period of a planet being proportional to the cube of the semi-axis of the major axis of its orbit (this last “Aha!” being the lever/key which enab-led Newton to unlock the door to his own Three Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.)

Though not the kind of “miracles” hoped for when many folks use A Course In Miracles, cannot a case be made that all such abductive guesses which are based on observations that foster more and closer looks, are a variety of miracle? If so, can't a case be made our cups runneth over with “miracles”; major non-linear scientific and mathematical “Aha!'s” that cause us to exclaim joy-ful awe with utterances such as “Oh God!”& “Oh Lordie!” & “Mira, Mira, Look. Look!”, when

Page 2: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

our minds boldly face up to monumental mind-blowers; versus more linear smaller road bump curiosities when we just yawn upon coming upon oddities like this: the Hebrew “Yah”, meaning “The Lord”, is usually taken to mean “God”, even if it is the Hebrew “El” that means “God”. All such “God sends” -- unlike dreams which come true -- are, of course, as scientifically real and as truly logical as the discovery by Copernicus that the stationary earth revolves around the sun; surely one of the greatest discoveries of human history. Another pair are the discoveries of Keplerand Newton per why and how the earth revolves around the sun. However, all that said, perhaps an even greater miracle is that of the more post-modern prophet of science, Einstein, who did not let Isaac Newton’s paradigm stop him from looking even further, until one day first seeing specialrelativity and then later general relativity. So in today's world of nanotechnology, 3D printing, 5g .., only God knows what next “Look! Look!” miracle of science too will soon be emerging, pulled down from Heaven or pulled up from Hell, and either way, simply by looking around the corner rather than seeing what is straight ahead? Either way, as we seek to predict the future, although Kepler might now be seen as delusional for thinking the planets matched up with Platonic Solids, as he was able to look at all of the facts and see through and beyond the conventional wisdom of his “burn heretics at the stake at the drop of a hat” times, should we not at least tip our hats with hip, hip, hooray sentiments per one of the most mind-changing scientists in science's history!

As this is a mind-bending course about the scientific miracle called “predictive minding” we focusbelow on how to use hyperbolic thinking; that is, we show how gestalt processes can enable us to become more accustomed to predicting what is needed to better negotiate a kind of “hyperbolic” problem and solution space akin to Minkowski's mathematical one: our core hypothesis is that the more you habitually look at more possibilities, the more you can see and profit from making more and better decisions and predictions. Topics from several areas of life will be grist for our mind-bending & mending mills, from politics and religion to math and science – and beyond. Neither this course, nor its accompanying textbook below in the form of a pamphlet, are typical linear presentations of topics and facts. We often use non-linear ebbs & flows herein so as enable you to vigorously practice recursive minding as a way of breaking out of one's current cognitive prisons, so as to rise to new & more expansive predictive process cognitive clouds. You are about to be inundated with all sorts of information crafted to “show-er” you with insights not usually grasped and wrestled with, let alone prevailed over. For example, it is worth noting here that eventhough the Copernican Revolution changed our view of our place in the solar system, our bodies have never changed theirs. Our circadian body clocks still regulate our organs, cells and more than twenty-five percent of our genes, based upon where our bodies and minds think we are in the passage of real day and night, as per the rising & setting of the sun (and moon.) Indeed, the new science of chronobiology has for many years been teaching us that, depending on the cancer and chemo medicines, the natural times when patients are given chemo can greatly reduce the effects of very bad side-effects, as well as greatly increase effectiveness; in both cases by as much as twenty-five percent. What a shame most doctors do not have any time to mind that “Aha!” Seehttps://www.chronobiology.com/how-chronobiology-is-affecting-cancer-treatment/ for more details.

1The Blind Brain as a Predictive Process which gives rise to consciousness is well described in R. ScottBakker's paper The Last Magic show: A Blind Brain Theory of the Appearance of Consciousness. That paper is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Scott_Bakker within the larger context of his various works of both fiction and non-fiction. Our course features a “from bottom up, x, to top-down, y,“predictive process” model context for both. We hope that it will be intriguing and thought-provoking. 2tFor more context, see http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/philosophy-in-an-age-of-cognitive-science/. 3See also Prof. Link R. Swanson's The Predictive Processing Paradigm Has Roots in Kant, as found at Fontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00079/full

Page 3: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

Uncommon Common Sense:Shallow Vs. Deep Curiosity.

by Yale S.Y. Landsberg; M.S. Operations Research

AsUsing

UncommonCommon Sense

Can Be Very Challenging,ON TWO LOGICAL CHOICES:CLEAVING TO AND FROM....

I took a leap and missed.And fell and hurt myself.

Extremely badly. But not enoughAnd because I hurt, to stop me. Because

I will not try again. Heaven's gift ofNot even blessed Thriving is both

Arriving is worth prize and pricethe blood of Striving for Living.Either you accept now utter defeat. Or you decide once more to try.

Whiners clothe their lowly cowardice with lofty “explanations”;Winners seek to stand up again, almost learning how to fly,

Using both sticks & stones to climb up towards the Sky!From the Urn of

Ammonius Saccas* – Hieronomus Anonymous.*Ammonius Saccas is known only because

he had two famous disciples: Plotinus, founder of Neo-Platonism, the last

Pagan philosophy & Origin, anearly Doctor of the Christian

Church. How Curious?Copyright (c) 2018, Sticks & Stones Press, Lake Monticello, VA USA.

We start with two examples of good and/or bad “mind-bending” depending on your perspectivesabout re-minding: 1) “These aren't the droids you're looking for,”; and 2) I pledge allegiance to my

Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Pledge was written by socialist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892. 126 years later, are we inan uncivil war? If so, is there a way to heal our house divided as well as make ourselves more “atone” in many others ways too? For us, the 99%, more to the point: Can a curious kind of arith-metical bending provide a route from conflict to harmony in the uncommon common sense “ex-verse” indivisible way that dividing any number by zero (n/0) can be inverted to be acceptable?More specifically, as dividing zero by numbers other than zero (0/n) can now be proven equal tomultiples and parts of 0, when feeling at a loss do we empower ourselves by standing atop a pileof zeroes instead of being at ground zero being crushed by a mountain of negatives? Is the spiritof both Euclid, who thought it worthwhile to sacrifice time & effort to raise up great stones, andNewton who wedded gravity to math, can we too pull down gravitas to invoke up-lifting forces?

Page 4: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

In the land of the near-sighted, the far-sighted often profit greatly via making more and better predictions

When it comes to rising to challenges such as prevailing over adversities and understanding long compound sentences as in the above preamble, do not most of us who only see the down-sides tend to prefer to give up; whereas others “blessed” with the virtues of patience and fortitude and optimism get down to business? As in Thomas Paine's Common Sense, our pamphlet, too, often uses long compound sentences to pass along to the right kind of readers complex and convoluted ideas that need to be deconstructed to be of use; the kind of info not well pitched, caught and well understood by using attention-grabbing bumper-sticker brevity. More so, this next compound question, also meant to be of service in early on orienting your minding processes to our course and pamphlet about uncommon common sense: Why do we use the term “uncommon common sense” when, obviously, “rare common sense“ will do; plus, in any case, is “uncommon common sense” a good or bad thing?

We do so, 1st, because rare common sense is only one kind of uncommon common sense; and, 2nd, because any answer to that question depends on what is meant by the odd term “uncommon common sense”? To the extent under-using common sense is the norm when making decisions, “uncommon common sense” can be seen as bad,as dumb-downed common sense often leads to all sorts of problems and conflicts; both personal ones – and oftencatastrophic mistakes on a larger social and political stage. But if we take the term “uncommon” to mean rare and good, then cannot an uncommon common sense case be made that, in these ever more challenging days of we the 99% vs. them the 1%/.1%, all of us “commoners” now urgently need commoner/more common common sense? That said, you can apply this course and pamphlet’s game-changing “Axiom of Contingent Cognition” (ACC) using grade school common sense about the similar, but different natures of “0 over 1/n = n(0)” vs. “1 over 1/n = n(1)” to reduce confusing rhetoric and notch up your own cognitive gestalt “either/or” processes, as described below per many aspects of your life; school, work, sports, politics, church, hobbies...

By both comparing and contrasting uncommon common sense in both ways, by using thenumber 1 on the bent number line as a “common sense” baseline (one with multiples of 1meaning progressively better common sense and parts of 1 meaning regressively worse common sense), can some of us commoners, both as individuals, and also collectively, at least hope to make more and better decisions in a world where, here and there, the virtuesof patience and fortitude are now as much dead ducks as the notion of virtue itself?

Such is not for most readers. But some of you might seek to see how using both kinds of uncommon common sense in a sort of revolutionary way could contribute to positive political, religious and other revolutions; and maybe even result in some next truly great great awakening of free-thinking. How? As surely replacing the 3+ centuries old Newton & Cartesian revolution with the 100+ years later Boltzmann/Ein-stein & Cantor/Godel “two sides of the same new physics/new math coin” one, ended our old belief in absolutes as well as gave rise to our modern belief that everything is relative, could us now making a next post-modern paradigm-shift from past x Aha! to future y Aha! enable us to leap forward and up rather than being pulled down in these on-the-border-of-civil-war times? Obviously, not likely. Yet why not hope so if there really is any value in replacing one's shallow curiosity with deep curiosity as you are taking this course, including reading this un-common pamphlet which seeks to apply heightened common sense to a spectrum of life activities from politics and religion to math, science and cognitive sciences such as psychology and deep learning artificial intelligence.

All that is wholly and totally dependent on how much you decide to use your own deep curiosity versus shallow curiosity as described with uncommon common sense detail below. As you can soon see, this pamphlet has been purposely written to help you experience a kind of mystical experience-like ebbing and flowing of unexpected uncommon notions, where and when all sorts of information pours into one’s mind to later be sorted out as much as possible often for many years to come and go. Of course, that depends on whether your own deep and heavy-lifting contemplations now and later really can and will lead you to being able to make more and better common sense predictions and decisions? In any case, good luck with our mind-bending & stretching pamphlet'sinfo-packed long sentences. Modern life seduces our shallow curiosities into using tiny cognitive “buffers” and that, alas, is like processing short SQL queries; whereas, Dick Yevich, past-master of long SQL queries, taught us this: When it comes to wrestling with enormous amounts of complex data: 1st use long SQL queries for data manipulation; and then code the results to display that SQL manipulated data. That distinction organically yieldsmore and better information. Can using mathematical rigor and flexibility with large cognitive buffers actually notch up our decision-making in every area of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Let's see.

Page 5: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

Honor Roll

“Curiosity killed the cat.” No better way to kill a child’s sense of wonder? Well, actually there is. Most students soon learn to follow all the rules of their schools. That way, they get the best grades. And yet history is peppered, salted and otherwise seasoned with the antics of those who have bent all sorts of rules. Newton whose math and physics can be seen as two sides of the same dual-aspect monism coin was also Newton the Alchemist. And how curious that Ramanujan got his theorems via mystical experi-ences. Plus Friedrich Auguste Kekule literally dreamed up the structure of the benzene ring. That being said, much of this pamphlet's contents are results of several such unaccountable experiences. How and why they were given is a still open question. One day that might be answered by one or more of you through application of your deepest of deep curiosity. Or just out of the blue! To assist you either way, our pamphlet seeks to give you -- with no silliness, a feel for the episodic nature of such experiences.

Using “delusional” creativity is for those of us not afraid of of freedom of thought. So who better to lead off this Honor Roll than neuro-guru Rex Jung for his TED Talk on Creativity and the Brain at youtu.be/SWIXfNEDy3g & his Evolution, creativity, intelligence, and madness: “Here Be Dragons”.And Michael Michaldo who describes 122 IQ Richard Feynman's formula: “be ignorant of what every-body else [is] doing and make [your] own interpretations and guesses”, at http://creativethinking.net.

Another person on this Honor Roll is Dr. Gene Amdahl, the Chief Architect of the IBM 360. During a business dinner, I once asked him if he might be open to solving a little puzzle that had come to me years before; a puzzle about the nature of change. Called in this pamphlet, the Templix Puzzle, Gene solved it in about twelve seconds. It had taken me three weeks to solve it. After which, he was so taken with the Templix Puzzle that, having solved it he asked me to pass the butter, and never mentioned the puzzle again. But at least, he had verified my four-part answer, the first of many verifications since.

Dr. Wil too is on this Honor Roll. A world-respected neuroscientist and educator, and my mentor on an almost daily basis via phone for almost ten years. When I told him that I was going to have this Honor Roll include some curious facts about math, science, cogsci, politics and religion, he pointed out to me that religion is a frame of reference that seeks to express reverence. He has no reverence for politics.

CAPT Robert Lawn, USN retired, is on this Honor Roll as well. A former Naval Flight Officer, who forseven years taught strategic thinking at National Defense University and was a Senior Fellow; and also gave Intelligence briefings to multiple Executive Branch agencies. With the pamphlet since its start.Joseph Lawn here too. Joe has advised me on the Templix as well as deep learning/neural nets. Having attended Dick Yevich’s long SQL queries course, Joe reminded me of Dick’s introductory statement.

Doyle E. Carter had been a close friend/adviser on the Templix and much more for over forty years. Hereminded me of Feynman’s lecture (given decades before nanotechnology began), plus a lot else here.

Moshe Klein is here for reasons that will soon become very apparent, as is Prof. Oded Maimon.

Also: Stephen Paul King, who first saw the Templix as a generalization of fractals; and Prof. Roy Wagner & Ginger McCarthy, without whom I'd never have kept on wrestling with Whatever. Plus, my brother Mason, Mark Chapman, Son of the American Revolution, active in many progressive causes.

David Fenster, last, but not least. Maybe even first. The best example of someone I know who applies the deepest curiosity to the most practical things. His view of product development and marketing is allabout about consequences of consequences of consequences... With great emphasis on kindness, David plays chess with reality. Both very “Templixy” & “Beth El”. He has been my best friend for 65+ years.

Beyond last and surely first, my family: Jackie, Larry, Jeffrey, Jackson, Cara and Aimee. One day I hope to warrant just some of the love that you always shower on me.

Page 6: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

This pamphlet shows how our two kinds of curiosity are always ducking under each other as they are duking it out. The more curious you are about that “Can't lay a glove on me” boxing match, the more your curiosity may be rewarded short-term. But, short-term, it may be a total waste of time. Either way,should you become increasingly curious about shallow vs. deep curiosity, your investment of time with that “Look this way, no look that way” conflict may longer-term end up greatly helping you with read-ing bosses, colleagues and customers' tells, and thus spot purposely-given misinformation. Indeed, it is hoped all of that will, with greater speed and accuracy, help you decide better in many circumstances. (Notice the origin of “circumstance”:“circum”, as in circle, and “stance” as in an upright standing 1.)

Along the way here, you will also practice making more informed decisions about aspects of math, science, cog sci, etc., almost never looked at even by experts. Yet as most readers care little about that, you will have chances to apply fuzzy logic rigor to several pressing political issues of the day. For example, this pamphlet includes some references to Charles Ortel and David Cay Johnston, two investigative reporters who often play on two opposing teams in a journalism game of “I am right”, “No I am right”. Charles is a Harvard and Yale-educated conservative who finds common cause with many on the Left, such as activist, Utrice Leid; whereas, Pulitzer-prize winner, David is Left through and through. A useful contrast, as is it not curious, and thus potentially useful grist for our practical curiosity mills, how some people can find common ground on an issue, whereas, others have no need to? Is that why so many “sure thing” campaigns led from the top, e.g., sports and political, advertising, military... fail to work out very well? Whereas, rebellious stars often have long strings of slam dunks!

Our “How to look at more to see more” course of study uses an equal-opportunity Axiom of ContingentCognition (ACC) that begets a recursive “Yes, but” starting & ending point co-process. Our ACC leads to a kind of Blind Brain/Predictive Process algorithm of sorts, a one-size-fits-all emergent view of both change and homeostasis that you can then apply to a wide variety of decisions. As the etymology of theword “conceal” is akin to the etymology of “cancel”, plus, as the etymology of “reveal”/“uncover”, curiously, is “re-veil”/“to recover”, if truth be told – and as truth ever has at least two different sides -- by trading in our shallow curiosities for notched up deep ones, such gestalt from x to y trading helps us make bee lines towards awesome and useful Aha!'s.

We start with the below “Tree Of Knowledge Before And After Eden/It's a jungle in here & out there” creative spin on the above gestalt image called the Rubin’s Vase. Imagine Charles and David in their contest (one which makes Stanley's Cup look like a genteel vase of flowers awaiting hockey's winning bouquet) facing off against each other. Never shyly taking turns competing for our attention & bravos.

Page 7: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

To their fans, their equally thought-provoking wars of words often end up smelling like roses. Howeversometimes even the biggest fan may detect a whiff of bull stuff mixing in. Once you notice that bull as the end-product of cheating to win at all costs by taking advantage of your good-natured team spirit, you are ready to look more closely. Such new info might shake you up about what is good & bad and what is right & wrong. Curiosity can be a blessing and/or a bummer. It all depends on if and how much you can entertain a contentious discovery by looking at it from another contending side. We all have such Aha! moments from time to time, yet we often prefer to ignore them after one of our curiosities has sought to grasp, wrestle with and prevail over the other. Winning can be mighty painful as well as blessedly profitable. Yet, surely, is that not a sufficient reason to take the contents of this little pamphletseriously, while hopefully having fun playing around with its self empowering thoughtful experiments?

Tentatively looking at something familiar in a whole new light, then seeing things about it that you mayor may not have wanted to see can be pure gold – once you recover. To become better at winning such wrestling matches, it is pointed out here and now at the starting gate that regardless of topic or issue, a madman sees what others do not see, whereas a genius is able to show it to them. Geniuses such as Newton and Planck come to mind. That being said, a case can be made that many of the beliefs that we have in mathematics, science, politics, religion, etc., rules discouraging further curiosity, are often the results of “either/or” conflicts that were decided, often a very long time ago, through various voting processes that have a great deal of the look and feel of completed sports events. After which we are taught to obey the rules of whatever side has won. Sometimes those set-in-stone guard rails of what is right and what are wrong can last for decades, centuries or even millennia. Think “Team Nicea” and “Team Copenhagen”. Of shorter duration, of course, are the eight years of Repub W and Dem Obama decisions that some skeptics say was a tag-team match. Idle curiosity, alas, loves conspiracy theories.

This pamphlet proposes a different approach. In its admittedly odd duck way, it seeks to follow in an often unconventional wisdom tradition, that of seeking to show one's fellow cognitive caravan travelersthrough life more how to look than where to look, so that those who have had their fill of both blue pillsand red pills can see, then decide for and by themselves what is best for each and/or all of us? Yet whileit is now our time at bat, not so fast! For is it not so that when one competing team tells us to look at and see only what is good for all of us, we get versions of communism -- and not just in politics. What happens to gifted math and science students if and when they are not treated as special? On the other hand, when the libertarian team is telling us to look at and see what is only good for each of us cannot that sooner or later result in unfettered capitalism, along with little or no concern for the educationally-challenged? Thank God for them that there is Mathematical Mindsets and maybe our notions here too.

Therefore, as a way to avoid well-meaning fixes destined to, alas, lead to broken choices, what if we instead ask a decidedly curious question: Might some kind of admitted naive and informal exploration of how switching between opposite views of gestalt images, such as two faces viewing each other, reconnect us with a spiritually and materially legendary way of looking for and seeing new aspects of many matters, not just political ones? Well, not likely. Instead, we are merely proposing that by lookingmore closely at the operations of the back and forth ebbs and flows between one view of an either/or circumstance or issue, and its other side, in much the same way that we look at Rubin‘s Vase, many more of us are able to come back into more direct contact with a self-reprogramming methodology or formula or whatever systematically going off and coming on in our minds that might help make better decisions; a systematically operating something that, if not actually literally – at least poetically, seems to “guide” and even “guard” all maximally successful societies and equally creative psyches. And in much the same collectively and individually balanced, personal and common wealth, way, which the founders of the U.S.A. scrupulously followed as they were wrestling with each cornerstone life, liberty and pursuit of happiness issue to create the U.S. Constitution. A rule of law with justice for almost all. But, of course, not all. And, these days, with lots of bad decisions being made. Time to change that?

Page 8: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

If you are game, to fulfill the promise of this curiosity for better times for all pamphlet, how about if wenow look more closely in turn for a while at this Rubin's Vase versus Two Faces gestalt image again,

this time with the kind of curiosity used to get results well beyond just wasting time being entertained? Can you intuit the sweetest of sweet-smelling roses about to be put in the vase by the winning team, in this case both you and your personal cognitive processing unit?

So if you choose to journey further into this pamphlet, one especially created for decision-makers who have no hope of finding The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but at least a good try here and there, be prepared to find a curious version of something that seems much needed these days: a rule-bending without breaking paradigm or whatever for mixing in a peaceful way healthy skepticismwith contingent progress.

Such an “honest broker” method may well be hard to believe. You did not achieve so much in your life by being a sucker. So be as skeptical as you would like. On the other hand, also consider for a moment the verifiable fact that we are referring to a mathematical algorithm and scientific model of change and homeostasis which even now is the foundation for a college-level data-mining course being taught in a tiny country far away, at a university that is very well-known for math, science and tech advances. Thatcountry is located very near the middle of the world, according to Wegener's “Continental Drift” theory,which proposed that all of the earth’s continents began as one giant land mass before it began doing its geo-rockin' and rollin' thing; What evolved into the theory of tectonic plates was no less hard to accept than ours now. Yet how rapidly all that changed for Wegener and fans as soon as the right academic naysayers decided to use their practical curiosity to look closer, instead of using their idle curiosity to be merely amused.

By now you have seen that this pamphlet's attempt at recreating the often non-linear ebb & flow of a mystical experience is like the real one (to the extent a mystical experience is real.) No chapters, no page numbers, and paragraphs that often are not paragraphs. That being said, rather than now us pole-vaulting into details of the algorithm or model or whatever later to be revealed about how to notch up practical curiosity to make better decisions for real world challenges, not just ivory towers, it is helpful to first slide into first base by making a much greater distinction between “idle curiosity” and “practicalcuriosity”.

Especially helpful if you agree your idle curiosity can often not be working in your best interests. And, even worse, is often working against them. For better and/or worse, that realization serves to awaken all of us to a major source of how we often go about blithely self-sabotaging our creativity, with some help from our daily and nightly “friends”: Yes, the full weight of a post-modern culture that is often systematically operating against our own best interests in many ways. Want proof? How likely is it that you are now obsessed with keeping track of Twitter feeds, FaceBook notifications, and text messages... even as compared with the many hours you not too long ago were perhaps wasting on TV and cable? The lords of mainstream media, and now also the lords of alternate media, both often take away much more than they give in terms of really useful info. So get ready for another non-linear “core dump”, a term used in the early days of mainframe and later laptop computers to describe getting a lot of data all at once, all to be found in the same place, so as to enable specially-trained investigators to find and solve tough computer programming errors, such as dividing by zero!

Page 9: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

What happens when we dare to stop using the computer as the core model of consciousness?

According to the predictive view as described in Charles D. Gilbert's Brain and Mariano Sigman's Top Down Influences In Sensory Processing at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627307003765, “... expectations mediated through feedback connections represent top-down information which are compared and integrated with bottom-up signals communicated through feedforward connections, a process accomplished through specific synchronization patterns visible across different levels of the hierarchy (Kveraga et al., 2007b) and changes in connectivity between relevant regions (den Ouden et al., 2009). It has already been described that mismatches which are detected through such a comparison elicit more pronounced responses which get communicated to the next level in the hierarchy using feedforward connections. The size of such mismatches (prediction error) is suggested to reflect surprise which the brain tries to minimize in order to maintain present and future stability (Friston and Stephan, 2007). In contrast, matches produce non-salient responses and their overall processing is suppressed. In this view, postulated predictions act as a form of perceptual filter, as their accuracy determines which information is suppressed at an earlier processing stage (match) and what is com-municated to a higher level (mismatch). It has been suggested that this conceptualization may be incompatible with current theories of attention which posit an enhancement of stimulus-driven activity that it is consistent with top-down bias communicated through feedback connections (Desimone and Duncan, 1995; Summerfield and Egner, 2009). However, it has recently been demonstrated that this may not be the case, as the predictive coding model can be considered mathematically equivalent with a particular form of biased competition model of attention (Spratling, 2008a,b).”

Ironically, R. S. Bakker in https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/16774964-framing-on-alien-philosophy uses the above predictive process brain model's attempt at pinning down how consciousnessemerges to show that consciousness and intentionality are illusions! “We should expect human philosoph-ical practice will express, in a variety of ways, the problem-solving limitations of deliberative metacognition.

Which seems equally safe. But note how the terrain of the philosophical debate regarding the nature of the soul has changed. Any claim purporting the exceptional nature of this or that intentional phenomena now needs to run the gauntlet of (5). Why assume we cognize something ontologically exceptional when we know we are bound to be duped somehow? All things being equal, mediocre explanations will always trump exceptional ones,after all.

The challenge of (5) has been around for quite some time, but if you read (precritical) eliminativists like Churchland, Stich, or Rosenberg, this is where the battle grinds to a standstill. Why? Because they have no general account of how the inevitable problem-solving limitations of deliberative metacognition would be expressed in human philosophical practice, let alone how they would generate the appearance of intentional phenomena. Since all they have are promissory notes and suggestive gestures, ontologically exceptional ac-counts remain the only game in town. So, despite the power of (5), the only way to speak of intentional phenom-ena remains the traditional, philosophical one. Science is blind without theory, so absent any eliminativist account of intentional phenomena, it has no clear way to proceed with their investigation. So it hews to excep-tional posits, trusting in their local efficacy, and assuming they will be demystified by discoveries to come.

Thus the challenge posed by Alien Philosophy. By giving real, abductive teeth to (5), my account overturns the argumentative terrain between eliminativism and intentionalism by transforming the explanatory stakes. It shows us how stupidity, understood ecologically, provides everything we need to understand our otherwise baffling intuitions regarding intentional phenomena. “On Alien Philosophy” challenges the Intentionalist to explain more with less (the very thing, of course, he or she cannot do).

Now I think I’ve solved the problem, that I have a way to genuinely naturalize meaning and cognition. The science will sort my pretensions in due course, but in the meantime, the heuristic neglect account of intention-ality, given its combination of mediocrity and explanatory power, has to be regarded as a serious contender.

With due respect for Mr. Bakker, a case can be made that the workings of the predictive social brain areall about wholly eliminating worse x in order to intentionally totally arrive at some hopefully better y...

Page 10: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

At the top of THE MOST DANGEROUS IDEAS ARE THOSE THAT ARE TRUE introductory chapter of Tan Liu's red-pill The Ponzi Factor, amazon.com/Ponzi-Factor-Simple-Investment-Profits...

Read the literature, but don't read too much of it. Read a bit to notice something

that does not feel right. Read enough to develop your intuitions, and then trust

your intuitions. Don't be too worried if Everybody says it's non-sense.

But, there is one thing... if you think it is a really good idea, and other people tell

you it's COMPLETE NONSENSE. Then you are really onto something.

Geoffrey Hinton (the father of Deep Learning who conceived of using neural

networks that use back propagation to achieve forward-thinking results. Much

like the way this pamphlet's whatever uses going away from to come towards?)

Researchers such as Todd Kashdan see “passive curiosity” as involved with novelty. In his school of thought, that kind of laid back curiosity has us frequently engaged in the pursuit of entertainment to theextreme exclusion of too much information; whereas his “active curiosity” seeks to vigorously explore internal and external environments of interest. Active curiosity is all about gaining more and more true facts, which are to be more and more knowledgeably applied to do more. This out-of-the-box pamphlet seeks to go and come even further into the process of being curious about curiosity by seeking to take the distinction between “passive” and “active” curiosity up to its next level, as well as down to its core.

The mathematics and model or whatever we will be revealing is a resolution and re-solution of idle curiosity versus practical curiosity. Idle curiosity is a couch potato kind of curiosity, it just wants to have fun. Give it too much information, referred to as “TMI” in today's idle curiosity run-amok pop culture, and it shuts down; or runs away in any direction as far from the source of information as it can.That is why idle curiosity is the perfect state of mind for the ever dwindling audiences of entertainment shows that masquerade as real news shows; and also perfect for fake news. Even more so for their Big Pharma advertisers, who pay hundreds of $millions to run commercials that show elephants strolling onthe beach behind happy patients, as a long list of deadly side-effects get rolled out at the bottom of the screen.

The last thing that mass media and Big Pharma want are viewers using their practical curiosity. Because practical curiosity is all about even TV viewers getting more and better results beyond just being entertained. Learning that a swelling tongue can in a minute kill you could be a “God Send”!!!

However, not for Big Pharma. So how about a cheer for practical curiosity, the work-horse of curiosity that makes the world go 'round. Alas, even when it is used against loyal party members if they rely on idle curiosity! It is not just in fairy tales that wolves use practical curiosity to fleece and eat sheep who prefer to live and die by habitual predispositions towards thinking like sheep. Can't a case be made that many leaders of most political parties use their practical curiosity to not just run campaigns, but to also run over fun-seeking members who do not ask too many practical questions? Maybe that is why more and more of us are asking, “Why donate & volunteer to enrich party leaders and their mega-donors?”

Page 11: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

By the way, that is not to say the professionally curious never often as well fall under the spell of idle curiosity. Even full professors often use idle curiosity when encountering a new, odd duck paradigm proposed by some nobody in that professor's field of expertise. Are not the histories of both math and science littered with instances of initially ignored ideas, which can end up as standard dogma? Merely “useless” ideas such as vectors as first proposed by Grassmann. And much “dumber” ideas like V=IR as proposed by Ohm. Both 19th century wanna-be's did not become math or science paradigm-shifters at the time. Why not? As they were only little league high school teacher outsiders, their ideas were notworthy of a very close look by those in higher-education big leagues. On the other hand, miracles have sometimes blessedly happened and still do happen. What a blessing for mathematics when Hardy got a letter filled with awesome theorems from Ramanujan and did not toss his copy of that math-changing letter into the trash, the way several of his stuck in idle curiosity colleagues did. Furthermore, even Richard Feynman did not always avoid non-starter mass idle curiosity. His cool 1959 “There Is Plenty Of Room At The Bottom” lecture, where Feynman proposed a rationale for nanotechnology, got no respectful word of mouth. Not one cigar, although it could have lit a fuse that would have exploded the foundations of material science. Why not? Perhaps because his often very humorous delivery of even deep science was in that special case just too smart for his and his colleagues' own good; too amusing, just too much “munchies” food for thought for that idle curiosity, hungry-for-entertainment audience?

Another miracle is Moshe Klein and Oded Maimon now pushing the limits of what can be meant by theterm “consciousness” (http://scsiscs.org/conference/index.php/scienceandscientist/2017/paper/view/120as well as delving into advanced data-mining in their course at Tel Aviv University, both of which beingbased on this pamphlet's “gestalt” mathematics. Thus, cannot a case be made that there are no reasons other than inertia/lack of practical curiosity (along with limited time), why our mathematical algorithm and scientific model or whatever is not yet being more explored by more professors around the world? The good news is that when later academics do, they will be joining radical students, grad students and adjunct lecturers. And not just academics. All who are hungry for new truths because their old truths nolonger suffice are welcome here. If you see yourself as part of some kind of cognitive great awakening, reading this fractal-like pamphlet several times can soon help you to apply your practical curiosity to re-formations of deformed areas of politics, math, science, religion, etc. In large part, doing so by just shifting away from old habits of idle curiosity and towards more mindfully practiced practical curiosity.

And here is where paradigm-shifter Thomas Kuhn comes into the picture. As is well-known and is still very well-referenced here and there, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn uses the duck-rabbit/rabbit-duck gestalt image below as a means of demonstrating his “changing from paradigmx to paradigm y theory of paradigm-shifts. It is, of course, easy to see why. Not as well-known is the fact that Ludwig Wittgenstein got to that duck-rabbit first, and used it to explore the difference betweenperception and interpretation. In any case, to practice doing both perception and interpretation, if you wish, now begin doing this either/or and thus both experiment: Start out first seeing the duck.

And as you look at it closely more and more, begin to see that its beak may not seem just quite right. Sooner or later, your idle curiosity is likely to begin wondering how that image ends up as a rabbit? As a result, you will soon begin seeing the rabbit. Keep switching back and forth between duck and rabbit, and rabbit and duck, and your idle curiosity may soon get bored enough if it is feeling it is no longer being entertained. At that point, your idle curiosity has two options: It may turn off its turning of those two back and forth snapshot frames into a motion picture, in a flash just closing down. Or maybe your

Page 12: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

practical curiosity might now tag your idle curiosity as if it's a member of a research tag-team or as an individual volunteer who grabs and begins to run with the ball. In either case, why not start wondering about what is happening in your brain and your mind if you and them, like Thomas Nagel and Rupert Sheldrake, also dare to go up against current post-modern reductionist cognitive science, so as to more flexibly account for that dual-aspect monism gestalt process? They too are derided and hounded by a science establishment that has no time for teleology and anticipatory systems, just as in the past it had no time for V=IR and entropy. Thank god, there are thought leaders here and there in academia and elsewhere who, by the grace of whatever, still feel a need to fight the right decision fight. As found in the treasury of inspirational words of Kent M. Keith's The Paradoxical Commandments, “The biggest men and women with the largest ideas can be shot down by the smallest minds. Think big anyway.”

So case closed or wide open? You can now stop on that ten yard line, as both Kuhn and Wittgenstein did. Or by just going and coming a bit farther in some practical curiosity direction, you might score a prize-winning touchdown per why gestalt psychology results might also soon come from using neural networks to emulate human brains, as Geofrrey Hinton, the father of deep learning, has proposed. By Kuhn only pointing out the duck view, x, can be seen as being analogous to Newtonian physics, just as the rabbit view, y, is analogous to Post-Copenhagen new physics, he stopped a bit short of hitting what might still some day be a grand slam homer. That is to say, he did not load up three extra possible basesafter which he would have been in position to hit a four-bagger: First, he did not make his paradigm-shifting case strong enough to avoid the pushback since publication of The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions that has come from institutional scientists who have made reasonable cases that Kuhn much too greatly simplified the complex process of creating science. Second, he left out two extra views of the duck-rabbit image by not showing the duck as quantum mechanics and the rabbit as relativity, with the two-views-in-one duck-rabbit as some generalized new physics field of play. Nor, even more boldly, did he use the gestalt duck and rabbit views to conjure up a field-only view of quantum mechanics, one which has no actual particles or waves in the real world way that a duck view is not a real duck and the rabbit view is not a real rabbit -- as per physicist Arthur Hobson's “no part-icle/no wave/all field” view of quantum mechanics. Third, and perhaps worthy of grand slam homer potential, what if this pamphlet is taking a whack at seeing Kuhn's wholly going away from a para-digm, x, and totally coming towards some next paradigm, y, as being more than just a useful way of describing paradigm shifts?

Imagine a last game of the World Series, your well-practiced practical curiosity now at bat and on cognitive steroids: Bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, three runs behind, three balls, two strikes. We are pitching a “hit for the fences” analogy for describing how a vast number of changes from x to y (as well as homeostasis at x at the expense of y) occur. Yet even if so, not so fast. After all, even if all of the above be not just yada, yada, yada, is your practical curiosity notched up to look for any more possibilities? Is it not so that a mere single keeps your practical curiosity in the game? And, of course, being thrown a fourth ball too will get it to first, keeping it in the game. So regardless of whether or notthis pamphlet is about to end up with a “mind over matter – for practical matters” algorithm or model or whatever that can be used to apply your practical creativity for more than just peanuts and popcorn and crackerjacks, perhaps now take a time out to practice further using your practical curiosity -- if youdare to practice using it in the messy realm of political inquiry.

Why politics and not yet math and/or science? First, because in these days where we seem ever more on the edge of a figurative if not yet real civil war, politics is something everyone has a very strong strong opinion about: Have you noticed how often people who love Hillary hate Trump, and how often folks who love Trump hate Hillary? Furthermore, are not both sides disinclined to see the other side's “in your face” point of view, even for just a few minutes? That is why the real world experiment which follows will for a while have you engaged in a journalistic analogy to the gestalt duck-rabbit image in a

Page 13: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

simulated back and forth duck vs. rabbit way. Consider this experiment as your bull pen warm up for being better able to look at and then see both sides of far more contentious and complex political issuesthat go and come well beyond even Hillary versus Donald ones. The issue for our experiment is charityfraud, as perhaps perpetrated by both Hillary and/or Donald. Why choose to focus attention on charity fraud when there are so many other much more interesting high crimes and misdemeanors to choose from? Because, although as boring as a no-hitter, charity fraud is also as cut and dry as a unanimous vote. No room for spin, no room for political “Yes, but...” And yet with deep curiosity in the ring, even that game changes when thoughtfully comparing and contrasting the Clinton and Trump Foundations asrevealed by two hugely respected contenders, Charles Ortel and David Cay Johnston. If nothing else, patiently going back and forth between the contents of their articles, ala, both Kuhn's and Wittgenstein'sduck-rabbit as our model, will enable you to discover how easy it is to, first, get stuck in a duck only rut, after which to begin running for a while with at least one rabbit. Will you be changing your views of Hillary and/or The Donald so as to be able to change your mind? Not very likely. And in any case, that is not the point of this further exercising of your deep curiosity. As you seek to see one side of the public charity issue as it pertains to Hillary and/or Trump, then the other side, you begin noticing that you need to first duck the duck side of that issue in order to clearly view its rabbit side, and then you notice you need to duck the rabbit view to see the duck side again. Then, you begin to intuit how!

This is to say, as you transition from using idle curiosity to be entertained, as if a spectator at a sports event, to using practical curiosity as if a reporter reporting on that sports event, you begin to notice that you need to stop paying attention to some aspects of that duck-rabbit image in order to raise a thumbs up duck one, and later on, does not doing the same in the other direction cause a very different thumbs up rabbit interpretation to come to mind? And does not all that ducking and later double-ducking and then double-double-ducking begin to loosen up what for many years may have been holding back your practical curiosity from achieving a lot more great results? So now turning to the game of politics as if you are a well-trained, motivated reporter seeking out real news, please first read what Charles Ortel, who has many friends on the Right and Left, asks us to closely look at and closely see from his side of an equation that is not likely to ever completely add up, via his https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown. And then read David Cay Johnston's https://www.thedailybeast.com/tale-of-two-charities-trumps-helps-trump-while-the-clintons-is-the-real-deal treasure trove. Or the other way around. As a result, either way, first and last enjoy all the benefits that come with much more applying the practical curiosity that you were born with -- and which all sorts of societal bullies have, as much as possible, sought to close down.

After that under-grad-level kind of practical curiosity loosening up, perhaps now move on and up to a Ph.D. practical curiosity hyper-loosening and unleashing, as informed via exposure to this pamphlet's algorithm, model or whatever. For you have arrived at the place in this cognitive caravan where more about what this pamphlet proposes as a mathematical possibility is always systematically comparing and contrasting everything in all ways can be further revealed. It is here that we piece it together in a way even the math-anxious will love. At least to the extent that you may be ready to see another side ofmathematics; one that most math teachers do not teach as they have never seen it; and thus most math students never use it to fall in love math. In any case, just as the above introduction was only for those “who have eyes that see and ears that hear”, so as well is what follows below. Agnostics, atheists as well as believers curious about some mathematical and other logical things alluded to in a Bible almost no lowly believer, let alone higher up, has ever been curious enough about, are all in for a shock. And just by relearning how to use deep curiosity to look more closely at texts to see what is in plain sight.

Will legendary scales fall from your eyes as hidden-in-plain sight Aha'!s emerge? Not likely, but a case will soon proposed that following any supposedly humble Teacher (or honest pol) is more a matter of looking at more to see more, instead of looking at less to see more. Might that be the missing the piece

Page 14: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

of the formulaic puzzle or whatever found in all Good Books? Would it not be a hoot worth hollering about if switching from idle curiosity, x, to practical curiosity, y, rewards us all with many practical hidden-in-plain-sight Aha!s like this one: How many of the devout are the slightest bit curious about why five groups of workers were offered work in the master's vineyard in Matt: 20 (with two very different kinds of offers of compensation), yet only two groups, the last and the first are mentioned at the end? Answer that by several times closely & slowly reading the text so as to master that something or whatever always hiding itself in math, science and the rest of the world; as soon as we are curiously looking at it in just exactly the right way, just as Borges enigmatically told us in his story The Aleph.

A Parable About Shallow Curiosity Versus Deep Curiosity

A guy with what we all take for an odd duck on his head comes into a bar, sits down a few seats from me, and orders a beer. Just about the time that he is finishing his beer, the bartender asks, "What's with the duck?"

The guy says, "What duck?" and orders another beer.

Every time the guy finishes his beer, the bartender asks him the same question and gets the same responses.

Well I'm wondering about the duck too. But I'm also wondering why the bartender keeps asking the same question when he knows he is likely to get the same responses? And I'm thinking that maybe it's because he thinks that every time he asks the same question, the guy is going to order another beer? Or maybe the bartender really wants to know why the guy has a duck on his head, and he is hoping that the next time the guy might give him the real answer?

Any way, I decide to approach the duck question from the opposite direction. So I ask THE DUCK why there is a GUY under its butt?

And the duck or whatever says, "It's just common sense: if there's a guy in a bar with a duck or whatever on his head, and the guy denies that obvious mystery no matter how obviously true that odd duck and odd duck circumstance is, and if others also care more about profiting from that mystery than solving it, it's just common sense to either 'duck the question', or 'question the duck or whatever'."

"But you haven't answered the bartender's question --- or mine either! I complain.” "Yes, but think about how much progress you've already made, and just by asking the right party the right question!" the duck or whatever tells me -- as if solving mysteries could be that easy?

And because you have not as yet ducked my question, see now What fires your soul whenever you too fire up the most natural kind of deep curiosity instead of firing it...

Page 15: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

This pamphlet first looked at passive curiosity vs. active curiosity, and then it looked at idle curiosity vs. practical curiosity. Now we move on and up to shallow curiosity vs. deep curiosity, and not just applied to politics and religion. Per the words of Philip Roth, “Literature takes a habit of mind... It requires silence, some form of isolation, and sustained concentration in the presence of an enigmatic thing.” (as is related by Jonathan Rowson, former Dir. of the Royal Society Arts' Social Brain Center, and now Dir. of Perspectiva, The Systems Souls Society.) And therein gets us deeper into either/or...

Rowson's Perspectiva/Systems Souls Society for better or worse, depending on one's politics, is funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundation. That being said, the terms “shallow curiosity” and “deep curiosity are as of now most prominently found in Rowson's work. Our hope is go further. Is he a hero or a hack? Perhaps now decide for yourself by viewing this politically incorrect versus uber-correct interview: Jordan Peterson on The Logos, Piaget, Jung, and Ideology – YouTube (as found on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8itHnfREIg). In it, Jonathan and Jordan Peterson take sharp turns looking at social brain issues, much in the opposing ways that David Cay Johnson looked at the Trump Foundation and Charles Ortel looked at the Clinton Foundation. As a result, if you invest the deep curiosity required to go back and forth between Jonathan's and Jordan's interview and/or Charles and David's “either/or and/or not” ruminations, notice what begins to come to mind as you are changing your mind and/or holding fast? Does not a sort of uncommon common sense algorithm or model or whatever seem to more and more be emerging up to the tip of your consciousness? Maybe beyond it?

The cognition processes of today's social brain model have been defined and described by The NationalInstitutes of Health at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588649/ as “Social cognition in humans is distinguished by psychological processes that allow us to make inferences about what is going on inside other people—their intentions, feelings, and thoughts. Some of these processes likely account for aspects of human social behavior that are unique, such as our culture and civilization. Most schemes divide social information processing into those processes that are relatively automatic and driven by the stimuli, versus those that are more deliberative and controlled, and sensitive to context and strategy. These distinctions are reflected in the neural structures that underlie social cognition, where there is a recent wealth of data primarily from functional neuroimaging. Here I provide a broad survey of the key abilities, processes, and ways in which to relate these to data from cognitive neuroscience.” But all that being said, where, what and how is the mind-meat in the social brain/minding process bun?

In accord with Wittgenstein and Kuhn and Rowson and even Peterson, whose religiously set-in-stone views are heroically in disrepute (see his rare take on the Logos), is there some kind of underlying and over-riding algorithm or model or whatever which, both mathematically and scientifically, can account for many brainy and mindful activities? In The Great Disruption, sub-titled "Human Nature And The Reconstitution Of Social Order", Francis Fukuyama quotes someone equally world-famous: "[Thomas]Damasio argues that the brain creates numerous somatic markers -- feelings of emotional attraction orrepulsion that help the brain do its calculations by short-circuiting many of the possible choices that liebefore it... In other words, the human mind attaches somatic markers to norms and rules themselves, which at first were nothing more than intermediate by-products of a rational calculation."

If your deep curiosity is a bit more fired up because it finds Damasio's discoveries about mental shorts intriguing, might his somatic (mind-brain emotional) markers' bending of the rules of decision-making, without breaking them, have at least some of the look and feel of some kind of always and in all ways systematically operating “operating system”? To grasp, wrestle with and prevail over such an unlikely algorithm, model or whatever, an mathematically rigorous, but never rigid 0 to 1 that begins with goingaway goals operating on initial feelings, conditions, states, paradigms, x, in accord with complementarycoming towards successor feelings, conditions, states, paradigms, y, intentions, now: ready, aim, fire...

The crux and cusp of this pamphlet is now at hand to be grasped, wrestled with and prevailed over with

Page 16: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

the aid of your deep curiosity. For the same reason that oftentimes “outlaws” are just misunderstood rebels, what follows will be duck soup if you are math-anxious. And it could be a delish rabbit stew for those of you who see yourselves as math-gifted. Either way, this pamphlet turns out (not in) to end up (not down) being a dual-aspect trope, metaphor or symbol, much like looking at and seeing a gestalt image from two (or more) perspectives. Notice below this combo Cartesian/gestalt Necker Cube, two pairs of perspectives: the cube's outside vs. its inside; and the cube oriented up to the right vs. face on.

To both sides of our pamphlet's readership coin, a trope (from the Greek, “topos”, “turn”, “bend”, “direction”) is a metaphor, simile or symbol, each of which enables our minds and/or our brains to conceptualize an image; to “re-present” it and have it “stand” for something else, the way a monolith “stands” for awe. Death as departure is a metaphor. My love is like a rose is a simile. That being said, much less easy to quickly answer is: What do we “end up” with, if and when we begin with a metaphortrope or a simile trope or some other kind of trope, and we then come up (not down) with some tropish variation of it? Death as graduation; and likely more often, siblings fighting to the death like large dogsand small cats as compared and contrasted with fighting like small dogs and large cats? Did you catch how we just made a case that the term “end up” can be self-employed as a trope using itself? For is not “standing for”, as in figuratively using an image, very much like literally taking some large stone that has been lying in a horizontal orientation, and then heaving it up towards a vertical one; the way that Jacob did after having his Dream? Such a hoary 1-like image, so awesomely evocative in appearance that it not only makes its appearance in Holy Scripture. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke used that monolith standing stone stand-in for THE Ultimate universal technology in their classic movie 2001. Note: Kubrick graduated years before the author of this pamphlet from our mutual high school in the Bronx. (We may have even had some of the same teachers. Sure hope so!) After which he became a classic. In my case, I became deeply curious about comparing and contrasting the comings and goings of comings and goings of comings and goings... of not just the politics of religion and the religion of politics. What if all sorts of union of opposites results emerge from a stone-raising & raizing operating principle ever systematically operating, this one: If you put enough effort in the the right direction(s) and not too much effort in the wrong ones, something good is likely to end up right; whereas if you put too much effort in the wrong directions and not enough in the right directions, we have hell to pay.

Can the stone-raising and stone-raizing ups and downs of past great civilizations in any way be at one with all of the cool pro and yet also con discoveries that modern science is making; nanotechnology, 5g, and mixing our genes with those of rabbits and ducks? Regardless of religious views, do you not at times get the feeling in your stomach that both Dem and Repub leaderships are taking us on the most dangerous roller-coaster ride in all of recorded history; one last hurrah/holy shit! Even atheists can at times agree that both The Father and/or Mother Nature giveth and taken away. Seeking to make some kind of sense of scientific truth and religious truths, Professor Stephen Jay Gould proposed “Non over-lapping magisteria”; the view that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs.values, so that there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and the two domains do not overlap. This either/or and both pamphletmore enthusiastically favors Arthur C. Clarke's both sides as seen in a different way, one explaining religion in terms of science: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Page 17: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

This pamphlet is inclined to see the above seemingly opposing views of science vs. religion from a more deep curiosity perspective. By doing so, it places a large bet on Gregory Bateson's, “In a word, I suggest that the supernatural entities of religion are, in some sort, cybernetic models built into the larger cybernetic system in order to correct for noncybernetic computation in a part of that system.” While his insights are hard to grok, perhaps worth trying? At least if they speak to your deep curiosity. And maybe made easier by noticing that in both the act of raising stones and tipping them over, as well as in all other such “going away from x” vs. “coming towards y” actions, each such case is a case of a change, each of which is replacing an old state, condition or whatever with a new one. Each time you switch from one gestalt perspective to the other, so similar to seeing a political issue first from one side and then from the other side, are you not already at least intuiting how our brains and/or our minds and/or whatever are “deciding”? Note how the Latin suffix “-cide” means “to cause all options but one to be made dead/departed from”. Which is of course why some decisions are God Awful ones.

Whether your shallow curiosity is waning and your deep curiosity in winning, or vice versa, that above question now leads to first applying this pamphlet's Axiom of Contingent Cognition to the real number system and its standard real number line metaphor, and then creating a variation of it; both as aids to developing an algorithm or model or whatever. You can also apply it to all sorts of either/or and/or bothaspects of life: politics, religion, commerce – and general decision-making included. But please note, ifjust mentioning “mathematics” freaks you out: What follows is likely to be more enjoyable for math-anxious readers than math-gifted ones. And if only because the math-challenged often got dissed for asking silly questions that will soon turn out to not have been dumb, while the math-gifted were at the drop of a hat inclined to play by math rules with no second thought. Imagine how young many buddingmathematicians are still laughed at today as in years gone by, and even worse discouraged from loving math, for doing something as profound as wondering out loud in his or her algebra class something likethis: Although the Pythagorean Theorem helps us calculate the length of the hypotenuse of a right tri-angle, might there not also be some other way of calculating its length, one of simply adding the right triangles' two legs? Imagine all the nerds in algebra and geometry classrooms and perhaps even many teachers hooting and hollering at anything so dumb, yes? If only because calculating the length of the hypotenuse in that second way produces a very different and obviously “wrong” result! And yet then perhaps now consider how Professor of Mathematics Hermann Minkowski came up with his “Taxicab metric” as per www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781002/to help his student Einstein make mathematical sense of time-space/relativity. So maybe besides playing by the standard rules of the math game, more math-gifted students should also be more deeply applying their deep curiosity in bad boy mathematician and bad girl mathematician ways too? Or at least some times being eager to bend some of those sacred math rules here and there, so as to see what might emerge to see more closely? If so, what better way to start that bending without breaking of fundamental math rules than just by initially starting with this series of Aha!s that anyone who knows what an angle is, and what a right angle is, and what a hypotenuse is can easily see. And even if they failed algebra and geometry more than once! Otoh, if you got straight A's, don't be too discouraged. This is for you too.

We begin with the simple angle, a mathematical object which perhaps is not so simple after all. In any case, Euclid defined two kinds of angles in Definition 8 of his Elements: a “plane angle” formed by the intersection of two straight lines in a plane; and also a 'rectilinear angle” formed by two straight lines that completely overlap. Note three things: First, Euclid defined both a plane angle that exists in just one plane, it being greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees. And, second, he also defined a non-planar angle, one of 180 degrees because it is a straight line'', and thus not “planar” as that second kind of angle can exist in an infinite number of planes. Third, Euclid did not define a 0 degrees angle, although since the days of Descartes, degrees of angles have been of all sizes – including zero degrees.

Page 18: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

All that being said, given these examples of a forty-five degrees angle, a ninety degrees angle, a one hundred and thirty-five degrees angle, and a one hundred and eighty degrees angle,

would you agree that a case can be made that this is an example of a zero degrees angle as compared with a one hundred and eighty degrees angle?

Furthermore, as you go back and forth for a while comparing and contrasting that zero degrees angle onthe left with that 180 degrees angle on the right, and in a way not too dissimilar from going back and forth between different perspectives of gestalt images and alt-left and alt-right views of political issues,you may begin to see something telling about angles that professors of mathematics rarely think about, let alone consider as having much significance: the Aha!-enabling observation that the measuring of all angles begins with/at an angle of zero. Could that admittedly pathetically simple observation perhaps be a door to a treasure trove of math concepts and objects and theorems, etc., which any mathematics-challenged algebra and geometry-recovering person can use to win drinks from math club types?

If so -- and especially if you were never good at math, compare now those above 45, 90, 135 & 180 degrees angles with these angle-like mathematical objects below...

The new kind of angular thingies you are seeing are what this pamphlet refers to as “angules”. What makes an angule different from an angle? It is because angules are measured not from 0 degrees, but rather from 0 deviation of a straight line, a straight line having an angule of 0 begrees! Why do we call them “begrees”? First, as the naive mathematics in this pamphlet is a kind of extra simple-minded organic mathematics, much in line with the kind of organic straight line that bees make when they make a straight beeline at and for their intended point of termination. And also because we chose the

Page 19: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

term “begrees” to honor whatever caused the editors of Science Magazine to publish this amazing study http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/bees-understand-concept-zero during the writing of this pamphlet. Hats off to the deep curiosity of those researchers who came up with such a creative wayto study bees being so exquisitely sensitive to deviations from a zero something which begins at zero.

Now that we have established the existence of angules and their begrees as our unit of measuring them,you may well wonder why the need to make such a Batesonian “difference that makes a difference” distinction between angles & degrees and/versus angules & begrees, as Euclid seems to have covered all of that when he pointing us to supplementary angles? To answer that curious question, now use yourdeep curiosity to ask yourself, and then notice, this. Are you looking at two things or one thing?

Obviously, you are seeing an indication of two supplementary angles. No question there, yes?

Yet notice how seeing it in only that one way has you only seeing at the same time two supplementary angles that add up to one straight line, whereas by introducing the concepts of angules and begrees, youcould as well be seeing its common ray line as part of both an angle and also as an angule! E.g., a 135 degrees angle is also a 45 begrees angule. They are the same underlying thing seen from two quite different points of viewing. Thus, the conceptions and perceptions of angles and degrees versus angulesand begrees is/are a mathematical example of this pamphlet's gestalt Axiom of Contingent Cognition. As a result, this pamphlet refers to that common ray object as the axis of contingent cognition...

We are now in position to go further where no mathematicians seem to have gone before. We are about to bend, but not break, one of the most sacred metaphorical rules in mathematics. And once we have done that, those of you who are math-challenged and those of you who are math-gifted will both be able to decide for yourselves in your own ways to what extent mathematics has been, is now and shall ever be as much a religion as any other religion, and also how mathematics is as politically controlled as any political party? And once you perhaps have made common cause with other rebels and reformerswho seek to expand upon what this pamphlet proposes, have begun to use that common cause to set yourselves and friends and family free of shallow curiosity, cannot the deep curiosity you have begun to set on fire be the fuel for all sorts of political, and even religious, and other breakthroughs?

Page 20: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

All hard to believe, let alone to hope for. None of that can be counted on. Or can it? Such progress may be just around the corner, at least if that corner is seen as a 90 begrees angule not degrees bend.

And here it is, after beginning with the straight real number line mathematical metaphor for the real number line system that we kind of go for broke. However, in a wholly risk-free bending of the rules without breaking the rules way. I.e, we decide to do a paradigm shift away from the standard straight horizontal real number line metaphor below and use instead our non-standard bent but not broken real number metaphor. As you see above, after horizontally getting to 1, we bend that straight horizontal real number number line at 1. More specifically, we bend the straight real number line up 90 begrees from our 0 begrees/180 degrees straight line. And by doing that lawful and/or lawless twist, depending on whether or not you are open to new possibilities, the real numbers, now potentially pregnant with new concepts and objects and theorems, we continue on up from 1 towards +∞ as compared/contrasted with the standard straight real number line metaphor...

While this pamphlet is not likely to be history-making, here at least some history about all that real number line stuff. Case 1. The real number line as an (often horizontal) straight line metaphor for visualizing the orderly arrangement of negative and positive numbers relative to 0 was invented by John Wallis in the late Seventeenth century. Wallis also has been given credit for introducing the ∞ symbol to represent the concept of infinity and also for using 1/∞ to represent the concept of an infinitesimal. Eventually, as the real number system began to be seen as comprised of the natural or counting numbers 1,2,3..., the whole numbers 0,1,2,3..., the integers …-3,-2-1,0,1,2,3... the rational numbers …1/3,1/2,2/3,3/4... and irrational numbers such as square root of 2 and pi, the straight real number line became the standard metaphor for visualizing the real number system.

In the spirit of going beyond seeing a duck, going beyond seeing a Vase, and going beyond seeing just the outside of a Necker Cube, we can mathematically use our gestalt Axiom of Contingent Cognition topropose a second, albeit admittedly, a bit rogue way of visualizing the real numbers. More specifically, without breaking a math rule – just bending it a bit, we can explore what emerges into our view and ourconsciousnesses when the real numbers are looked at and seen as a bent (but not broken) number line? Of course, a case can easily be made that Case 2 is in no way allowed. The rules are the rules. Case

Page 21: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

closed. But as we just did bend the standard metaphor without breaking it, why not play along with this pamphlet's experiments for a few more minutes? If you do, you can compare and then contrast what is hidden and what emerges in those two cases using your own deep curiosity; and much in the same way that you earlier looked first at the duck in the above duck-rabbit gestalt image, after which the rabbit. Inline with the dissolutions of x and coagulations of y of alchemy practiced by both Newton and Leibniz, as well as in accord with the scientific spirit embodied in these deeply curious words, “The magic of magic is that there is no magic; and, thus, all is magic”. So too, per the magic of ancient magic squares,

be prepared to see some often hard to grasp old math concepts in much easier to grasp new ways. And just by giving the straight real number line metaphor a 90 begrees twist. Also get ready to see more newmathematical concepts and objects that emerge to be explored ever closer. Because, like that 2001, bothancient and future monolith found on the far side of the moon, so too you are about to encounter some things immediately below that still seem to be only a matter of magic shows and/or science fiction. For example, be you math club or math-challenged, now see how something as simple and as familiar as a Euclidean right triangle and its Cartesian form might be distracting you from seeing a right triangle-likenon-standard mathematical object with its non-standard hypotenuse-like one, as well as the angule that you have just encountered. All of them as similar, yet as different as a duck is to a duck-billed platypus.

And is that not a wake up call/call to arms lesson for the followers of even the most knowledgeable leaders in any field, not just mathematics? Because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and lays eggs, that does not mean it is a duck; no less duckie in politics nor religion. At least not when we chose to use our shallow curiosity less and use our deep curiosity more. But even if our pamphlet's objective has some appeal to you, why now stay exclusively focused for a while on mathematics, when there are so many other important areas of thought and action to choose from? Simply because by our continuingto use simple math as both fuel as well as food for thought, we avoid all sorts of politics, that political contention and counter-contention which can easily get in our way when seeking to grasp, wrestle with and prevail over some kind of universal algorithm, model, paradigm or whatever. The good news is thateven though the religion and politics of mathematics are to contingent cognition what strict rules are to flexibility, what follows is for both the math-challenged and math-gifted That being said, first begin bylooking at, and then even more closely seeing, this trivial isosceles Euclidean right triangle as well as its Cartesian coordinate version. In both cases, then decide what are the lengths of the hypotenuses?

Page 22: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

You do not have to have been a math club star to remember those hypotenuse lengths are square root of2. Even if you were, until you have pondered for a while the nature of angules, you are not likely to be too seriously inclined to apply deep curiosity to these three seemingly trivial factoids: 1) In general, we measure from 0 (or shift our measuring so as if to be starting at 0); 2) we usually count in units of one or some other unit of measure, up from the end of that unit of measure towards +∞; and 3) more to the point in this case, both legs of each of those two right triangles are line segments of unit value length 1 on two different lines, both triangles having a horizontal leg paired off with a separate vertical leg. Thatbeing said, how significant are those three factoids for your personal cpu/cognitive processing unit to now systematically operate on – within the context of this famous uncommon common sense line of Gregory Bateson, “Information is the difference that makes a difference.”? I.e., how quickly can you find the significant difference between those two above versions of the same 45-45-90 right triangle, and this seemingly the same, however, deep-curiosity-speaking, quite different mathematical object?

The difference, of course, is simply this: For the above two right triangles, both pairs of legs are unit length line segments of and on two different lines. Therefore, the length of their two hypotenuses be, of course, square root of 2 as per the Pythagorean Theorem. Otoh, look closely at the 0-1-2-0 object, and notice that its legs are two successive parts of just one line. Does that not change everything, as we go and come beyond, in a curious way, even Minkowski's Taxicab metric to a new Beth El one? If it does, welcome again to Case 2, our pamphlet's bent, but not broken real number line. And its “hypertenuses”.

And once you are in our bent real number line game of groans and boos for some and cheers for others,why not then begin further exploring our pamphlet's many surprising gestalt mathematics (and Beth El math) properties? How about after first connecting connecting pairs of reciprocals using Case 1,

Page 23: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

we now do the same connections for Case 2 and see what emerges from several perspectives...

Page 24: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

As you can see on the far right, quite surprisingly, the Cartesian Coordinate System is implicit in our bent line real number metaphor! And our bent real number line metaphor is explicit in the Cartesian System -- once you know how to look for it and can see it! Thus, the origin of our Axiom of ContingentCognition: Hypertenuses that connect 1/m and m pairs of reciprocals are parts of the Cartesian y=mx.

To the extent you are able to see our Case 2's metaphor as either a variation of the original metaphor and/or as a new one, or even some combination of degree of old metaphor and/or level of a new one, doyou find yourself grasping, wrestling with - and if you are in the zone - prevailing over a post-calculus; some trans-fractal way to quantify complementary magnitudes such as degree of old and level of new?

We are if we are now playing a very curiously insightful kind of naive and experimental math game, and getting ever closer to looking at and seeing an algorithm, model or whatever, one to be used to exquisitely quantify degrees of x and/vs. levels of y. That said, this “Aha! It” is at one with x not being only an old metaphor and y not only being a newer one, rather both being seen as “housed” in some kind of home base: a self-referencing frame of reference way to grok many either/or's and in betweens.

Our gestalt bent real number metaphor end game now continues towards our Templix/Template Matrix finale,with pairs of reciprocals now being shown in a wholly and totally new light.

They are now spotlighted here with a series of straight & narrow lines which are drawn from points on the horizontal part of our bent real number line metaphor upto the vertical part of that very same bent metaphor for pairs of reciprocals, such as between 1/2 & 2; 1/3 & 3 and 1/4 & 4... Notice how no matter how close we getto drawing a direct connection from and at 0 to almost +∞, we never get to 0. Nor can we end up ending up with a vertical line through 0. Why not? Although there may be more to that, at least because 0 has no reciprocal. Furthermore, please notice how a case can be made that we seem to be seeing a progression of hypotenuse-like lines very reminiscent of the Lorenz Transform.

Perhaps too fanciful.

Yet maybe not all that fanciful, as might there not be some sort of Minkowski-like Taxicab metric pony or whatever in our bent line metaphor if and when this non-standard question is asked, “What are the lengths of those diagonal lines connect-ing all those pairs of reciprocals? This pamphlet's answer for both math jocks and those of us who are not so blessed is both logical as well as shocking. Because, as per with Minkowski's time-space metric, so too our bent real number line hypo-tenuse-like diagonals' one: Both are Texicab lengths, over to the side and on up lengths -- not Pythagorean ones: 2-1/2, 3-1/3, 4-1/4...

How can that be? Simply because our bent real number line metaphor's diagonal hypotenuse-like straight lines are, of course, not hypotenuses. Why not? Because, as was already seen, they each connect two parts of the same one bent real number

line -- as contrasted with both Euclid's and Descarte's hypotenuses, and also those of non-standard geometries; all of which directly connect points on two different real number lines. Thus, three examplehypertenuses of our gestalt mathematics on the left; admittedly a quasi-standard math, but at least in some way, a mathematics like Abraham Robinson's non-standard one. Of course, as of now, Robinson'shyperreals have still yet to become standard. So our bent real line objects have an even longer way to both go and come, at least with the Axiom of Contingent Cognition.

Page 25: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

For those who as yet seen nothing possibly paradigm-shifting about the above, of course, a case can be made that yours is a perfectly logical assessment. Indeed, many readers are now likely feeling all of theabove was just a long-winded nothing-burger; including many mathematicians who are likely to also care little about this curiosity: By seeing the real numbers in our odd bent real number line way, those ever longer, ever steeper hypertenuses never asymptotically line up/end up as a vertical line through 0! Yes, there is an asymptote of sorts, but it is the straight hypertenuse from 0 to +∞. So, taken with some grains of formal math terminology, does not using this pamphlet's Axiom of Contingent Cognition thus open up an alternate way of seeing the entirety of real numbers as consisting of parts and multiples of +1 (according to the reciprocal inverse property) plus parts and multiples of -1 (per the additive inverseproperty) plus 1 and 0 (respectively, the reciprocal inverse identity and the additive inverse identity)?

And going and coming even further, why cannot there be also parts and multiples of plus and minus 0 – just as there are parts and multiples of plus and minus 1? As was alluded to above, using the figure on the left, easily see those parts and multiples of -0 simply by extending its dia-gonals through and beyond the 0,0 origin of the Cartesian x-y frame of reference, which is implicit in our bent real number line metaphor. Plus, also consider that diagram as your introduction to what this uncommon common sense pamphlet refers to as the “multiplicative exverse”. Just as 1 over 1/n = n(1), does not 0 over 1/n = n(0)?

For more on ramifications, you are encouraged to reach out to the world's current leading explorer of gestalt Beth El mathematics as explained below. All that being said and shown, few elementary school math teachers, let alone professors as yet want to take natural, whole, and rational and irrational numbers, etc. out of the math game for even a little while, nor play other math games in the bent way we have been doing. But perhaps many more will?

Either way, several years ago it was pointed out in a Skype chat with someone (famous in Israel and around the world for his creation of a way of teaching math and science concepts to kindergartners) thatby using the bent real number line, he could logically explore the existence of parts and multiples of +0and -0. That has led to Moshe Klein blessedly adopting and running with that zero-shaped ball. And as a result, my dear friend and colleague is now in a doctoral program at Tel Aviv University. under the far-sighted, courageous supervision of his doctoral adviser, Oded Maimon, ever further mathematizing this pamphlet's admittedly informal “experi-mental” math notions. Their Soft Logic, Soft Numbers and Soft Geometry quasi-standard mathematics may soon be producing amazingly deep and much needed curious fruit for uses in all sorts of areas of life.

In addition to Moshe's work, the opportunities for applying gestalt Beth El mathematics are truly wide open, especially when mathematics and cogsci and other explorers are using it for what it is: a way to help us all break free of all manner of rigorous but too rigid disciplines which are too often hugely stuck in the mud and set-in-stone. Martin Hay's Chiralkine at Chiralkine.com is another such example.

Getting back to Beth El gestalt math basics, notice what is happening on the bent real number line as the numbers are horizontally going away from 0 and coming towards 1? Is not that progression a way of contrasting increasing wholeness vs. what's occurring on the real number line as it is going verticallyregressing down from +∞ multiplicity and coming towards 1? Wholeness & oneness, the same and not.

More specifically, does not that either and or result in the thought-provoking realization that the nature

Page 26: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

of wholeness as completeness is both the same, yet also very different than the nature of oneness as in integrity? Just another example of the Axiom of Contingent Cognition at work. Furthermore, notice as well how as the horizontal endpoints of hypertenuses get closer & closer to 0, however never get there, a kind of “quantum 0 gap” can be intuited between 0/∞ & 1/∞ (the first positive point beyond 0.) What might be the consequences of being able to see a quantum hole in the real number system that is used todo quantum mechanics? Is there in gestalt Beth El mathematics a way of contributing to the solving of Hilbert's sixth problem, the holy grail of “axiomitizing” all branches of physics in which mathematics is prevalent? Is there anything systematically operating in all goings & coming of goings & comings...?

Rounding The Turn And (Re)Turning The Tables...

If this pamphlet were a horse race, at this point we could be said to be rounding the turn and heading into the homestretch; or if a ballgame, we would be rounding third on the way home, a home plate as much of politics, religion and commerce, etc. as mathematics. Because as “hypotenuse” comes from the Greek word, “to under stretch”, and as “hyperternuse” comes from the Greek word meaning, “to over stretch”, we rely on religion as a short stopping point for a moment or so, as we have come to the happy turn in this pamphlet where we can explain why our gestalt math is also referred to as “Beth El” math. And therein lies a tale. It is a tall tale stretching all the way up to heaven or “heaven” (depending upon your tolerance of that word) called the Story of Jacob's Ladder; that famous tale being just a few paragraphs in the Old Testament that turn out to end up being much more mathematical in nature than most atheists and believers tend to ever dream of. Obviously, the Story of Jacob's Ladder is the stuff of enchanting fairy fairy tales, as well as the firewood of magnificent artistic creativity, such as many of Marc Chagal's most enchanting, and thus shallow curiosity satisfying paintings, like this one...

Beautiful, yes. Amazingly captivating, yes. Yet surely a means of, with great joy, climbing down into a chasm of fanciful shallow curiosity; one that is so opposite to climbing up to the heights of reverence, one only seen when we go and come on a journey that is beyond the superficialities of even the greatest art. How else to see deeply hidden possible sciences?

Like Matthew:20, the Story of Jacob's Ladder, too, can be seen as more down to earth than heavenly; more practical as soon as you are using your deep-curiosity-enabled intuition to work hand-in-hand with whatever kind of “divinity” or whatever it is that enables some day-traders here and there to rarelyever be wrong in their trades and some creators of houseware products to almost always be right about what to make make and sell. Just as there are consistent winners in sports, politics, and business and everywhere else who do not complain when they occasionally do not win, so too there are losers who complain at the drop of a hat. Why not instead turn the tables on what often contributes to most of us too often tending to be stuck at some less than golden condition, x, when instead we can get on the straight and narrow toward some platinum condition, y? And simply by just bending some conventionalwisdom rules always being taught to us by authorities who want to keep us down? Plus no better way in whatever areas of life that we strive to end up upright than by putting more effort in right directions and less in wrong ones. Much as Jacob bent a huge rule in this translation of Genesis: 28 verse 18.

Page 27: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

More specifically, from the http://mechon-mamre.org website of Mechon Mamre, are excerpts of their translations of Genesis 28: 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18. Maybe worth noting here, if your deep curiosity isat a very high level, is that while most translations of verse 11 refer to Jacob using several stones for a pillow, this closer-to-ancient-Hebrew translation refers to just one stone. No big deal to those who use their shallow curiosities below. But, in any case, does not Jacob's early morning stone-raising seem to have a bit of the look and feel of this pamphlet's bending up the real number line from horizontal to 90 begrees vertical, at the only wholly one point of measurement and counting on the real number line?

Genesis 28: 10 And Jacob went out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran.

11 And he lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.

12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said: 'Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.'

17 And he was afraid, and said: 'How full of awe is this place! this is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.'

18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

Obviously, The Lord is not in this pamphlet. That said, let's take a moment as compared to a minute (as out of time as an instant is to a second) to take a seeming time out. As in a mystical experience: Quick: How many hours in a day? You might say twenty-four hours. If so, you might be right or your might bewrong. It all depends on whether you are being asked about a twenty-four hours day, or day versus night. Let's say that latter kind of day. So now let's try again. Quick, how many hours in a day?

You might say twelve. If so, you might be right. Otoh, you also might be wrong. If you were being asked that question while you are located on or near the Equator, you'd always be right, just as you would be right if you are being asked that question anywhere on the earth on the 21st day of March and/or the 21st day of September, the twelve hours of daylight and versus twelve hours of,nighttime, respectively, of the Spring and Fall Euinoxes. Other than that the lengths of hours and minutes and seconds of those second kind of days, x, and nights, y, where x + y = 24.

Now that we have got that day and night question straight, are we done? Not really, if truth be told according to the rewards of deep curiosity. Much in accord with Matthew:20's “scriptural hours” (the proportional hours of true day and true night, true times where the first hour of the new day is surely not right after midnight), is it now time to see how modern time-keeping in order to ever more mold us into automatons takes our minds and bodies away from our body's internal clock -- with that artificial kind of time-keeping putting our health at risk? See TrueTyme.org to learn more, as well as to get a freecircadian and circalunar clock. (Use it even after its free trial so as to never be separated from natural time again when stuck working in artificial time working conditions.)

At the risk of TMI/too much information and/or TLI/too little information, as you can now see from TrueTyme.org, our minds and bodies are not as free of stress and strain as we would prefer, due to our brains' and minds' ambiguity about where we are in natural time? Even more so, most of us, of course, have high tolerances for verbal ambiguities as well like the difference between stone and stones in the Story of Jacob's Whatever. And, of course, we also take for granted terms like “went from Beersheba” and “went towards Haran”, much as we treat not only day vs. night the same, but “going” & “coming”,

Page 28: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

too, are often used interchangeable with not a care in the world, at least not by those who live and die with and by shallow curiosity. In politics and religion just as in standard corporate time, what we do notknow cannot hurt us -- although much that we do not know is, alas, of course, hurting us all of the time.

So in the spirit of using deep curiosity more, in the practical way that some readers of this pamphlet might now be at least somewhat more curious about both Hillary and the Donald, the good and the bad,beautiful and ugly, it is time to be better informed as well as to be less prematurely judgmental. And that means it is now time to get beyond shallow curiosity's use of the terms “going” & “coming”. A good way to do that is to first explore such distinctions using Dave Sperling's helpful to those who are new to the good old USA web page, Eslcafe.com/grammar/confusing_words_come_go.html:

The common verbs come and go are often confusing. One reason this happens is that come and go have the same basic meaning, but are used for different directions.

Come is used to show movement toward or in the direction of the speaker or the person being spoken to:

My cousin is coming to see me next week. Are you coming to my party? May I come to your party, too?

That man's coming toward us. Who is he? I need to make an appointment with Dr. Jones. Can I come to see him at 11:00 tomorrow?

Dr. Jones is in a meeting at 11:00. Can you come for your appointment at 11:30am.

Go is used to show movement away from the speaker or the person being spoken to:

I'm going to see my cousin next week. Are you going to Bill's party? That man's going toward your car. Who is he?

I need to go to the bank this afternoon.

Ginny wants to go to Bora Bora on her vacation.

With all due respect to Dave, while a case can surely be made that “going” & “coming” often have the same basic meaning, depending on circumstance, they can also have different meanings as well. With-out in any way getting into the mud and muddle of whatever spirituality and/or reverence, as we are proposing in this pamphlet a gestalt Beth El math/Templix/Template Matrix way of seeing various changes from homeostasis as a trans-new physics/new math way of crossing the quantum divide per https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325891665_Crossing_the_Quantum_Divide, perhaps use your deep curiosity thusly: Notice that the Story of Jacob's Ladder begins with Jacob going away from Beersheba, x, AND coming towards Haran, y; with, of course, that process of “going away” being the complementary opposite of progressively “coming towards” (in much the way a particle's wave front ismoving away from its source. Whereas, a particle tends to be moving in a particular direction). And also note how exquisitely and where the differences between goings and comings soon end up?

It continues with Jacob using a stone (the epitome of hardness) for a pillow (the epitome of softness).

Later, in his Dream, Jacob sees angels moving up and down on that ladder or whatever (another pair of complementary opposites in that obscure story; one which is here further obscured by the curious fact that the word Hebrew word “sulam” used in that tale is never used anywhere else in the whole Hebrew Bible and thus is as uniquely self-referencing and wholly one as the side and edge of a Mobius Strip.)

But wait, there is more. When Jacob arises in the morning, much like us in our Beth El math way bending our horizontal real number line ninety begrees up vertically at 1, Jacob raises his horizontal stone pillow ninety begrees up to a vertical position. Another pair of complementary opposites. On the

Page 29: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

surface to satisfy shallow curiosity, seemingly no big deal. However, is there not something very wrongcoming on and going off? Has not Jacob broken a by then three generations law set down by God and given to Abraham, the law that says do not raise up stone idols? How counter to Abraham's at the very beginning of Judaism ramping up his righteous mission by pushing down of the stone idols from vertical positions to a horizontal mess as he was leaving his idol-maker father's home/storehouse?

Are those not thought-provoking questions worthy of some deep curiosity? And not just about the valueof using close reading and deep thinking about one example of biblical text; as that other famous story about Jacob has him wrestling with God – and winning – as if one can ever theoretically at least defeat the Old Testament's God! When it comes to gestalt Beth El math's Axiom of Contingent Cognition, can not a case be made that only by persistently using deep curiosity might we ever hope to grasp, wrestle with and prevail over any approximation of any truth about anything in order to get any closer to The Truth. Measures of truths about God, Hillary & Don... and ourselves; the kind of counting that counts.

Those questions about using the Story of Jacob's journey away from x and towards y (a journey that begins in the day and takes time to portray what happens to him at night and the next morning, as can be represented by this comparison of the angles of the sun above the horizon during various times of the day and/versus the angules of the undersun below the horizon during various times of the night).

For what is is worth, the TrueTyme circadian and circalunar clock app is a 360 degrees angles/360 begrees angules version of this 180 degrees angle/180 begrees angules version of day and/versus night. Both versions enable you to see the day and night sides of time in terms of a kind of dual aspect monism Mobius Strip; the same kind of Mobius Strip portrayal as seen in Moshe Klein's Soft Logic, Soft Number, Soft Geometry built upon this pamphlet's gestalt Beth

El quasi-standard mathematics, and also described in some detail at Mobius-ity.us.

That brings us to this pamphlet's proposed way of describing how we go away from seeing the duck to seeing the rabbit and then go away from seeing the rabbit to seeing the duck, seeing the passage of day into night and then night into day, and all other such goings and comings of goings and coming. Please take a moment or so to think about this: The self-referencing Hebrew word “sulam” in the Story of Jacob's Ladder or whatever, can mean a “ladder”. Or it can mean a “ramp”. Or it can mean some stair case in between those two extremes. Just another example of the Axiom of Contingent Cognition writ large, this time in a scripture more than three thousand years old – and, for some of us, still counting.

How about if instead of this odd duck pamphlet continuing to make pull your shallow curiosity's chain, so to speak, by making demands on its desire to be entertained, we now more than ever seek to do whatwas promised to you in the beginning? We both mentally & visually portray to you whatever, in terms of “degrees of going away from some initial x” and “levels of some ultimate y”; be they on a spectrum from ladder to ramp, perspectives from duck to rabbit, going from seeing Hillary as all good and seeingDonald as all evil to seeing both sides, and seeing the real number line as only straight to also seeing it as bent. All of that and more by using what this pamphlet refers to as the Templix/Template Matrix of Change and Homeostasis, a “self-referencing frame of reference”? And if only to help you to further engage and practice your deep curiosity. Because surely there no reason on God's Good Earth even yet for you to believe there is anything even mildly esoteric as well as exoteric in this pamphlet. On the other hand, perhaps a case can soon be made there is something in some sense “divine” herein which always, and in all ways, is systematically at work which can reward you above and beyond unleashing your deep curiosity in more areas of your life. Even if not, at least you will had more practice of deep curiosity, with sensory signals moving up & predictions down like angel messengers on Jacob's Ladder.

Page 30: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

In any case, perhaps begin shifting away from your old habits of thinking about change & homeostasis to a new one, if that be, respectively, your goal & associated intention by using what is below to portrayfor example going away from seeing the duck and coming to seeing the rabbit. Note that this pamphlet refers to the below unit square (Aristotle called it a “monad”) as “Jack”. You might be assuming Jack isnamed in honor of Jacob, as in “Jacob's Monad”. And that may well be the case, at least for those who are inclined to take what follows seriously. Otoh, it is just as possible and perhaps even more so that by now many of this pamphlet's readers will not be caring Jack about the nature of change, let alone the nature of homeostasis. But that being said, remember from the beginning of this pamphlet, according tothe Urban Dictionary, “Jack” is: Nothing, or something equivalent to nothing. Jack ---- has the remarkable property that its absence and presence are identical. Typically used with or without a negative to describe a total lack of knowledge, value, or significance. Something as nothing – and nothing as something. So, at least in the spirit of irony meeting up with Jack, how could this pamphlet not call the following self-referencingframe of reference not Jack? And especially as, although Jack's Monad seems to have a lot of the look and feel of a standard Cartesian unit square. Indeed, very much like our Beth El bent real number line metaphor relative to the straight standard metaphor, Jack too has its own little twist.

Page 31: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems
Page 32: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

does not us using this Templix/Template Matrix self-referencing frame of reference way of describing change and homeostasis, unlike using the standard Cartesian one, in a very curious way not reveal the nature and glory of blessed of change itself as well as how fluidly set-in-stone homeostasis too can be deconstructed into two independent components: namely the operation of “going away from” operatingon x, and the operation of “coming towards” operating on y?

Might all of that, as housed in the Templix Puzzle, contribute in any way to Thomas Nagel's beyond reductionism, Rupert's Sheldrake's morphic resonances, Robert Rosen's anticipatory systems, both David Bohm's implicate order, ala, Einstein and Godel, and his holographic-minding processes, ala, Karl Pribram. Maybe, maybe not. Its solution and re-solution... is an algorithm, model, paradigm or whatever that really is either Jack or the cat's meow and bees knees. In any event, our curious pamphletabout the natures of shallow versus deep curiosity now lead you to what it was always destined to end up at. And even if that means it now, alas, will end up down, some partially closed and partially open doorway to both the ancient past and maybe also the future. While not being a necessarily conclusive conclusion, it is going and coming to be a curious puzzle, one reserved for only those who can use yourdeep curiosities systematically operating at a very high Warp level. As said previously, we call it the Templix Puzzle. Gene Amdahl solved it in around twelve seconds. It took me lots longer. Good luck...

You are in a room suddenly on fire, x. And you see a door to hopeful safety, y. That realization of imminent extreme danger engenders a goal of wholly going away from x, 0x, and totally coming towards y, 1y. Please notice for the sake of this puzzle, that the goal of No x! takes absolute priority over the relative intention of totally coming towards a Yes y! If we again entertain the notion we are working with an algorithm or model or paradigm or whatever where 0x expresses a “going away from”operator, 0, operating on x, and where 1y expresses a complementary “coming towards” operator 1 independently operating on y, do not these four combinatorials emerge for our “from x to y” circum-stance1: 11y: coming towards coming towards y; 00x, going away from going away from x; 01y, going away from coming toward y; and 10x, coming towards going away from x? In such a change from x? We can perhaps be going from seeing the duck as x to instead seeing, y, the rabbit. In all such cases, in any case, do not four combinatorials enter our gestalt picture for further deep curiosity processing?

Which leads to this question: Which of those four combinatorials, 11y, 00x, 01y, 10x are, respectively, a “should”, a “must not”, a “should not” and a “must not” in order to be systematically and optimally both wholly going away from x, 0x, and totally coming towards y, 1y? Answer that and you are almostthere; as all that remains for you to experi-mentally do is to be systematically following the rules whichseem to curiously be inherent in that circumstance. And, if you are game to do so, by merely using the same only two symbols we have already been using, 0 and 1. Thus, in order to achieve one's goal of wholly going away from x and totally coming towards y, we need to be doing must's and not doing

Page 33: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

must not's, 110x and 00x, and also doing shoulds and not doing should nots, 111y and 000x.

Of course, the Templix Puzzle may not have been worthy of any of your limited time seeking to grasp it, let alone wrestle with it, let alone to prevail over it. Yet perhaps take a moment or so to activate your deep curiosity in this direction: Might you at times be able to make better decisions by just using four columns instead of two; using Musts, Must Not, Should and Should Not columns, rather than lumping all positives choice into Pro columns and dumping all negative ones into Cons? Just a question within this pamphlet's context of deep curiosity. In any case, notice if you will how the above “not worth Jack”solution to the Templix Puzzle curiously has two bits of the look and feel of the appearance of I Ching, Of course, that being purely coincidental. Indeed beware of any fans of this pamphlet who go and comeeven further into the land of the kooks, and think they see the front and back of the Urim and Tummim.Their shallow curiosity is probably having as much fun with them as vice versa.

Funny how often things that we usually see as different can, via the Axiom of Contingent Cognition, sometimes also end up being seen as surprisingly the same. For what it is worth and that is unlikely much, while students of comparative religions are taught Taoism is very different from Confucianism, how do you account for these words of Confucius as found in his Great Treatise...

“For in regard to any change there must be some fixed point to which the change can be referred; otherwise there can be no definite order and every-thing is dissolved in chaotic movement. This point of reference must be established [seems a bit like our Templix/Template Matrix self-referencing frame of reference, yes?], and this always requires a choice and a decision. It makes possible a system of co-ordinates into which everything else can be fitted. Consequently at the beginning of the world, as at thebeginning of thought, there is the decision, the fixing of the point of reference... The ultimate frame of reference for all that changes is the non-changing."?

And why stop there with our recursions of affirmations and negations? If with abductive logic we end up beginning with (0+1) operating on (x + y), do we not get: 0x + 0y + 1x + y; and then if we do it all over again with (0 + 1) operating on (0x + 0y + 1x +1y) do we not get: (00x + 00y + 01x + 01y + 10x +10y + 11x + 11y), and then if we do it all over again with (0+1), do we not get: 000x + 000y + 001x + 001y + 010x + 010y + 011x + 011y + 100x + 100y + 101x + 101y + 110x + 110y + 111x + 111y). And so forth.

Later mathematicians and physicists and other scientists and professional thinkers were aghast and angered when centuries after Newton wrote his Principia, his writings about alchemy and theology were discovered to their chagrin. How could the sanest of all men also be a religious nutcase and fan ofHermes the Thrice-Great? And yet are we not by using a Templix version of his Binomial Theorem to erect our Jacobean Beth El of sorts “sulam” between the most mundane of arithmetic trivialities as wellas the most “heavenly” cognitive conveyance to God Only Knows What and Where, one seen not only as a Newtonian binomial expansion, but also in so many other ways such as this one...

Page 34: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

So now let the booing as well as any cheering begin! Because, of course, why would anyone in her or his right mind want to seek to use her/his deep curiosity to further explore what was just proposed in this odd medium-size pamphlet? Yet there be even more to it, at least if and when we are perhaps watching a sportsevent? Because that can end up being more than just some idle question, as that query can now prevent us from drifting away from the shores of the Templix algorithm, model, paradigm or whatever, after which we would have, alas, gotten back to drowning in our shallow curiosity. More specifically, here is why you might want to spend time comparing/contrasting the everyday kinds of iterative recursive cheers and boosyou experience at a home team game with your hometeam's most detested rival. Consider, how even as you are cheering your home team, you are as well inclined to be cheering the cheering of your home team, and even inclined to be cheering the cheering

of the cheering of your home team...

Those cheers upon cheers upon cheers serve to ever more intensify your enthusiasm. Whereas, notice how when the other team's fans are booing your home team, that leads to your side booing their booing of your home team, which in turn leads to their side booing your side's booing of their booing of your home team. So, as compared to the concentrating and focusing results of all of your Yes! Actions and re-actions, and re-actions... all of those No! recursive negations, of course, produce instead a kind of back and forth gestalt-like effect. And how about the case where we are mixing and matching cheers and boos; cheering boos and booing cheers, and booing cheers of cheers versus booing cheers of boos?

Good God and Dear Lord!, keeping track of all of those recursive negations and recursive affirmations sure can quickly get dizzying. But now you as well as all of academia, each and all have Jack and the Templix Template Matrix to sort out all of those complexities.

Indeed while many cognitive scientists and computer scientists will just throw up their hands and give up at wrestling with and prevailing over those kinds of combinations of recursive negations in reality always and in all ways meeting up with recursive affirmations, you have just seen that there really is a generalized way of visualizing and describing not only strings of cheers and boos operating on cheers and boos, etc. as they operate on home team and visiting team, but also that this pamphlet provides a curious way of visualizing and describing many other such combination strings of No way, Jose “goingaway froms and Halleluyah! coming towards”, as they are operating on themselves and on all sorts of x's and y's.

Yet when all of that booing & cheering subsides, how much will the contents of this pamphlet perhaps still appeal to both your curiosities, shallow and/or deep, is anyone's guess. But at this point, as if we are playing schoolyard dodgeball, not going for Olympic gold, you are It! Thus, our blue book exam...

Page 35: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

AFTERWARD: Use your deep curiosity to play around with this linear, continuous way of going from seeing Newtonian physics to seeing modern physics; and also the commongestalt plain of quantum physics and relativity...

while remembering how Minkowski's hyperbolic paraboloid, as found in the geometry of space-time for relativity, might be able to be seen as showings up in both QM's Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle & Newton's differentiation and integration and Leibniz's, as well as seen in stone-raising and raizing. And/or find the clue to perhaps, even more so these enigmatic words of Nicholas of Cusa, perhaps the leading thinker in all of Christendom during a large part of the Middle Ages, who got away with keeping flexible thinking alive at a time when free-thinkers were often being burnt at the the stake: "I have found the place where one can find Thee undisguised. It is surrounded by the coincidence of opposites. This is the wall of Paradise in which Thou dwellest. Its gate is guarded by the 'highest spirit of reason'. Unless one overcomes it, the entrance will not open. On the other side of the wall of the coincidence of opposites one can see Thee, on this side never."

As was taught two thousand years ago, might a child's naivete, her or his not yet adult-eratend logic, get us inside of where the highest and mightiest of human logics still keep us out? Both in times of religious fanaticism, political fanaticism, and/or mathematical elitism and other such “grown up” one-sidedness? Consider, e.g.. the events of 6/21/18. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant because she works for President Trump. Her father, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, told Laura Ingraham the rest of the story. “Sarah and her husband just went home. They had sort of had enough.” “But the rest of her family went across the street to another restaurant,” he explained, “and that’s when things got even more absurd.” “The owner of the Red Hen — because nobody’s told this — then followed them across the street, called people and organized a protest, yelling and screaming at them from outside the restaurant and creating this scene,” he explained. One of Sander’s in-laws, whom he described as “very liberal,” walked out and said, “Look, I don’t like

Page 36: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

Trump, I’m not a supporter, I’m — considered liberal — but you guys are embarrassing me and you’re not helping the cause.”

“Nevertheless, the mob yelled and screamed even though Sanders was no longer there because, appar-ently, having even a tangential relationship to the Trump administration means you’re not fit to be out and about in polite society and you’re no longer to be afforded public accommodations.” Whether all, partially or not at all true, these days, seems to depend on which side of the table you are sitting, and if you are prepared to change sides. Not a job for shallow curiosity, but maybe one for the deep one?

The story of my life. Until now. But where there is life, there is hope. Yes? YSYL

1 Why so many etymologies? Because that is where deep curiosity sooner or later leads us... From Umberto Eco's Faucault's Pendulum, bottom of page 566 – top of page 567... “I read dictionaries, I studied histories of words, to understand what was happening in my body. I studied like a rabbi. Have you ever reflected that the linguistic term `metathesis' is similar to the oncological term `metastasis'? What is the metathesis? Instead of `clasp' one says `claps.' Instead of `beloved' one says `bevoled.' It's the temurah [Kabbalah's mystery of exchanging, in some deeply onto-logical as well as theo-logical way trading in x for y, yes?] The dictionary says that metathesis means the transposition or inter-change, while metastasis indicates the change and shifting. How stupid dictionaries are! The root is thesame. Either it's the verb metatithemi or the verb methistemi. Metatithemi means I interpose, I shift, I transfer, I substitute, I abrogate a law, I change a meaning. And methistemi? It's the same thing: I move, I transform, I transpose, I switch cliches, I take leave of my senses. And as we sought secret meanings beyond the letter, we all took leave of our senses. And so did my cells, obediently, dutifully.”

To the extent that we all have a responsibility to live our lives as we choose, and yet we all have a duty

Page 37: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

to “do unto others as we would have them do unto us,” what are the chances of this pamphlet helping tostart a Second American Revolution that is also some kind of extra kind Third Great Awakening? Not much. But, hey, ya' never know. And even if not, if and when more and more of us seek to put out little fires, might that not increasingly lead to avoiding much bigger ones? We all can all hope for that, yes?

Page 38: A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Bindingbetter-tymes.com/MindingPamphlet.pdf · A Course in Mind-Bending And/Vs. Mind-Binding: Bending not breaking metaphors renews social systems

This last page is for you!

Please use this last page as a gestalt-math opportunity for you to write down whatever comes to mind which you may want to use to make your life better as well as leave the world better than you found it...