Objectives:
(A) To describe quality.
(B) To suggest that quality is unique to each individual.
(C) To define meta-information.
(D) To describe the main aspects of meta-information.
(E) To illustrate by example the kind of thinking that is utilized to arrive at meta-information.
(F) To introduce the "theory of groups," the "theory of logical types," and the notion of "orders of change."
(G) To illustrate these theories by example.
(H) To suggest some implications of these theories.
(I) To make the distinction (again!) between hard information and soft information.
(J) To indicate both the crises and the opportunities in the domain of soft information.
(K) To suggest that there may be a need for changing "human nature."
(L) To suggest a starting point: The critical examination of every concept and word in the domain of human interaction.
Meta-information can be described as "quality knowledge."
Quality: What you like or appreciate; what you think works; the mysterious, unique, internal goal of every creative individual; the essence, the crux of the matter; purity, clarity, brilliance, precision, fineness, cleanliness, excellence; beauty, harmony, neatness, tidiness, order, virtue, vividness, economy, sensitivity, elegance; superiority, distinction, consistency, unity; life, love, value, volition, vitality, vision, variety, diversity, consciousness, originality, creativity, power, choice, competition, co-operation, judgment, discernment, discrimination, evaluation, humor, health, wealth, happiness, pleasure, joy, wisdom, mastery, perfection.
The best (highest quality) "textbook" on quality I know of was written by Robert M. Pirsig: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," another superb example of "meta-information in action." This book has had a profound influence on the expansion of my own thinking. It also demon-strates all the aspects of meta-information described below.
Qualities are insurmountable barriers for us; we cannot help feeling that mere quantitative differences are something fundamentally distinct from quantity - namely, that they are qualities which can no longer be reduced to one another. But everything for which the word "knowledge" makes any sense refers to the domain of reckoning, weighing, measuring, to the domain of quantity; while, on the other hand, all our sensations of value (i.e., simply our sensations) adhere precisely to qualities (i.e., to our perspective "truths," which belong to us alone and can by no means be "known!" It is obvious that every creature different from us senses different qualities and, consequently, lives in a different world from that in which we live. Qualities are an idiosyncrasy peculiar to man; to demand that our human interpretations and values should be universal and perhaps constitutive values is one of the hereditary madnesses of human pride. - Friedrich Nietzsche ("The Will to Power")
Quality is the fifth dimension. The space dimensions (length, breadth, and height) are the first, second, and third. Time is the fourth dimension. And quality is the fifth. Life is the fifth dimension. Quality (and life and power) are the "super context" in which creation occurs. (This notion of a fifth dimension will be elaborated in Section 32.)
Meta-Information:
(A) The creation of original information, which is not a function of previously-held information;
(B) Consciousness of the contexts in which information is held; the transcending and transformation of these contexts;
(C) Advanced critical techniques for dealing with information;
(D) The resulting validated, synthesized, distilled, purified, and integrated information of a higher level, order, or quality.
Six Aspects of Meta-Information:
(A) Advanced critical techniques for discovering and/or identifying the most practically useful information;
(B) Advanced critical techniques for disseminating this most useful information and getting it applied;
(C) Advanced critical techniques for recognizing the nature and reality of the "medium of current information" in which we operate - particu-larly those aspects conducive to useful information being disseminated and applied and those aspects which could be regarded as obstacles to effective information being put to work. (By "medium of current information" is meant the "ocean of information" in which we live - suggesting that, like a fish lives in water, we live in a sea of information - or a context of information);
(D) Meta-techniques for improving the above techniques;
(E) Consciousness of the contexts surrounding these techniques and meta-techniques; the ability to transform or transcend these contexts;
(F) The creation of novel contexts and original information, independent of past contexts and past information.
I have just finished reading a book called, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by Gaigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. Some of the aspects and techniques of meta-information are illustrated in this book, particularly in a section called, "The Need to Synthesise," from which I quote:
At this point, we paused to review the evidence at our disposal. It was leading us in a startling, yet unmistakable direction. By why, we wondered, had this evidence never been subpoenaed by scholars before? It had certainly been readily available, and for centuries. Why had no one, to our knowledge, ever synthesised it and drawn what would seem to be fairly obvious, if only speculative, conclusions? Granted, such conclusions a few centuries ago would have been rigorously taboo - and, if published, severely punished. But there had been no such danger for at least the last two hundred years. Why, then, had the fragments of the puzzle not hitherto been assembled into a coherent whole?
The answers to these questions, we realised, lay in our own age and the modes or habits of thought which characterize it. Since the so-called "enlightenment" of the eighteenth century, the orientation of western culture and consciousness had been towards analysis, rather than synthesis. As a result, our age is one of ever-increasing specialization. In accordance with this tendency, modern scholarship lays inordinate emphasis on specialisation - which, as the modern university attest, implies and entails the segregation of knowledge into distinct "disciplines." In consequence, the diverse spheres covered by our inquiry have traditionally been segmented into quite separate compartments. In each compartment, the relevant material has been duly explored and evaluated by specialists, or "experts," in that field. But few, if any, of these "experts" have endeavoured to establish a connection between their particular field and others that may overlap it. Indeed, such "experts" tend to generally regard fields other than their own with considerable suspicion - spurious at worst, at best irrelevant. And eclectic or "interdisciplinary" research is often actively discouraged as being, among other things, too speculative.
...Schliemann, more than a century ago, discovered the site of Troy by dint of careful reading of Homer.
...Reality, history, and knowledge cannot be segmented and compartmentalised according to the arbitrary filing system of the human intellect.
...Any responsible researcher must, like a detective, pursue whatever clues come to hand, however seemingly improbable. One should not dismiss material "a priori," out of hand, because it threatens to lead into unlikely or unfamiliar territory. The events of the Watergate scandal, for instance, were reconstructed initially from a multitude of ostensibly disparate fragments, each meaningless in itself, and with no apparent connection between them.
...What is necessary is an interdisciplinary approach to one's chosen material - a mobile and flexible approach that permits one to move freely between disparate disciplines, across space and time. One must be able to link data and make connections between people, events, and phenomena widely divorced from each other; in short, one must synthesise - for only by such synthesis can one discern the underlying continuity, the unified and coherent fabric, which lies at the core of any historical problem. Such an approach is neither particularly revolutionary in principle nor particularly controversial.
...It is not sufficient to confine oneself exclusively to facts. One must also discern the repercussions and ramifications of facts, as those repercussions and ramifications radiate through the centuries - often in the form of myth and legend. True, the facts themselves may be distorted in the process, like an echo reverberating among cliffs; but if the voice itself cannot be located, the echo, however distorted, may yet point the way to it. Facts, in short, are like pebbles dropped into the pool of history. They disappear quickly, often without a trace; but they generate ripples which, if one's perspective is broad enough, enable one to pinpoint where the pebble originally fell. Guided by the ripples, one may then dive or dredge or adopt whatever approach one wishes. The point is that the ripples permit one to locate what might otherwise be irrecoverable. - Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln ("The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail")
For the notions regarding "Group Therapy," "Theory of Logical Types," and "Orders of Change," I am indebted to the book, "Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution" by Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland, and Richard Fisch. Their basic notion is that change and persistence are closely related and should be considered together. There is a French proverb: "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" - the more it changes, the more it is the same. Recognition of how this comes about is central to both problem formation and problem resolution. First, I will simply state some basic notions; then, I will attempt to explain them by example. (I apologize for the possibility that on first reading the following notions, they may seem like gobbledygook. I suggest that you alternate (resonate, as in focusing) between the brief statements of the notions and the explanations which follow later. I think it is very important that you grasp these notions.)
Group Theory:
(A) Members of a group share at least one common characteristic. Any combination of members of a group results in a member of the group. The common characteristic or element is the cement that binds the group and establishes invariance. We can think of a "combination rule," like addition, subtraction, or multiplication being performed on members. Or we can think of a combination rule as a change of state, like a die with six sides, numbered one to six, being cast successively.
(B) No matter how the members of a group are arranged, ordered, or sequenced, they remain members of the group. Whatever the sequence in which combination occurs, the outcome is, effectively, the same.
(C) A group contains an "identity member" such that its combination with any other member gives that other member. If the combination rule is addition or subtraction, the then identity member is zero; if the combination rule is multiplication, then the identity member is one. In the group of all sounds, silence is the identity member; in the group of all motions, immobility is the identity member.
(D) Every member of a group has its opposite, reciprocal, inversion, or antipode, such that the combination of a member with its opposite results in the identity member (5 plus - 5 = zero).
(E) In actuality, there are no supposed "groups." Group is a mental construct we use to give meaning to our perceptions. It serves as a basis for abstraction. It has great survival value in that it enables, for example, certain creatures, objects, events, to be instantly classified as belonging to the "beneficial group" or he "harmful group." Groupcepts can make thinking and communication more economical and more efficient. Groupcepts are powerful tools that can be used and abused.
Theory of Logical Types:
(A) "Member" and "class" (or "group") are different "logical types." Class is at a level of abstraction beyond or above member.
(B) A class cannot be a member of itself. A member is a logical type; a statement about a member is a different logical type. (A statement that attempts to refer to itself may result in paradox!)
(C) Consider this hierarchy:
(D) Consider this hierarchy:
(E) Logical levels must be kept strictly apart to prevent paradox and confusion.
(F) Going from one level of a hierarchy to another (or from one logical type to another), e.g., from member to class - entails a shift, a jump, a discontinuity, or a transformation - or the "inclusion" or "introduction" of an additional dimension.
Orders of Change:
(A) "First-order change" refers to change among members, with no corresponding change at the level of class or group. First-order change is change within a level or a class of a hierarchy.
(B) "Second-order change" refers to transformation among members, with a corresponding change at the level of class or group. Second-order change is a shift or a jump from a lower level or class of a hierarchy to a higher level or class. Second-order change entails the breaking or transcending of the rules of a logical type, which makes it possible to jump into the next-higher logical type.
Group Theory:
Now, let us return to the five notions of group theory. You may have noticed that each notion (of the first four) entails both change and invariance, or change at one level and persistence at another.
Imagine a clock with only one hand to indicate the hour. This hand does not move smoothly; every hour, on the hour, it suddenly jumps from one hour to the next. What kind of motion do we have here?
We can say that we have a group of twelve hours. The combination rule is "add one" (but "subtract eleven from twelve"). Each state of the hand is a member of the group called clock. At the level of hand, there is a change every hour. At the level of clock, there is effectively no change; there is persistence, invariance. As long as the hand follows the combination rule, it makes no difference to the clock - in the long run. (It is a perpetual motion clock!) The hour showed by the hand is always a member of the clock. The hand is locked into the clock. As long as the hand remains a rule-bound member of the clock, there can be no change at the level of clock, in the long run.
Another example would be an (unbiased) roulette wheel, spun by a (random-spinning) croupier. In the long run, it makes no difference where the little ball lands for any particular spin; the casino rakes in its percent-age: "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." (Unless someone can find a way to "beat the system!".)
With the above two examples, I have attempted to explain the first two notions of group theory. You may want to go back and review them at this point. The clock in the example has a combination rule as a result of which the hour is always a member of the clock. When we think of "clock" here, we include all twelve possible states of the "hour hand" in the one concept of "clock." Looking at it this way, can you see that at the level of "hand" there is change, while at the level of "clock," there is invariance?
In the example of the roulette wheel, we again have two levels: The level of "roulette" (member) and the level of "casino" (group). At the level of roulette, the little ball can drop into the slot for any number between zero and thirty-six. Successive numbers can occur in any sequence: Change at the level of member. And at the level of group, the casino just rakes in its percentage year after year: Invariance at the level of group (assuming that the amount of betting - the "action" - is the same from year to year).
We can think of the combination rule as a holdcept and of the group as a context. The combination rule is the holdcept that keeps the member stuck in the context of the group. No matter how much a member changes while obeying the holdcept or combination rule, the member remains within the context of the group - and at the level of group, there is invariance. (Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.") This is "first-order change." In order for change at the level of group to occur, the combination rule, or holdcept, has to be broken or transcended. (Remember what Heinlein said - "Rules serve best when broken.") This is second-order change. The instru-ments or techniques we use to achieve second-order change are called "jumpcepts."
The questions of the option process are the jumpcepts that enable us to discover the holdcepts (beliefs) that keep us stuck in unhappiness. The techniques of Po (Po-1, Po-2, and Po-3) are the jumpcepts that allow us to step outside the rules of logic (holdcepts). In focusing, the handle (jumpcept) enables us to experience and shift the felt sense (holdcept?). These are all techniques for second-order change.
The third notion of group theory is that of identity member. "Tradition" could be an example of an identity member. Combine a group member with the tradition of the group, and you get a "true blue" group member. Tradition preserves the identity of the member (and ensures that the member won't rock the boat). As long as a member behaves in accordance with group tradition, he or she can make no significant difference to the group. ("Plus ca change...")
Consider the notion of "law" as satisfying the concept of identity member. Suppose that a particular "society" consists of individual members, one of which is "the law." When you combine a "citizen" with "the law," you get the "citizen." Now, suppose some aspect of "the law" is changed, but the notion of "law" remains as firmly implanted in the brains of the "citizens" as ever. Could this have something to do with pendulum-swing fluctuations of freedom from age to age? As long as "citizens" cling to the belief that their "masters" can "make laws," then if one day the "masters make a law that bestows some freedom," then the following day the masters could make a law that withdraws some freedom," and the "citizens" swing to and fro, at the mercy of their pendulum - i.e., the notion of "law" or the identity member. (Is it possible for an individual to let go the pendulum, to drop to earth, to land on feet, without hurting?
In their book, "Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution," Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch give as an example of identity member the "terrible simplification." Consider our "society" from the previous paragraph. All the "citizens" believe that in order to solve a problem, "We have to make a law." Now, consider someone who says, "Meta is the answer. If enough people understood meta, they would continue to go beyond wherever they are and, eventually, they would escape from all their problems." Someone else says, "All we have to do is to get enough people to ridicule the notion of law, and then we will all be free." These are all terrible simplifications that, by themselves, would make no difference.
The fourth notion of group theory is that of "the opposite." This can be described as a property of a homeostatic, or self-correcting, system. When a group member of such a system "breaks with tradition," an opposite correcting influence comes into play to restore "order," balance, and harmony. (-5 plus 5 = zero). The result of the combination or two opposites is the identity member. After the revolution, the "new" system. ("Plus ca change...")
In our hypothetical "society," addicted to "making laws," there is a degree of polarization into "the left" and "the right," according to the swing of the pendulum. When "the left" swings to the top, they make "left laws" (with which the "citizens" become disillusioned after a while); then "the right" swings to the top, they make "right laws" (with which the "citizens" soon become disillusioned); then "the left" swings to the top..."the left" plus "the right" is "the middle zero." ("Plus ca change...")
Then, the libertarians come along and say, "No, we mustn't make left laws, and we mustn't make right laws. What kind of laws must we make? Voila! We must make laws that will make the pendulum swing front to back and back to front; then, we will be free!" ("Plus ca change...")
The fifth notion of group theory is really that the notion of "group" is an absurdity! However, in accordance with the theory of logical types, the previous sentence may result in a paradox! So what? Well...suppose you attempt to change a "group" or "system," but in actuality, there is no such imagined "group" or "system" - what would be the result? ("Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.") In the case of our clock, how do you change it? If you change the hand (member), you get another hour. Does that change the clock, as such? Or do you change the clock for another clock? What happens if you change the common characteristic or the combination rule? Or if you are locked in as a member of a particular supposed "group," how do you escape?
The gigantic myth called "society" that rules so many lives doesn't even exist. "Society" is merely a collection of different people, tastes, and judgments. It can't enforce its rules upon you. - Harry Browne ("How I Found My Freedom In An Unfree World")
What do you have to know in order to open the combination lock of a safe? What is it that locks human beings into particular behavior patterns that they repeat over and over, century after century? Nietzsche's doctrine of "eternal recurrence"?
How can the notion of "group" be abused? When a member believes that he or she is part of a supposed "group," and the "group" is regarded as senior to the member, then some interesting implications come into play:
(A) The member is no longer responsible because the "group" can be responsible.
(B) Because, in actuality, there is no supposed "group" as such, responsi-bility tends to disappear altogether.
(C) The member tends to project magical and mystical abilities into the make-believe "group," such as the "ability to build roads," the "ability to maintain law and order," and the "ability to run hospitals;" the member further tends to deny that individuals have these abilities.
(D) A persuasive parasitic member sees vast opportunities in this state of affairs; he says, "Give me you power, let me represent the group and make decisions for the group; then all your problems will be solved."
You let men in power assume power "for the little man," but you yourself remain silent. You give men in power - or important people with evil intentions - the power to represent you. Only too late do you realize that, again and again, you are being defrauded. - Wilhelm Reich ("Listen, Little Man!")
(E) The persuasive, parasitic member convinces other members that only he and his friends can "educate," and all children must be sent to pretended "schools." In these make-believe "schools" (concentration camps for youth indoctrination?), the children are brainwashed with sucker beliefs concerning (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E).
You are your own slave driver. Nobody else - nobody except you yourself carries the responsibility for your slavery. Nobody else... - Wilhelm Reich ("Listen, Little Man!")
(F) Members relinquish and lose their responsibility, power, and freedom.
They do not love you - they despise you, since you despise yourself, little man. They know your worst weaknesses. They have sacrificed you to a symbol, and you carry them to power over yourself. Your masters have been elevated by you, yourself, and are nurtured by you in spite of the fact - or, rather, because of the fact - that they have dropped all masks. Indeed, they told you in so many words: "You are an inferior being without any responsibility, and you are going to remain so." And you call them "saviors," "new liberators," and yell, "Heil, heil!" and "Viva, viva!" - Wilhelm Reich ("Listen, Little Man!")
(G) Some pompous, parasitic types go "mad with power" and become terrible tyrants.
For centuries to come, you will murder your friends and will hail as your masters the "Fuehrers" of all peoples. Through the centuries, you will shed blood where life should be protected and will believe that you will achieve freedom with the help of the hangman; thus, you will find yourself again and again in the same morass, for you are afraid of life, little man, deadly afraid. You will murder it in the belief of doing it for the sake of "socialism" or "the state" or "national honour" or "the glory of God." There is one thing you don't know nor want to know: That you yourself create all your misery, hour after hour, day after day..." - Wilhelm Reich ("Listen, Little Man!")
(H) Many members become obedient suckers who will unwittingly condone, support, and participate in the most vile atrocities - like Viet Nam.
(I) Some members become frustrated and protest that the tyrants must do it bigger, better, or different.
This is why I'm afraid of you, little man, deadly afraid. For on you depends the fate of humanity. I am afraid of you because there is nothing you flee as much as yourself. You are sick, very sick, little man. It is not your fault. But it is your responsibility to rid yourself of this sickness. You would have long since shaken off your oppressors had you not tolerated oppression and often actively supported it. No police force in the world would be powerful enough to suppress you if you had only a mite of self-respect in practical everyday living...You and only you are responsible for your life (instead of being responsible for the "honour of the Fatherland." - Wilhelm Reich ("Listen, Little Man!")
(J) Sucker members become so hypnotized, stupefied, helpless, and deluded in this vicious merry-go-round that if anyone suggests that they shed their revered "group beliefs" they reply, "But we can't do that, because if do, then there will be lawlessness, chaos, and disorder!"
The great man, at one time, also was a very little man, but he developed one important ability: He learned to see where he was small in his thinking and his actions. Under the pressure of some task which was dear to him, he learned better and better to sense the threat that came from his smallness and pettiness. The great man, then, knows when and in what he is a little man. The little man does not know that he is little, and he is afraid of knowing it. - Wilhelm Reich ("Listen, Little Man!")
(K) "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." Return to (A), above, then continue!
Theory of Logical Types:
Consider the hierarchy: Position/distance/motion/acceleration/change of acceleration. In order to describe position, the dimension of distance (or the dimensions of space) has to be introduced. Position can only be described in terms of distance from other positions. A level cannot be described from within itself. To describe one level, you have to go to a higher level and describe it from there. Distance becomes meaningful when we introduce time. We tend to "measure" distance by how long we think it takes to get there. It is no accident that we measure distances as "one hour by horse," "three hours flying," or "ten light-years."
What further dimension do we have to introduce or include in order to describe motion? Energy? Change? Direction? Momentum? And to describe acceleration, do we have to introduce a second time dimension so we can express it as miles per second per second? Where does gravity come in to all this? Is gravity a dimension beyond space and time?
Consider the hierarchy: Behavior/language/meta-information. The dimension that makes language possible is meaning. In order to describe behavior, meaning has to be introduced. Language is a higher logical type than behavior. Can we now make an analogy to suggest that behavior is to language as hand is to clock? What would be the implications? If we want behavior to change, what do we have to do? Can we find ways of changing behavior that will trigger a change at the higher level of language (and thinking)?
Meta-information is the attempt to step beyond language, to a higher logical type, from where language and thinking - and, hence, behavior - can change. And the dimension that has to be included or introduced is quality. It is an assumption of meta-information that language is more than a medium of communication: It is also a set of concepts, constituting the units of meaning which we manipulate in our minds - and we call this thinking. A further assumption of meta-information is that thinking (or thought) - and, hence, language - has become a determinant of behavior; therefore, both language and behavior need to be changed.
Note that we can also argue that language came about as a result of behavior. Therefore, behavior is a determinant of language. Therefore, we may be able to change behavior in such a way that the change will trigger a change at the level of language and thinking. Is this not what Po is all about?
At the level of the higher logical type of meta-information, we can think about, describe, test, and judge the relative value of techniques like Po. And the dimension we have introduced is quality.
Actually, we should probably formulate our hierarchy as: Behavior/ language/thought/meta-information. If the dimension that gives rise to language is meaning, then what is the dimension that makes thought possible? Can we think of reason as a dimension? What about intuition? Is this another dimension? Are reason and intuition the dimensions in which thought occurs? Are reason and intuition logical types at the same level? Can we call intuition "first-stage thinking" and reason, "second-stage" thinking? Can we further suggest that to control, direct, and integrate different modes of thought, we have to evolve a higher logical type? Meta-information is the attempt to create this higher logical type; the dimension is quality.
Finally, we need to look at what may happen when we attempt to describe something at a particular level, from the same level. The simplest example is that of Epimenedes, from the island Crete, who said, ""All Cretans are liars." If this statement were true, then obviously, Epimenedes was a liar. And if he was a liar, then the statement may or may not have been true, in which case "some Cretans may not have been liars." So we have a paradox. The resolution of the paradox comes when we realize that statements about all Cretans made by a Cretan may result in paradoxes! To describe a logical type, one has to shift to a higher logical type and describe from there. Superhumans - or "Martians" - not subject to "human rules" are capable of describing humans.
The "Epimenedes Paradox" can be expanded:
"The statement that follows is false;
the previous statement is true."
(Refer to "Goedel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter.)
Orders of Change:
By now, it should be clear that the qualitative difference between "first-order change" and "second-order change" is that the former occurs within a framework or a context of fixed rules, while the latter involves the breaking or the transcending of the rules.
Yet another useful analogy is supplied by an automobile with a conventional shift gear. The performance of the engine can be changed in two very different ways: Either through the gas pedal (by increasing or decreasing the supply of fuel to the cylinders) or by shifting gears. Let us strain the analogy just a little and say that in each gear, the car has a certain range of "behaviors" (i.e., of power output and consequently of speed, acceleration, climbing capacity, etc.). Within that range (i.e., that class of behaviors), appropriate use of the gas pedal will produce the desired change in performance. But if the required performance falls outside this range, the driver must shift gears to obtain the desired change. Gear shifting is, thus, a phenomenon of a higher logical type than giving gas, and it would be patently nonsensical to talk about the mechanics of complex gears in the language of the thermodynamics of fuel supply. - Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch ("Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution")
We can also simply say that first-order change is change, and second-order change is change of change. In the case of the automobile, we first change by giving more gas; then we change the way we change by shifting gears. Change and change squared. Speed and acceleration.
For those of us who have grandiose notions about "changing the world," we may have to change ourselves and change the way we change ourselves and change the way we attempt to change the world and change the way we attempt to change the ways in which we attempt to change the world! After all, we may be dealing with a homeostatic system extremely resistant to any but first-order change!
The Need for Meta-information:
In the introduction (Section 1), a distinction was made between "hard information" and "soft information." Two "formulas" were given: (a) "hard information" = difficult deception; (b) "soft information" = easy deception.
Man is an amphibian who lives simultaneously in two worlds - the given and the home-made, the world of matter, life and consciousness and the world of symbols. In our thinking, we make use of a great variety of symbol systems - linguistic, mathematical, pictorial, musical, ritualistic. Without such symbol systems, we should have no art, no science, no law, no philosophy, not so much as the rudiments of civilization: In other words, we should be animals.
Symbols, then, are indispensable. But symbols - as the history of our own and every other age makes so abundantly clear - can also be fatal. Consider, for example, the domain of science on the one hand, the domain of politics and religion on the other. Thinking in terms of - and acting in response to - one set of symbols, we have come, in some small measure, to understand and control the elementary forces of nature. Thinking in terms of - and acting in response to - another set of symbols, we use these forces as instruments of mass murder and collective suicide. In the first case, explanatory symbols were well-chosen, carefully analyzed, and progressively adapted to the emergent facts of physical existence. In the second case, symbols originally ill-chosen were never subjected to thoroughgoing analysis and never re-formulated so as to harmonize with the emergent facts of human existence. Worse still, these misleading symbols were everywhere treated with a wholly unwarranted respect, as though in some mysterious way, they were more real than the realities to which they referred. In the contexts of religion and politics, words are not regarded as standing, rather inadequately, for things and events; on the contrary, things and events are regarded as particular illustrations of words.
Up to the present, symbols have been used realistically only in those fields which we do not feel to be supremely important. In every situation involving our deeper impulses, we have insisted on using symbols - not merely unrealistically, but idolatrously, even insanely. The result is that we have been able to commit, in cold blood and over long periods of time, acts of which the brutes are capable only for brief moments and at the frantic height of rage, desire, or fear...Belief in the complete adequacy and superlative value of any given symbol system leads not to liberation, but to history, to more of the same old disasters...the man who has successfully solved the problem of his relations with the two worlds of data and symbols is a man who has no beliefs. With regard to the problems of practical life, he entertains a series of working hypotheses, which serve his purposes, but are taken no more seriously than any other kind of tool or instrument... - Aldous Huxley (foreword to "The First and Last Freedom" by J. Krishnamurti)
Regarding the domain of hard information, we have put a man on the moon; in the domain of human interaction (soft information), we slaughter one another from time to time. Maybe in the latter case, there is an added dimension of complexity: Quality?
The domain of human interaction tends to be invaded - even pervaded - by perverse information; as a consequence of which there occurs much suffering - in short, crisis upon crisis.
These crises also constitute the greatest opportunities for the gener-ation and application of meta-information - the potential for quality improve-ment is astounding. Superficially, it would seem that in such a set-up, it should be fairly easy for some gifted member to rise above (and beyond) his or her fellows and to bring wisdom to the world...ah! But don't forget the fourth notion of group theory: For every member there is an opposite, such that the combination of member with opposite results in the identity member (5 plus -5 = zero) - or, can we say that "the hero must die" is the tradition?
Even the Jews - who, for Moses to Marx and LaSalle - have inspired all the revolutions, have had to confess that, after all, the dog will return to his vomit and the sow that has washed to her wallowing in the mire; and we may as well make up our minds that man will return to his idols and his cupidities, in spite of all "movements" and all revolutions, until his nature is changed.
Judge us by the admitted and respected practice of our most reputable circles; and, if you know the facts and are strong enough to look them in the face, you must admit that unless we are replaced by a more highly-evolved animal - in short, by the Superman - the world must remain a den of dangerous animals among whom our few accidental supermen, our Shakespears, our Goethes, Shelleys, and their like, must live as a precariously as lion tamers do, taking the humor of their situation and the dignity of their superiority, as a set-off to the horror of the one and the loneliness of the other...
The proof of the Superman will be in the living; and we shall find out how to produce him by the old method of trial and error, and not by waiting for a completely convincing prescription of his ingredients...
As to the method, what can be said as yet except that where there is a will, there is a way? If there be no will, we are lost. That is a possibility for our crazy little empire, if not for the universe; and as such possibilities are not to be entertained without despair, we must, whilst we survive, proceed on the assumption that we have still energy enough to not only will to live, but to will to live better... - George Bernard Shaw ("Man and Superman")
Where do we start? By critically examining every single concept, every word, in the domain of human interaction. If you study the books of Nietzsche, mentioned in the introduction (Section 1), you will find that this is exactly what he attempted. The task in meta-information is to proceed with the process and to develop more efficient and effective tools and instruments for doing so.
There are also...civil libertarians, who favor rights for the radical left and oppose them for the radical right. The shocker here is not that these people embody particular contradictions, but the more basic fact that no belief systems actually represent reality; they are only structural ideas created out of a small part of the human mind's potential.
...Consider some of the entities that you live with every day. Governments, countries, organizations, religions, political parties, businesses, families, and many other "things" are not things at all, but are only consensual ideas that we are conditioned to believe as real. They have no real substantiality and serve only as functions in our societies and our individual lives. When you go to school, to the bank, to work, or to a store, you usually go to a specific building, it is true; but the building is not the school, the bank, the work, or the store; rather, it is only a symbolic embodiment of a function: If its function is moved elsewhere, or if the building is used for a different function, the building is given a different symbolic name. From this perspective, the state of California and, for that matter, Sky Hi Ranch, do not exist; they are just arbitrary boundaries, enforced by convention, agreement, and law...if you honor your father and your mother, please realize that your father and mother, even if they are still alive, do not exist; the people do, but "father" and "mother" are just names for functions and relationships...
My point is that, ordinarily, we live not with things, but with ideas about things. In many ways, this ideation is convenient and valuable, a useful tool in living and communicating with one another; but right now, in the process of our awakening, we must see it as a trap, an automatic, involuntary mechanism that is only a small part of our awareness. Our labels, emotions, and prejudices preclude experiencing the full potential of our beingness. Our ideas about things keep us from perceiving the things themselves.The outer mind is that portion of consciousness that is primarily conditioned ideas about reality. Its awareness is profoundly limited in our attempts to experience what actually exists in any given moment. Like the Pavlovian dog. Each individual responds to a cue to which he or she has been trained. A cue can potentially produce many kinds of responses, but to any given cue, each individual responds with only one reaction, or at the most, a few. In any case, the reaction is potentiated through the mechanism of memory. This limitation of experience is established very early and usually is not altered throughout a lifetime.
The beginner's mind approach asks that the memory be held in check while an openness to new experience is maintained. The conditioned response is unhooked - separated - from the cue that stimulates it. With this freedom, new growth is possible.
As we begin to fathom this principle, we begin to use the beginner's mind to see things the way they are rather than the way we have been conditioned to see them. We can also begin to understand the source of the insane consequences of conditioning - wars, destruction, killing, incarcerations, crucifixions, boundaries, and so on - of conflicts between belief systems and, even more fundamentally, our all-too-human habit of taking our belief systems as real. From fathoming the same principle, we can also learn to see the magnificence of our creative potential in the rich variations of themes called life. - W. Brugh Joy ("Joy's Way")
And from Joy's "beginner's mind" to the "Superman of the galaxy!"
"I am now relaxing," he told himself, "and all stimuli are making the full circuit of my nervous system, along my spinal cord to the thalamus, through the thalamus and up to the cortex, and through the cortex and then - and only then - back through the thalamus and down into the nervous system. Always, I am consciously aware of the stimulus moving up to and through the cortex."
That was the key. That was the difference between the null-A Superman and the animal man of the galaxy. The thalamus - the seat of the emotions - and the cortex - the seat of discrimination - integrated, balanced in a warm and wonderful relationship. Emotions, not done away with, but made richer and more relaxed by the association with that part of the mind - the cortex - that could savor unnumbered subtle differences in the flow of feeling. - A. E. Van Vogt ("The Pawns of Null-A")
Points to Remember:
(A) Quality is, basically, what you like or appreciate.
(B) Quality is unique for each individual.
(C) Quality is life and all that which enhances life.
(D) Meta-information can be described as quality knowledge.
(E) Quality is the fifth dimension.
(F) The creation of original information.
(G) The consciousness of the context in which information is held.
(H) There are advanced techniques for dealing with information.
(I) Specialization can be a barrier to quality knowledge.
(J) Synthesizing from many sources is a technique of meta-information.
(K) Categorizing information into compartments or "disciplines" can be an obstacle to quality knowledge.
(L) Using an interdisciplinary approach is a method or technique of meta-information.
(M) A very broad perspective may be necessary in order to locate all the available information relative to a particular problem.
(N) A large variety of approaches can be used in the attempts to resolve any particular issue.
(O) The five notions of "Group Theory."
(P) Some dangers of "group" concepts.
(Q) The notions of the "Theory of Logical Types."
(R) The difference between "first-order change" and "second-order change."
(S) Why there is a need for meta-information.
(T) The distinction between hard information and soft information.
(U) Why it may be necessary that we change "human nature."
(V) What Nietzsche attempted to do: To examine critically every concept, every word, in the domain of human interaction.
Clarity Check:
(A) Who is qualified to determine what quality is for you?
(B) Are there aspects of quality which are common to all humans?
(C) What is likely to happen if some people attempt to impose their idea of quality upon others?
(D) What do you think of the idea of quality being a fifth dimension?
(E) Can original information be created? If so, how?
(F) Could it be that many people live in a context, restricted by the holdcept, "Others must determine what quality is for me"?
(G) What advanced techniques do your know for dealing with information?
(H) Is it desirable and/or feasible for individuals to take personal responsibility for the quality of their concepts? If so, how can this be done?
(I) Can you entertain the idea that a major portion of the conscious contents of your brain consists of poor-quality information that hamstrings many aspects of your life?
(J) If so, what do you intend to do about it?
(K) What is meant by "combination rule" and "identity member"?
(L) What are the five notions of "Group Theory"?
(M) Do you see any practical use for the notion of change and invariance occurring at the same time?
(N) What do you think might be the dangers of "group" concepts?
(O) What do you think of Wilhelm Reich's assertions about "The Little Man"?
(P) What do you think of this suggestion: To the degree that you grant power to, and submit to, groupcepts like "flock," "community," "society," "nation," "state," etc., you - at best - belittle yourself and - at worst - you debilitate, stupefy, and enslave yourself?
(Q) What are the notions of the "Theory of Logical Types"?
(R) Can you see any practical application of this theory in your own life?
(S) What are "first-order change" and "second-order change"?
(T) Do you think that "human nature" (whatever it is) could be a holdcept that keeps us stuck in the "human situation"?
(U) If it were possible to change "human nature," would this be a "first-order change" or a "second-order change"?
(V) Up to this stage, has your general opinion of the book or author changed?
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com