|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
THE DIVINE COMEDY OF DANTE ALIGHIERI (1265-1321) THE FLORENTINE CANTICA I HELL (L'INFERNO) INTRODUCTION Page 9 "Midway this way of life we're bound upon I woke to find myself in a dark wood, Where the right road was wholly lost and gone."
THE DIVINE COMEDY OF DANTE ALIGHIERI (1265-1321) THE FLORENTINE CANTICA I HELL (L'INFERNO) INTRODUCTION Page 9 "Power failed high fantasy here; yet, swift to move Even as a wheel moves equal, free from jars, Already my heart and will were wheeled by love, The Love that moves the sun and other stars."
AVATAR 5 AVATAR
THE EYWA AVATAR EYWA I SEE I SEE YOU I YOU SEE I THAT AM Y I C U R ME O ME R U C I I C THAT THAT THAT C I I
Enya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Enya is an Irish singer, instrumentalist and composer. The media sometimes refer to her by the Anglicized name, Enya Brennan; Enya is an approximate ... Enya discography - The Very Best of Enya - Enya (album) - And Winter Came...
HOLY BIBLE REVELATION C 21 V 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
MIND BORN SONS, THOSE PATENT PATIENT PATENTED PATTERN MAKERS MIND=4 BORN=4 SONS=4 THOSE=4 PATENT=4 PATIENT=4 PATENTED=4 PATTERN=4 MAKERS=4
THE LIGHT IS RISING RISING IS THE LIGHT
JOSEPH CHRIST MARY
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBERS REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
PLATO
Sacred Geometry is the theory of dimensional evolution which assumes the ... door to his academy stating, "Let no one unacquainted with geometry enter here.". ...
AN OVERVIEW OF SACRED GEOMETRY Gregg Hall Sacred Geometry is the theory of dimensional evolution which assumes the universe is a living system kept together by the existence of a sacred geometry that encompasses the entire cosmos and makes for the blueprint for the manifestation of what we know as our material universe and in addition organizes the context through which all love evolves. Our universe was designed to be highly efficient and is capable of performing a wide range of multiple functions at the same time. The very same geometry which provides structure to physical reality also allows for the perceptual environments that people and civilizations must move through as part of a systematic learning process on the path towardsevolution. Each dimension of this sacred geometry holds a unique place of perceptual space and a context of learning both for personaland social evolution. As each new dimension appears a new set of perceptions and potentials is awakened which we are free to accept and actualize or ignore. It is in understanding the dimensional structure which exists all around us that allows us to be able to understand the path and direction of personal and social evolution. Even though our modern science generally believes there is nothing of deeper meaning to the dimensional geometry of the universe other than the actual physical aspects, there is a view that is almost diametrically opposed to this that began with the Greek philosopher Pythagoras in 500 B.C. Pythagoras believed and taught the theory or belief that all of the mathematical patterns in the universe were actually expressions of divine intelligence and signified a divine intention. According to Pythagoras, we are surrounded by organizational intelligence that is shown in its purest from through mathematical formulas and musical harmonies and allowing ourselves to be at the center of our experience; we can know and share the organizing patterns and principles that pervadethe universe. This is a thought that was even held by Albert Einstein, who stated that he received his greatest breakthroughs after praying and sleeping. The answers to the questions he was seeking came to him from the Universe while he slept! This is also the way that it can be explained for someone who is blind to be able to sculpt and for a deaf person, such as Beethoven to be able to compose intricate musical scores. Plato, who taught over a hundred years after Pythagoras, continued in the teachings of Pythagorean thought in espousing that the universe or cosmos as Pythagoras termed it was a place of "harmonious and beautiful order" and placed such a high regard on geometry that he placed a sign above the door to his academy stating, "Let no one unacquainted with geometry enter here."
the aims of studying plane geometry and how to attain them - Jstor by EP Sisson - 1908 "Let no one who is unacquainted with geometry enter here."
The Cyclopædia, Or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and ... Abraham Rees - 1819 - ?Encyclopedias and dictionaries “Let no one, who is unacquainted with geometry, enter here.
A history of elementary mathematics - Page 61 C. Florian - 1914 - History Let no one who is unacquainted with geometry enter here,” was inscribed over the entrance to his school. Likewise Xenocrates, a successor of Plato, as teacher ...
A History of Mathematics Page 26 Florian Cajori - 1999 - Mathematics inscription over his porch, "Let no one who is unacquainted with geometry enter here". "Let no one who is unacquainted with geometry enter here".
Geometry. Part 2 - ChestofBooks.com Plato is said to have inscribed over his door, "Let no one enter here who is unacquainted with geometry."
"Let no one enter here who is unacquainted with geometry."
"Let no one enter here who is unacquainted with geometry."
TRANSPOSED LETTERS REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
Fuzziness and Exactness – Chapter 3 of Wholeness ...
“It is a primitive form of thought that things either exist or do not exist” (Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted by McFarlane 2002: 46). “The closer one looks at a real-world problem, the fuzzier becomes its solution” (Lotfi Zadeh, founder of fuzzy set theory, quoted by Bart Kosko 1993: 148). Contents: Introduction - Logic - Identity - Either/or Logic - Both/and Logic - Fuzzy Logic and Fuzziness - Semantic Interlude - Fuzziness in Science - Fuzziness in Religion - Fuzziness in Ethics - Fuzziness in Law - Fuzziness in Politics - Fuzziness in Everyday Life – "Mandala" as a Fuzzy Set - From Fuzzy Sets to Fuzzy Systems - Yin-Yang - Yin-Yang and Fuzziness - Nature is not Perfect - A Joke - Plato and Aristotle - Polar Opposites - Love and Hate - Life and Death - Other Polar Opposites - Beyond Polar Opposites - Standing Meditation - Standing with a Tree – Summary - References - Quotes Introduction Exactness seems to be appreciated by most people in our culture, whereas fuzziness is often perceived as negative and undesirable. In this chapter I want to show that, contrary to this common view and belief, fuzziness can be positive and desirable. In fact, it is not what most people think it is. But before I can go into this, I have to make some remarks about logic, which is considered the home of exactness. In this chapter,exactness is defined as sharpness. Hence, a more descriptive title of this chapter would be “Fuzziness and Sharpness.” However, if exactness is defined as precision, then it turns out that fuzziness is often more precise than sharpness as I will show below after a brief discussion of logic. Logic Science and philosophy are supposed to be logical, but life and living are often paradoxical, etc. Poetry speaks to the heart, to our intuition and emotions, often conveying its deepest message between the words and lines. Logic, however, involves exactness and appeals to the head and reason. In the West logic originated in ancient Greece, especially with Aristotle. We can distinguish four laws of logic that have become deeply entrenched in Western culture, science and philosophy. Arber (1964: 82) articulated them as follows: Although these laws appear to make much sense, they are only of limited Identity Before turning to either/or thinking, which is one of the central topics of this chapter, a few remarks about identity. It has become fashionable all over the world to reassert and even fight for identity, identity such as personal identity, social, religious, ideological, ethnic, racial and national identity. People want to identify with something. Identification provides them with security, pride and other crutches. All over the world we see much conflict and uprising because of the obsession with identity. People even go to war and kill in the fight for identity. Countries are torn apart or threatened to be cut up because of identity- seeking separatists. For example, French Canadian separatists have been trying for a long time to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada so that they can rejoice in their French Canadian identity. Atrocities in the name of identity occur when identity is taken as an absolute. But as I pointed out, neither logic in general nor the law of identity are absolutes. This means that I am not absolutely identical with anything or any group. I am always more than anything or any group. If there is any identity at all, it is identity with the whole universe. The experience of this identity requires, however, deep meditation or enlightenment. Many people would insist that identification is an emotional issue, unrelated to logic. However, emotions appear to be combinations of thought and logic with body sensations (feelings) (see, for example Shinzen Young 1997, Sessions 5, 6). Hence, logic is at least one of the roots of identification. And therefore it seems important to create more awareness of the logic we use and how it shapes our lives and living. I often encounter people who tell me that they are not interested in logic, yet they use a logic and often an inappropriate one such as either/or logic. Either/or Logic The law of the excluded middle, that is, either/or logic, is particularly relevant to fuzziness and exactness, whereby exactness should be understood as sharpness (having a sharp boundary). Our culture appears deeply permeated by either/or logic. Therefore, we often take is for granted that, for example, someone must be either guilty or innocent, that someone is either good or evil, saint or sinner, enlightened or ignorant, that something must be either true or false, etc. This kind of thinking culminates in the attitude "I'm right and you are an idiot," as Hoggan (2016) put it, referring to it as a toxic state. This kind of thinking in terms of either/or seems to be so much taken for granted that it even forms the basis of the questions we ask, which means that we ask either/or questions such as “Is this true or false?” or “Is it this or that?” When confronted with such questions, we are expected to conform to either/or logic by answering in an either/or fashion. We could, of course, point out that the question seems inappropriate. But who does that? Not too many people. It requires deep insight. However, sometimes even less educated people - or especially less educated people? - point out that, although a statement appears to be false, there is a grain of truth in it, which cancels the either true or false logic. Apart from our conditioning through an almost incessant stream of either/or questions and answers, we are increasingly dominated by computers, which are mainly digital computers that obey either/or logic, also called binary logic of either 1 or 0. Considering all these influences, it does not seem too surprising that many people tend to think that you are either with me or against me. And if you are against me, then the question is how do I deal with you. A violent person may attack you or even kill you. A violent nation may go to war if the “you” is another group or nation. Thus, a strict adherence to either/or logic can have far-reaching and often disastrous consequences that may affect all aspects of our personal lives and society. Both/and Logic Contrary to a widespread misconception, either/or logic is not the only kind of logic available. There are alternative kinds of logic. Both/and logic is one of them. According to this logic, A is not either B or not-B, A is both B and not-B. For example, an electron can manifest as both particle and wave; a man can be both good and bad; a nation can be both peaceful and aggressive. Many scientific theories that at first sight appear antagonistic to each other can be seen as complementary, and therefore the question does not arise which one has to be discarded; both can be accepted. Similarly, many philosophies and points of view that appear contradictory can be seen as complementary. For example, mechanism and holism can complement each other: thus it can be both mechanism and holism, both the outer and inner circles of the mandala of this book, both science and art, both science and spirituality (see Fischer 1987 for more examples). The sun is setting in the West Ryokan, the Japanese Zen Master, wrote the following haiku: Showing its back Whereas either/or logic appears antagonistic, both/and logic tends to be reconciliatory. If you propose a theory that is opposed to mine, according to both/and logic, I need not necessarily refute your theory and possibly fight with you as it so often happens between adherents of contradictory theories; as long as your theory offers something that mine doesn't, I can embrace your theory and you because your theory complements mine. Having two theories therefore seems better than just one; it can be seen as enrichment, whereas according to either/or logic it may be a thread. It is, of course, possible that one of the two opposing theories can explain more phenomena than the other. But this need not mean that therefore the other theory is totally useless. It might offer something that is lacking in the theory with greater explanatory power (see Complementarity and Chapter 9). Or in some cases one of the contradictory theories may indeed be completely wrong. But since neither proof nor disproof seems possible, we have to be careful before we discard any theory (see Science: its Power and Limitations) Either/or logic seems exclusive, whereas both/and logic tends to be inclusive. The ally of either/or logic is fear, fear that I will be refuted by you, that I will be the loser. The ally of both/and logic is affirmation and love. I may affirm also your point of view and I can love you even when your point of view contradicts mine. Both/and logic even accommodates either/or logic. Therefore, the question is not whether it should be only either/or logic or both/and logic. Such a question would entail either/or logic. Both/and logic in a consistent way implies that we can use both both/and logic and either/or logic. The latter can be useful to a certain extent and in certain situations. It becomes harmful when it is claimed that it is the only valid logic. When in addition both/and logic is recognized, we have a richer logic and are better equipped to deal with the world and ourselves. Both/and logic has the potential to lead us beyond many stalemates and intractable situations; it can lead to deep transformation at a personal, social and global level; it can lead to profound integration and wholeness without inner and outer divisions (see, for example, Osho, 2000:216). Both/and logic is part of Buddhist and Jain logic, which were founded long ago. Unfortunately, Western logic has been dominated up to the present time by Aristotelian either/or logic. Fuzzy Logic and Fuzziness Besides both/and logic and either/or logic still other types of logic have been developed, especially during the last century. One of them is three-valued logic in which statements may be true, false, or indeterminate. This logic seems useful when we deal with situations that may be indeterminate such as in quantum physics. In multivalued logic there are many values between true and false. Finally, instead of having discrete values, in fuzzy logic there is a continuum between the extremes; for example, a continuum of true and false ranging from 0% true (=false) to 100% true. Now, it is not only logical truth or falsehood that are fuzzy. Many phenomena are fuzzy so that Kosko (1993) in his book on “Fuzzy Thinking. The New Science of Fuzzy Logic” referred to a “fuzzy world view.” The importance and far-reaching consequences of this worldview cannot be emphasized enough. This worldview seems indeed revolutionary. It allows us to perceive the world differently. On this view, the world is not just black and white, but has a rich and varied gradation of grays; it is not just discrete colors, but has also a fascinating mingling of colors. In general, it is not only categorical, this or that, but a continuum spanning the categories. In Chapter 2 I illustrated the continuum between things or entities such as the earth and the sky. In this chapter the emphasis is on classes or sets of things or entities such as the set of all human beings. Although words may refer to individual entities such as your friend Diana, often they refer to sets of things or entities such as men or women. How are sets defined? In traditional either/or logic, x is either a member of set y or not. For example, one is either a member of the set of men or one is not, that is, one is a man or not, or one is a woman or not. According to fuzzy logic, which is also called fuzzy set theory, this changes radically: according to fuzzy set theory, membership in a set ranges from 0% to 100%. Thus one can be a partial member of a set; for example, someone could be a 50% member of the set of men and at the same time a 50% member of the set of women. And we know that such partial members do indeed exist. There are people who are physically intermediate and in the past (and still today?) they had to undergo painful operations to conform to our categories of either/or logic. They were violently forced into our man-made categories. This is only one example that shows the potential violent consequences of either/or logic. In contrast, fuzzy set theory does not harbor such violence because it accommodates the whole range of intermediates. Fuzzy set theory does not only deal with relatively rare cases of intermediates such as the physical intermediates between men and women. More importantly, it reveals and emphasizes fuzziness where we do not expect it or do not notice it sufficiently. As a result, it changes our view of the world. After some semantic clarifications in a semantic interlude, the following sections will point to the significance of fuzziness in different aspects of life and living. Semantic Interlude As I pointed out already, in this chapter I use “exactness” in the sense of “sharpness”, sharpness that divides everything sharply into either this or that. This means I use “exactness” as a synonym to “either/or”. Obviously, “exactness” has also other connotations. For example, it can mean “precision”. If “exactness” is used in this sense, then fuzzy logic in the sense of fuzzy set theory is as exact as either/or logic and even more exact because it is quantitative. It is not vague. “Fuzziness” in a broad sense may refer to fuzzy logic in the sense of fuzzy set theory as well as to a logic that recognizes the “more or less” without insisting on quantification as in fuzzy set theory. I use “fuzziness” in this broad sense and thus the following examples of fuzziness in life and living comprise both quantitative and non-quantitative fuzziness. Finally, many people just do not like the words ‘fuzziness’ and ‘fuzzy,’ probably because they associate them with vagueness. But as I pointed out already, fuzzy logic is not vague; because it is quantitative it is even more precise than either/or logic and it represents the fuzziness inherent in reality more adequately than either/or logic. Nonetheless, without changing any of the meaning, the word ‘fuzziness’ could be replaced by ‘continuum’ and ‘fuzzy’ by ‘continuous,’ and thus we could refer to ‘continuous logic’ instead of ‘fuzzy logic’. Other alternatives are ‘grey logic’ or ‘cloudy logic’ (Kosko 1993: 292). But I prefer the words ‘fuzzy logic’ and ‘fuzziness’ because they are commonly accepted in the fuzzy literature and have been used by Lotfi Zadeh, the inventor of fuzzy set theory (see Kosko 1993). Fuzziness in Science To illustrate fuzziness in science let me use an example from my botanical research: the fuzzy sets of organs in plants (see, for example, Sattler 1994). According to the still prevalent view (called the classical view) that is based on either/or logic, the whole diversity of organs in plants (such as flowering plants) is reduced to three mutually exclusive categories: root, stem and leaf. This means that every plant organ we find must be either a root, a stem, or a leaf. Contrary to this classical doctrine of mainstream botany, my research and the research of some of my colleagues has shown that although the vast majority of plant organs are typical roots, stems or leaves, there is also a range of organs that are more or less intermediate between the typical organs. These intermediates share features of more than one organ category. For example, they may combine features of a typical stem and leaf. As a result, the organ categories overlap and thus are fuzzy sets. Sattler and Jeune (1992) and Cusset (1994) determined quantitatively the degree to which the intermediates are members of the fuzzy sets of root, stem and leaf. More recently, corresponding fuzziness has been reported with regard to the genetics of some of these intermediate plant organs (see Rutishauser and Isler 2001). Now let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let us not conclude that categorical either/or thinking is totally inappropriate because the plant world is fuzzy. As long as we deal only with typical roots, stems or leaves it appears all right and convenient to use either/or logic because these organs can be clearly assigned to the root, stem or leaf categories. However, when we come across intermediates we need fuzzy logic. And when we look at the total picture that comprises typical as well as intermediate organs, fuzzy thinking is also required because only fuzzy thinking can deal with the whole continuum ranging from the typical organs to the more intermediate ones. Many other examples of fuzziness from various scientific disciplines could be given. The more we know, the fuzzier the world appears. Kosko (1993) concluded that everything is fuzzy when we have a very close and precise look at it. Fuzziness in Religion Religions have been divided into theistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and atheistic religions such as Buddhism and Daoism. Similarly, people have been assigned to two sets: theists and atheists. According to either/or logic, you must be either a theist or atheist, that is, you either believe in God or you don’t. Although this distinction may be useful as long as we restrict ourselves to typical representatives of theistic and atheistic religions, when we consider the whole spectrum of religious views and experience, the two sets of people become fuzzy. Why? Because God can be defined and experienced in so many ways that span the whole spectrum form the God of a typical theist to the denial of God by the typical atheist. Let’s begin with the God of the typical theist. I would say it is a transcendent God, a God beyond Nature. From this view, one step closer toward atheism, although not yet atheism, is the view that god is both transcendent and in Nature. One more step in the direction of atheism is the view that that God is in Nature. And finally there is the view that God and Nature are synonymous. This view is very close to atheism, if not atheism, because an atheist could argue that if there is no God apart from Nature, then Nature is all there is and God is just another name for Nature, but a name that an atheist will not use (see also Arber 1967: 34). Fuzziness in Ethics According to either/or logic, any action is either good or bad, good or evil. This again seems an oversimplification because there are actions that are more or less good and more or less bad. Some people would go even further claiming that no action could be 100% good or 100% bad (see below). Hermann Hesse (1957: 115) wrote in “Siddhartha”: “Never is a man or a deed wholly Samsara or wholly Nirvana; never is a man wholly a saint or a sinner”. Fuzziness in Law Fuzziness in Everyday Life Our everyday life and living seems also permeated by fuzziness. Kosko (1993: 126) illustrated this by the response of an audience. When we ask an audience who is married, a clear-cut answer will be obtained because marriage is an institution regulated by law. However, when we ask who is happy, or honest, or moral, or jealous, or intelligent, or tall, or overweight, many people may often find it difficult to give a clear-cut answer because any of these issues and many others appear fuzzy: one can be more or less intelligent, more or less happy, etc. Where does one draw the line between happy and unhappy or tall and short? Any line seems arbitrary. For the extremes, an answer can be given. But between the extremes - and many people are between the extremes - only a more or less arbitrary answer seems possible. A very close look may reveal that even the extremes are not totally free of fuzziness because even a happy man may still harbor very small pockets of unhappiness. Thus, the recognition of fuzziness may create awareness that we are much more or less than we normally think we are according to the labels we carry. Kosko (1993: 127) wrote: “We are all left, right, center, straight, gay, bi, cool, square, plain, for, against, and indifferent.” We may be any of these only to an extremely small degree, or only potentially. But knowing that we are all that - and much more - can help us to connect to others who appear to be very different because they occupy a different place in the continuum. "Mandala" as a Fuzzy Set We can find all sorts of configurations that resemble typical mandalas more or less. Asking whether they are essentially mandalas or not is not helpful because mandalas cannot be sharply delineated from non-mandalas: mandalas are therefore best conceived as a fuzzy set. Thus, a configuration that does not represent a typical mandala but has nonetheless something in common with a mandala may be considered a mandala to some degree or some extent. The following painting by Ulrich Panzer may be located somewhere at the fuzzy edge of mandalas. Like a typical mandala it has a circular form, but unlike a typical mandala the centre is not empty, unless one interprets the centre as emptiness. Untitled painting by Ulrich Panzer Another example of a configuration at the fuzzy edge of mandalas is Ken Wilber’s AQAL map of the Kosmos (see Chapter 2). Contrary to a typical mandala that portrays the unnameable (emptiness) in its centre, Wilber’s map has emptiness at the periphery. Reynolds (2016) presented an interpretation of Wilber’s AQAL map that resembles more a typical mandala. He also included a typical mandala (“Kosmic Mandala”) with spirit and mysticism in the centre and matter at its periphery. One could define “mandala” in such a wide sense that it encompasses all the untypical cases. But even then one would encounter configurations that do not fit completely the broad definition and thus even the broad definition would become fuzzy. From Fuzzy Sets to Fuzzy Systems As I pointed out above, words can refer to fuzzy sets. Often it is a noun that refers to a fuzzy set such as “man” referring to the fuzzy set of all men. Adjectives also refer to fuzzy sets. For example, “old” is fuzzy because it has no sharp limit. The combination of a fuzzy adjective with a fuzzy noun such as “old man” obviously is fuzzy. Verbs also can refer to fuzzy sets. For example, since there is a continuum between walking and running, “walking” is a fuzzy set as well as “running”. As words form sentences and sentences paragraphs, so fuzzy sets can be combined into fuzzy systems. A fuzzy system is “a set of fuzzy rules that converts inputs to outputs” (Kosko, 1993: 293). A fuzzy rule relates fuzzy sets. Every term in a rule is fuzzy (Kosko, 1993: 159). Researchers using fuzzy systems have been able to built many smart machines: fuzzy air conditioners that prevent overshoot-undershoot temperature fluctuations, thus consuming less on-off power; fuzzy dishwashers, fuzzy humidifiers, fuzzy washing machines, fuzzy cameras, fuzzy camcorders, etc. I find it interesting that fuzzy machines were first produced in Japan and the Far East. The West, including America, resisted the use of fuzzy logic because it contradicted its deeply embedded tradition of Aristotelian either/or logic. But Japan and the Far East, being predominantly Buddhist, has not been as deeply conditioned by Aristotelian either/or logic and for that reason has been more open to the use of fuzzy logic (Kosko 1993). The Buddha was not a logician and definitely not an either/or logician. According to Kosko (1993: 69), he said: “I have not explained that the world is eternal or not eternal. I have not explained that the world is finite or infinite”. Thus, for the Buddha, the question was not: Is it this or that? Because it is neither this, nor that, it is beyond this and that. And thus the Buddha transcended the limitations of either/or logic and logic altogether, which opened up the mystery (represented by the empty centre and ground of the mandala of this book and the mandala as a whole). Yin-Yang According to Daoism, the mystery arises out of the union and transcendence of Yin (contraction) and Yang (expansion), which are the two most fundamental energies of the universe. Yin and Yang are graphically illustrated in the well-known Yin-Yang symbol. Yin-Yang symbol This symbol expresses both/and logic, fuzziness and the continuum in a double sense: 1. The Yin containing within itself the Yang, and vice versa, (indicated in the symbol by the small circles within the Yin and Yang), represents fuzziness and both/and logic. That is, since the Yin contains Yang, it is not purely Yin, but also to some extent Yang. Similarly, the Yang is also Yin to some extent. Hence, Yin is both Yin and Yang and Yang is both Yang and Yin, which renders both of them fuzzy. Either/or logic does not apply. 2. The Yin gradually merging with the Yang along the periphery of the circle, and vice versa, can be seen as a continuum. Again, either/or logic does not apply. Since according to Daoism Yin and Yang are the two most fundamental forces in the universe and everything is an expression of them, there does not seem to be any room for either/or logic. However, a closer look at the notion of fuzziness in relation to Yin-Yang leads to a more balanced conclusion. Yin-Yang and Fuzziness As I pointed out, membership in a fuzzy set can range from 0% to 100%. 0% is total exclusion from the set, and 100% total inclusion. That is, 0% and 100% are the two values of either/or logic, no and yes. Thus, either/or logic can be seen as a special case of fuzzy logic that in addition to the two extremes of 0% and 100% also covers the whole range between these extremes. Yin-Yang, although fuzzy, excludes the extremes of 0% and 100% because 100% Yin and 100% Yang do not exist. Yin and Yang always contain their opposites to some extent. 0% Yin and 0% Yang are equally impossible because some Yin or Yang are always present in their opposites. Since the Yin-Yang fuzziness excludes the extremes of 0% and 100%, it also excludes either/or logic as a special case. This kind of fuzziness I call radical fuzziness. It appears to be radically opposed to Aristotelian either/or logic. But a practical reconciliation seems possible nonetheless. Let me illustrate this by a circle. According to Kosko (1993:45) there is no perfect circle. There are only approximations to a perfect circle. In the case of a hand drawn circle this is obvious. But even in a circle made with a compass or other sophisticated technology minute deviations are detectable, if not macroscopically, at least through microscopic inspection. What does this mean with regard to fuzziness? It means that all fuzziness seems radical fuzziness and thus we can drop the term “radical fuzziness” because fuzziness implies that it is radical, which means that contrary to what I wrote above, the extreme values of 0% and 100% are not available. It seems that only approximations of 0% and !00% exist; but at least some of these approximations may be so close that for all practical reasons we may consider them as 0% and 100%. And this I consider the practical reconciliation between Yin-Yang and fuzzy logic that includes Aristotelian either/or logic as a special case in a practical sense. circle Nature is not perfect. Zen Masters know it. For this reason, it is not surprising that they have drawn obviously imperfect circles, imperfect from the point of view of traditional Western geometry. Contrast this with Plato’s philosophy. It is said that at the entrance of his academy was written: “Let no one enter here who is unacquainted with geometry.” Why? Because for Plato (probably at least in one phase of his life) pure, perfect forms were the essence of things. Perfection in this sense was crucial. And since Plato had such an enormous influence on the Western mind, the Western mind became obsessed with perfection. As a result, it became alienated (to some extent) from Nature, which is not perfect in this sense, but rather fuzzy. Nonetheless, as we enter the centre the mandala of this book and the mandala as a whole, even fuzziness is transcended. Absolute reality is neither binary, nor fuzzy. It just is. And what it is, cannot be expressed through language as Korzybski has demonstrated by his Structural Differential. A Joke Osho (!999: 200) told the following joke: Randy Mustaver is telling his friend that he has toured the whole world looking for a perfect woman. Plato and Aristotle Plato and Aristotle tried to capture the essence of things and therefore it is often said that they espoused a philosophy or worldview of essentialism. What is essentialism? Different definitions can be given and there is a difference between Plato’s and Aristotle’s essentialism. But in general one may say that essentialism reduces the manifoldness of existence to essences and these essences are considered to be the ultimate reality behind the floating diversity of appearances. According to Plato’s essentialism, the essences are non-material and their manifestations are like shadows, whereas according to Aristotle’s essentialism the essences are inherent in their manifestations. Examples of essences are redness or goodness. Thus something may be essentially red or essentially good. It seems obvious that essentialism is based on or reflects either/or logic. If something is essentially good, it cannot be bad at the same time. Even if there appears to be something bad in it, it is just an appearance, not its essential nature. In a way such a view is misleading and distorting and therefore can be limiting, fragmenting and even destructive. If, for example, somebody is thought be essentially evil, how can he be related to people who are said to be good? He may be mistreated in the worst way as it so often happened during the history of humankind. Both Plato and Aristotle continue to have an enormous influence on the Western mind. Whitehead wrote that the whole Western philosophic tradition can be seen as footnotes to Plato. Aristotle was considered the philosopher by Thomas Aquinas who incorporated his philosophy into his own that became basic to Christianity. Both within and outside Christianity Aristotle’s logic has remained fundamental to our thinking up to the present time. Even in most of the sciences such as the life sciences his logic informs mainstream thinking to a great extent, and the logic of digital computers is binary, that is, Aristotelian. Fuzzy logic is still far from being generally recognized in science and society. Our everyday lives are still permeated by Aristotelian logic. Most people are not even aware of how much their lives are conditioned by this kind of logic. Therefore, it seems important to draw attention to our enslavement in either/or logic and essentialism. Although the lasting domination of essentialism and either/or logic has been limiting and destructive in many ways, let us not put all the blame on Plato and Aristotle. Like all great philosophers, both Plato and Aristotle could also rise above essentialism. Unfortunately, this is often ignored or forgotten. If you read, for example, what Wilber (2000) wrote about Plato, you may see that his essentialism was only part of his total philosophy and that his total philosophy was rather comprehensive. Aristotle’s philosophy was also broader than just an either/or philosophy, although the either/or was basic to his logic. In other writings he also referred to the “more and less” which is characteristic of fuzzy thinking. Polar Opposites After this historical diversion, let us return to Yin and Yang. Yin and Yang are considered polar opposites. Polar opposites are opposites that cannot be separated from each other because they cannot exist without each other. They are united in a larger whole, which is polarized. Electricity presents an example of polar opposites. An electrically charged rod has a plus and minus pole. These poles cannot be separated from each other. If you cut the rod in half, each half has again a plus and a minus pole. Therefore, trying to obtain the positive without the negative seems impossible. In a broad sense Yin-Yang can be seen as a symbol for all polar opposites such as darkness and light, female and male, negative and positive, etc. (see below). Love and Hate It has been said that love and hate are polar opposites; not spiritual love, but erotic or romantic love. If this is so, then falling in love, sooner or later will generate hate. Observing lovers seems to confirm this. Schellenbaum (1998) distinguished three phases in romantic love relationships that may occur sequentially or more or less simultaneously. Thus, at first lovers become wonderfully absorbed with each other, feeling almost like one super organism. This phase has been called the fusion phase. It is usually followed by its opposite: the phase in which separateness and differences between the lovers are strongly asserted: “I am like this and I don’t want to be like you. Leave me alone.” In this phase waves of hate may confront or even overwhelm the two lovers. Often the relationship breaks up in this phase. However, a third phase of reconciliation, understanding and tolerance may allow lovers to reach a calmer sea. In this phase lovers try to accept each other as they are, and they learn from each other. This phase may culminate in spiritual love, divine love that has no polar opposite because it transcends ordinary love and hate. This love also opens the door to the universe. Through the beloved one loves all (see also Chapter 1). Life and Death Life and death can also be seen as polar opposites that belong together (see also Chapter 1). They follow each other in time and they coexist even at the same time. Look at a plant such as a flowering plant: in order to live, some of its cells have to die so that after the disintegration of their living content they can conduct water from the roots high up into the stems and leaves. A plant cannot live without the death of these water-conducting cells. The life of the plant requires the death of some of its cells. Thus life and death belong together. In animals and humans cells also die regularly and are replaced by new cells so that the organism can function. Imagine for a moment you were one of these dying cells. You might bemoan your death and perceive it totally negatively as so many people in our society experience death. However, if you look at the death of this cell from the perspective of the whole organism, it is no longer negative. This death makes life of the whole organism possible. Similarly, the death of individual organisms supports the life of the whole ecosystem of which the organism is a part as the cell is a part of the organism. Also remember that neither cells nor organisms exist as separate entities (see Chapter 1 of this book). They are one with their environment, which ultimately is the whole Universe. From this perspective, no-thing dies because there are no things. Thus, there is only transformation. In this transformation the polar opposites of life and death are transcended. Polar opposites exist only in the realm of the relative where we make distinctions such as those between cells and organisms. In ultimate reality polar opposites are transcended in oneness (nonduality). When asked to speak about death, Kahlil Gibran’s Prophet said: You would know the secret of death. Other Polar Opposites Are all opposites polar opposites? Many opposites have been considered polar by various authors. Here is an incomplete list: Even if some of the above opposites were not polar, there are still so many polar opposites that is seems no exaggeration to say that existence appears largely polar. This means that if we want to have one of the poles, we also have to accept the other. Trying to have only one without the other seems a hopeless endeavour that is bound to lead to grief and sorrow. So what are we going to do in this situation? We accept both polar opposites and we transcend both. Beyond Polar Opposites As love and hate, life and death, so other polar opposites may also be transcended. They are transcended through their union in which they cease being opposites. In meditation we may taste this oneness beyond polar opposites (see the meditation at the end of Chapter 2). One way to become the oneness of heaven (sky) and earth is through standing meditation. Standing on the earth, as an extension of the earth, and reaching up into heaven can lead to the union and transcendence of both. Standing Meditation Stand still, preferably in nature. Breathe naturally. Your knees are relaxed (very slightly bent); your body is straight and relaxed. Your shoulders are relaxed with your arms dangling comfortably at your sides. Your feet are firmly planted on the ground so that you feel connected with the energy of the earth. This earth energy flows into you and through you. You feel your head, with your chin slightly tucked in, as if floating up to the sky. Thus you are connected with the energy of heaven and it flows through you. Standing and breathing like this, you become the meeting of heaven and earth; they become one and you are one with them. Note: Standing meditation, like all meditation, requires regular practice. For details you may watch demonstrations by Ken Cohen, tapes by Chunyi Lin and consult books such as The Healing Promise of Qi by Roger Jahnke (2002). If possible, it is, of course, highly advisable to learn standing meditation from a Qigong Master or another meditation master. Standing with a Tree - Instead of standing alone, it might be easier at the beginning to stand with a tree. Trees have already the connection we try to acquire. Thus they can be very helpful to us. You stand close to a tree, touching the trunk with your hands. As you breathe in and out, feel the oneness with the tree that is connected to heaven and earth (see Chapter 2 and for details listen to tapes by John Milton (1999): “Sky above, earth below”). Summary This third chapter of my book on Wholeness, Fragmentation and the Unnamable deals with exactness and fuzziness. Exactness is understood as sharpness in contrast to fuzziness where we cannot find sharp borders. Fuzziness appears to be all-pervasive in nature and culture, in science, religion, ethics, law, politics, everyday life, etc. Fuzziness is often overlooked because we have been conditioned by Aristotelian either/or logic that makes sharp divisions between true and false, right and wrong, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, guilty and innocent, etc. However, upon closer inspection these and other distinctions become fuzzy. Kosko (1993), the author of Fuzzy Thinking. The New Science of Fuzzy Logic concluded that everything becomes fuzzy when we have a closer look at it. To better perceive and communicate this fuzziness we need fuzzy logic that was developed by Lofti Zadeh in the second half of the last century. Whereas according to the commonly accepted Aristotelian either/or logic x is either a member of a set or not, according to fuzzy logic membership is a matter of degree and may range from 0% to 100%. Thus, for example, a human being may be a member of the set of men to various degrees: a 100% membership would be a typical man, whereas a 0% membership would be no man at all, and an individual between these extremes would be a man to some degree. For the extremes either/or logic works well, but for the intermediate range it fails. Fuzzy logic works well for the whole range from 0% to 100% membership. Yin-Yang thinking also recognizes that Yin and Yang are a matter of degree and not mutually exclusive because Yin contains some Yang and vice versa. But in contrast to fuzzy set theory, according to Yin-Yang thinking, 0% and 100% Yin or Yang do not exist, whereas according to fuzzy set theory 0% and 100% are not excluded. This contradiction can be resolved, if the 0% and 100% membership in fuzzy set theory are not considered as absolutes but as approximations. In any case, polar opposites represented by Yin and Yang such as love and hate, life and death, good and evil, etc. appear compatible with fuzzy logic. Ultimate reality that cannot be grasped through reason and language transcends logic and polar opposites. In the mandala of this book it is represented by the unnamable empty centre and the mandala as a whole that comprises the unnamable and the namable, the centre and the periphery of the mandala. Exactness and fuzziness reside in the periphery of the mandala, the namable. The transcendence of exactness and fuzziness may be experienced in meditation such as standing meditation, where the meditator feels connected to heaven and earth and thus transcends both. References Arber, A. 1964. The Mind and the Eye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arber, A. 1967. The Manifold and the One. Wheaton, IL: Quest Book, Theosophical Publishing House. Cusset, G. 1994. A simple classification of the complex parts of vascular plants. Hesse, H. 1957. Siddhartha. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation. Hoggan, J. 2016. I'm Right and You're an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean It Up. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Jahnke R. 2002. The Healing Promise of Qi. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Kosko, B. 1993. Fuzzy Thinking. The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion. Lewontin, R.C. 1991. Biology as Ideology. The Doctrine of DNA. Concord, Ontario: Anansi. Milton, J. P. 1999. Sky above, Earth below. Boulder, CO: Sounds True. Inc. McFarlane, T. J. (editor) 2002. Einstein and Buddha. The Parallel Sayings. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press. Osho. 1999. Take it Really Seriously. A Revolutionary Insight into Jokes. London: Grace Publishing. Osho. 2000. Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. Reynolds, B. 2016. Seven stages of life. Rose, S., Kamin, L.J. and R.C. Lewontin. 1984. Not in our Genes. Biology, Ideology and Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books. Rutishauser, R. and Isler, B. 2001. Developmental genetics and morphological evolution of flowering plants, especially bladderworts (Utricularia): Fuzzy Arberian Morphology complements Classical Morphology. Annals of Botany 88: 1173-2002. Sattler, R. 1994. Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. In B.K. Sattler, R. and B. Jeune. 1992. Multivariate analysis confirms the continuum view of plant form. Annals of Botany 69: 249-262. Schellenbaum, P. 1998. How to Say No to the One You Love. Asheville,NC: Chiron Publications. Wilber, K. 2000. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala Publications. Young, Shinzen. 1997. The Science of Enlightenment. Teachings & Meditations for Awakening through Self-Investigation. Boulder, CO: Sounds True. Quotes "The closer one looks at a real-world problem, the fuzzier becomes its solution" (Lotfi Zadeh). "Precision increases fuzziness" (Bart Kosko). "The hard and abrupt contours of our ordinary conceptual system do not apply to reality" (Bart Kosko). "Everything is a matter of degree" ( Bart Kosko). "We have to return to the fluidity and plasticity of nature" (Bart Kosko). "Everyone should know how a fuzzy washing machine works" (Bart Kosko). Preface (including the Table of Contents) and Introduction of this book. Next Chapter: Chapter 4: Openness and Closure Preceding Chapter: Chapter 2: Continuum and Discontinuum Home
Plato is said to have inscribed over his door, Let no one enter here who is unacquainted with geometry." The analytic or modern method is, as to its form, ...
The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision Fritjof Capra, ?Pier Luigi Luisi · 2014 · ?Science
DAVID DENISON FRATERNAL GREETINGS CITIZENS OF PLANET EARTH WELCOME TO THE NARRATIVE
I HAVE COME HAVE YOU COME FROM WHOLE SOURCE ? FROM WHOLE SOURCE HAVE I COME R U RECEIVING ME RECEIVING U LOUD AND CLEAR
GODISGODISGODISGODISGODISGODISGODISGODISGODISGOD
FLUX IS COOL COOL IS FLUX 6336 919 3663 3663 919 6336 18 19 18 18 19 18 9 1 9 9 1 9 18 19 18 18 19 18 6336 919 3663 3663 919 6336 FLUX IS COOL COOL IS FLUX
REAL REALITY REVEALED I SAY HAVE I MENTIONED GODS DIVINE THOUGHT HAVE I MENTIONED THAT YET
MIND BORN SONS, THOSE PATENT PATIENT PATENTED PATTERN MAKERS MIND=4 BORN=4 SONS=4 THOSE=4 PATENT=4 PATIENT=4 PATENTED=4 PATTERN=4 MAKERS=4
setiathome.berkeley.edu Join the Search for Alien Life Message boards: SETI @ home Science: If someone found a signal would the public know ? Message Message 765818 Posted 10 Jun 2008 20:59:38 UTC I am just woundering if there was a signal found. how long wound it take for the public to be informed.
Message 765821 Posted 10 Jun 2008 21:06:26 UTC - in response to Message ID 765818. I am just woundering if there was a signal found. how long wound it take for the public to be informed. I hate to think that this information would be kept to a choosen few. I also think it is possable, that we have already found a signal and the general public will not be told for a very very long time. One more thing, If ET says hello... What are we going to say back? Despite the denials, we\'d not get to know for a few years I\'d guess. There\'s too many vested interests ranging from the church to governments, the military and big business. SETI has the Wow signal and at least one other signal that have ALL the hallmarks of being extra terrestial. But, there\'s always something that stops them saying so ie not confirmed by another source or, there\'s \'nothing in that particular part of the sky\' etc. Yes, Im a cynic now. Just returned to SETI but I know, as I suspect we all do, that we\'ll never get to find \'that\' signal.
Message 765857 Posted 10 Jun 2008 22:14:54 UTC To answer the main question: yes, the public will know once a signal is confirmed, and yes, they will know as soon as possible (days not years).
Message 765952 - Posted 11 Jun 2008 7:12:47 UTC - in response to Message ID 765912 btw - is your response to this based upom what you just (recently) Posted re: sys admin ;)) Actually.. no - though I see where you might have drawn a hopeful conclusion. I just always feel it\'s important to snuff out wrongful conspiracy theories concerning my day job. Things are never are as complicated/secretive/conspiratorial as people think (or hope in some cases) Matt BOINC/SETI@home network/web/science/development person "Any idiot can have a good idea. What is hard is to do it." - Jeanne-Claude
Message 766101 - Posted 11 Jun 2008 7:12:47 UTC - in response to Message ID 765857 To answer the main question: yes, the public will know once a signal is confirmed, and yes, they will know as soon as possible (days not years). Matt How many unconfirmed signals found? Other than the WOW! one
Message 766204 - Posted 11 Jun 2008 15:07:35 UTC A couple of days ago I watched as the graphics catched or stumbled upon a big gaussian (not the same one as mentioned some place else). It did not come up in the numbers thereafter and I did unfortunately not take the number of the WU, sorry to say. Possibly (but very uncertainly) it may have been WU 06mr08ah.13828.82132.6.8.73._2_0 . In any case, that WU had a spike of 1.70, a gaussian of -8.01 (which is low and not the opposite as some other like to tell) and a pulse of 100996 (Yes!). No triplet. If it was that one, it could be interesting...ID: 766204
Message 766238 Posted 11 Jun 2008 16:41:52 UTC It would be nice if somewhere in the seti program when it knows positive that it has a signal that is states across the screen... \"CANDIDATE SIGNAL FOUND!\" like it did in the movie Contact. ;)
Message 766299Posted 11 Jun 2008 18:49:23 UTC - in response to Message ID 766238. Last modified: 11 Jun 2008 18:58:49 UTC It would be nice if somewhere in the seti program when it knows positive that it has a signal that is states across the screen... \"CANDIDATE SIGNAL FOUND!\" like it did in the movie Contact. ;) The problem is, it doesn't know. Only humans can make that determination, and only after revisiting what they determine are *possible* candidates and scanning their locations again and again. How many unconfirmed signals found? Other than the WOW! one Zero No signal has ever been found which had the characteristics of the WOW! signal (ie; unconfirmed origin and not a natural source, either a glitch, interference, or the real thing) The closest that the SETI@Home team ever came was this one- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_source_SHGb02%2B14a Unlike WOW!, this is not something that appeared for an instant and could never be found again; this was found again, and presumably can still be detected by any radio telescope with sufficient capability. This is not an "unconfirmed signal" because it was determined not to be a signal at all. I'll admit, I'm not satisfied with the explanations as to why it was eventually determined not to be a candidate signal, and to my knowledge, no thorough public explanation has ever been given. It's not that I personally think it's a signal (I don't), I'd just like to know exactly why scientists are so sure it's not.
Message 767007- Posted 12 Jun 2008 19:44:03 UTC - in response to Message ID 766299. This is not an "unconfirmed signal" because it was determined not to be a signal at all. Thats my point! People argue over the very basic question whether a signal is a candidate. It doesnt fit the bill so lets dismiss it therefore we havent got an 'unconfirmed \ potential signal' to talk about. I'll admit, I'm not satisfied with the explanations as to why it was eventually determined not to be a candidate signal, and to my knowledge, no thorough public explanation has ever been given. It's not that I personally think it's a signal (I don't), I'd just like to know exactly why scientists are so sure it's not. Im not satisfied either but I think its highly unlikely you'll get scientists to agree. The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something I mean were either of those two conditions in SETI's original conditions for a candidate? I dont think so.Im not satisfied either but I think its highly unlikely you'll get scientists to agree. The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something. I mean were either of those two conditions in SETI's original conditions for a candidate? I dont think so.
Message 767082- Posted 12 Jun 2008 22:12:21 UTC - in response to Message ID 76007. Last modified: 12 Jun 2008 22:18:08 UTC The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something. The WOW! signal did apparently fit the criteria for artificial origin, but an Earthbound source or glitch in the system couldn't be ruled out since it could never be detected again or independently verified by any other telescope. As for the SETI@Home signal, while I think they know the criteria better than we do, I admit that I don't fully understand the explanation. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I don't agree with it. If the signal were as compelling as you seem to think it is, it wouldn't have been dismissed, certainly not by the SETI@Home team which has put years' worth of effort and investment into this project, and certainly not by other SETI teams, like the SETI Institute. I may not be happy that it turned out not be a signal from ET, and I may not be personally satisfied with the explanations, but I have to concede that they know more about the signal than I do and they know more about why it's not a good candidate than I do.
Message 767267- Posted 13 Jun 2008 4:53:21 UTC - in response to Message ID 765952. btw - is your response to this based upom what you just (recently) Posted re: sys admin ;)) Actually.. no - though I see where you might have drawn a hopeful conclusion. I just always feel it\'s important to snuff out wrongful conspiracy theories concerning my day job. Things are never are as complicated/secretive/conspiratorial as people think (or hope in some cases). - Matt Yeah, but everyone likes a god conspiracy theory :)
Message 767919- Posted 14 Jun 2008 9:43:52 UTC - in response to Message ID 767082. The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something. The WOW! signal did apparently fit the criteria for artificial origin, but an Earthbound source or glitch in the system couldn't be ruled out since it could never be detected again or independently verified by any other telescope. As for the SETI@Home signal, while I think they know the criteria better than we do, I admit that I don't fully understand the explanation. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I don't agree with it. If the signal were as compelling as you seem to think it is, it wouldn't have been dismissed, certainly not by the SETI@Home team which has put years' worth of effort and investment into this project, and certainly not by other SETI teams, like the SETI Institute. I may not be happy that it turned out not be a signal from ET, and I may not be personally satisfied with the explanations, but I have to concede that they know more about the signal than I do and they know more about why it's not a good candidate than I do. The "fear" is --I think--that the SETI results (all of them) are being stockpiled and may not be looked at until some very long time in the future and can only be verified by a steerable antenna some months or years later where the beamed signal (if there were an actual one) may well be beaming some other part of the universe--fanciful thoughts but probably needs some elucidation.
Message 768345- Posted 14 Jun 2008 23:30:03 UTC The government is flattered by those that think that they can pull off elaborate conspiracy theories, but the fact is that the government can hardly pull off delivering the mail and issuing passports. The only way for a conspiracy to survive is for there to be only two people that know about it -- and one of them is dead. ID: 768345
Message 770925- Posted 20 Jun 2008 20:37:40 UTC can anyone say where the Wow signal came from? IE where in the sky? ID: 770925
Message 772609 - Posted 23 Jun 2008 22:14:32 UTC - in response to Message ID770925. can anyone say where the Wow signal came from? IE where in the sky? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal "Gentlemen, there are only two types of naval vessels..........Submarines, and Targets" -- U.S. Navy Submarine SONAR Instructor.
Message 774487 - Posted 27 Jun 2008 22:56:00 UTC I've read a lot of that material regarding the WOW! signal. As far as I recall, all potential terrestial 'interference' can be discounted. There were no satellites in the way, there were no probes on their way to Mars of any of the other planets crossing the path, there were no planes in the way etc. The reason WOW! is discounted by the scientific community is mainly because it hasnt been detected since. I mean come on! If we can claim we may be the only intelligence in a galaxy of some 400 billion stars, meaning we're the result of a 400 billion to 1 shot, then, I dont see how the probabilty that Big Ear 'just got lucky' and picked up WOW! the one time. WOW! ticks more boxes than it doesnt. The only box it doesnt really tick is repeated attempts to find it again. The fact it was a 'one off' is just the same thing. ID: 774487
Message 774490 - Posted 27 Jun 2008 23:10:46 UTC - in response to Message ID 774487 Last modified: 27 Jun 2008 23:36:48 UTC I dont see how the probabilty that Big Ear 'just got lucky' and picked up WOW! the one time. That's exactly the point. The problem with WOW is that it only ticks one box, it fails every other. If WOW! is a real signal from ET, then it means ET knew the exact moment that beam 1 of the Big Ear would be pointing at that exact spot in the sky and would ONLY be signaling Earth for the exact 72 seconds it took for Beam 1 to account for Earth's rotation and then immediately turn the signal off as soon as Beam 1 stopped listening and switched to Beam 2. You have to realize; WOW wasn't picked up for an arbitrary length of time... It's not like the Big Ear *just so happened* to pick up the tail end of an ET transmission. It was picked up *only* for the exact the amount of time it takes for the first beam to pass through and scan one area of space as the Earth rotates. When the second beam passed through the same area 3 minutes later, it detected nothing. That's not a coincidence. The chances of it being a genuine detection are more than "400 billion to 1" because the first beam could've been scanning any other single location in the sky or the Big Ear's side of the Earth could've been facing the opposite direction. ET must have been clairvoyant and known exactly when the first beam was going to be scanning the patch of sky where their signal was, and turned it on and then shut it off again *just* so the first beam alone could detect it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan The first test in science is verifiability; results have to be independently reproduced. You apparently don't put much stock in Occam's Razor... ;) ID: 774490
Message 774499- Posted 27 Jun 2008 23:31:50 UTC - in response to Message ID 774490. [quote]I dont see how the probabilty that Big Ear 'just got lucky' and picked up WOW! the one time. That's exactly the point. The probability that the Big Ear "just got lucky" and just so happened to hear ET for 72 seconds in only one of two synchronous beams and couldn't even detect it 3 minutes later with the second beam, and no other scan has ever picked it up again in 30 years is.....frankly, ridiculous. The problem with WOW is that it only ticks one box, it fails every other. No it ticks more than one box. If you read the reports, Big Ear wasnt pointed in the direction it received WOW! for most of the time before it was received. If WOW! is a real signal from ET, then it means ET knew the exact moment that beam 1 of the Big Ear would be pointing at that exact spot in the sky and would ONLY be signaling Earth for the exact 72 seconds it took for Beam 1 to account for Earth's rotation and then immediately turn the signal off as soon as Beam 1 stopped listening and switched to Beam 2. You state ET just switched the signal off at the right moment. This is a massive asumption. For all we know, they could just have pointed their transmitter in a general direction moved position, transmitted again, moved direction etc. The point overlooked is the transmission was very close to the 1420mhz frequency. All informed scientists tell us this is a great frequency to listen to for the 'marker transmission,' the indication that someone is saying 'hello, we're here!' and not in itself a 'message.'
Message 774504 - Posted 27 Jun 2008 23:44:57 UTC - in response to Message ID 774499. Last modified: 27 Jun 2008 23:47:20 UTC No it ticks more than one box. If you read the reports, Big Ear wasnt pointed in the direction it received WOW! for most of the time before it was received. It only detected WOW when beam 1 scanned the area of the sky it passed through for 72 seconds; the second beam was pointed in the same direction 3 minutes later and detected nothing. You state ET just switched the signal off at the right moment. This is a massive asumption. For all we know, they could just have pointed their transmitter in a general direction moved position, transmitted again, moved direction etc. The point overlooked is the transmission was very close to the 1420mhz frequency. All informed scientists tell us this is a great frequency to listen to for the 'marker transmission,' the indication that someone is saying 'hello, we're here!' and not in itself a 'message.' Hehehe...that's a massive assumption on your part. - I said ET must have switched the signal off after Beam 1 passed through the patch of sky where WOW was detected. - You say ET might have pointed their transmitter in a different direction after Beam 1 passed through. Ummmmm....if WOW is really a signal from ET, then aren't both of those assumptions just as equally likely to be true, and aren't they both equally "massive"? :P
Message 774892 - Posted 28 Jun 2008 20:29:35 UTC - in response to Message ID 774515 i believe that iT was said - a long time ago - that the ANSWER to that particular question is NO - in other words - 'THEY would NOT be told'. Well, whoever said that was WRONG Matt Lebofsky just GAVE THE ANSWER in this thread. There's no reason not to take him or anyone else working on SETI at their word.
Message 776020 - Posted 30 Jun 2008 20:52:30 UTC - in response to Message ID 775008. Last modified: 30 Jun 2008 20:53:48 UTC . . . ever heard of Majestic 12 ? Oh lordy.... Yeah, I heard of Majestic 12....in the video game Deus Ex... LOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex How in the heck would the government even KNOW about it before the entire SETI and astronomy community do ?? Or before the press, for that matter ??? And how could they silence all of these people, threaten with death?? Kidnap them??
Message 776095 - Posted 1 Jul 2008 0:03:10 UTC There is no conspiracy--but them paranoids is after us !! DADDIO ID: 776095
Message 776457 - Posted 1 Jul 2008 14:04:39 UTC - in response to Message 776095. There is no conspiracy--but them paranoids is after us !! DADDIO ID
Message 776627 - Posted 1 Jul 2008 21:44:31 UTC - in response to Message ID 774504. No it ticks more than one box. If you read the reports, Big Ear wasnt pointed in the direction it received WOW! for most of the time before it was received. It only detected WOW when beam 1 scanned the area of the sky it passed through for 72 seconds; the second beam was pointed in the same direction 3 minutes later and detected nothing. You state ET just switched the signal off at the right moment. This is a massive asumption. For all we know, they could just have pointed their transmitter in a general direction moved position, transmitted again, moved direction etc. The point overlooked is the transmission was very close to the 1420mhz frequency. All informed scientists tell us this is a great frequency to listen to for the 'marker transmission,' the indication that someone is saying 'hello, we're here!' and not in itself a 'message.' Hehehe...that's a massive assumption on your part. If WOW is genuine, then one of those possibilities has to be the case, and both of them seem to require a clairvoyant knowledge of how long it would take for the first beam to pass through a patch of sky and account for the Earth's rotation.
Message 777228 - Posted 2 Jul 2008 17:05:34 UTC - in response to Message ID 776627. You originally said, WOW! only ticked one box. Let's review how many boxes WOW! actually does tick Nearly all of the scientific community states that the ideal frequency to look for a signal would be 1420mhz. This is where WOW! was found. First tick in the box. You're right, this *IS* a tick in the box; a parameter invented by the humans who assigned it as a box to tick in the first place (though not without good reason). That in itself doesn't necessarily make it more likely to be an ETI signal than not, however. ...and "nearly all in the scientific community" is an extreme exaggeration. Even among SETI scientists, there is wide disagreement over whether radio is "ideal" to listen to for ETI in the first place. 1420mhz is universally banned for terrestrial transmission ergo, WOW! could not have been terrestial in origin. Second tick in the box. Not unless the "transmission" was in fact a glitch in the Big Ear in the first place; in that case it would have very much been terrestrial in origin. The direction of WOW! was not that of one of the planets in the solar system. Third tick in the box. None of those are really "ticks in the box" if the WOW! Signal since none of those objects were in the direction of the second beam three minutes later either, and a glitch could also be described as an unnatural source for the narrow band detection. WOW! signal intensity and duration matched that expected due to the Earth's rotation. Six ticks in the box. ...but failed the expected confirmation by the second beam, suggesting that there was really nothing extraterrestrial being detected in the first place. I could go on but I think my point is proven. Only to those who persist in the blind faith notion that WOW! was a significant extraterrestrial detection or disavow alternative explanations. It is correct Big Ear only picked up ONE instance of the signal however, its wrong to assume the sender 'switched off' the signal at just the right time. It could be purely co incidental if the signal beam was transmitted for a specific duration then transmitted in a totally different direction. Again, why is it "wrong" to assume that the sender switched off the signal after it was detected by the first beam but right for you to assume that the sender switched the signal's direction after it was detected by the first beam???
The possibility that a genuine ETI signal signal being beamed from light years away would be picked up by the first beam for 72 seconds and not by the second 3 minutes later is so vastly remote, that statistically speaking, Occam's Razor would dictate that the sender knew when the first beam was no longer detecting it. ...then again, Occam's Razor also suggests it wasn't an ETI signal. I cannot seriously take your statement that searching at 1420mhz is a massive assumption on our part.
Message 777474 - Posted 2 Jul 2008 21:30:52 UTC - in response to Message ID 777228. You originally said, WOW! only ticked one box. Let's review how many boxes WOW! actually does tick You're right, this *IS* a tick in the box; a parameter invented by the humans who assigned it as a box to tick in the first place (though not without good reason). That in itself doesn't necessarily make it more likely to be an ETI signal than not, however. ...and "nearly all in the scientific community" is an extreme exaggeration. Even among SETI scientists, there is wide disagreement over whether radio is "ideal" to listen to for ETI in the first place. 1420mhz is universally banned for terrestrial transmission ergo, WOW! could not have been terrestial in origin. Second tick in the box.Not unless the "transmission" was in fact a glitch in the Big Ear in the first place; in that case it would have very much been terrestrial in origin. The direction of WOW! was not that of one of the planets in the solar system. Third tick in the box. None of those are really "ticks in the box" if the WOW! Signal since none of those objects were in the direction of the second beam three minutes later either, and a glitch could also be described as an unnatural source for the narrow band detection. WOW! signal intensity and duration matched that expected due to the Earth's rotation. Six ticks in the box. ...but failed the expected confirmation by the second beam, suggesting that there was really nothing extraterrestrial being detected in the first place. I could go on but I think my point is proven. Only to those who persist in the blind faith notion that WOW! was a significant extraterrestrial detection or disavow alternative explanations. It is correct Big Ear only picked up ONE instance of the signal however, its wrong to assume the sender 'switched off' the signal at just the right time. It could be purely co incidental if the signal beam was transmitted for a specific duration then transmitted in a totally different direction. Again, why is it "wrong" to assume that the sender switched off the signal after it was detected by the first beam but right for you to assume that the sender switched the signal's direction after it was detected by the first beam??? I'm not understanding that. Either Maybe I'm stupid, but if you believe that it was a genuine ETI signal, then aren't both possibilities equally likely and equally as much of a coincidence? The sender doesnt even need to know (or indeed care) about the rotational speed of Earth. The possibility that a genuine ETI signal signal being beamed from light years away would be picked up by the first beam for 72 seconds and not by the second 3 minutes later is so vastly remote, that statistically speaking, Occam's Razor would dictate that the sender knew when the first beam was no longer detecting it. ...then again, Occam's Razor also suggests it wasn't an ETI signal. I cannot seriously take your statement that searching at 1420mhz is a massive assumption on our part. My premise is not that WOW! was indisputably a signal from another civilisation beyond our solar system but, one that a probably signal has been debunked when it satisfies many of the criteria SETI and the scientific community have set out for determining a signal IS from an extra terrestial civilisation. From all the papers I've read, even Erhman now seems to suggest WOW! was not a glitch and ticked more boxes than it didnt. What Im saying is, definitely discounting WOW! is wrong. It should be classed as unproven but potentially a viable signal.
Message 777961 - Posted 3 Jul 2008 14:31:49 UTC - in response Message ID 77474 Last modified: 3 Jul 2008 14:32:31 UTC You quoted Sagan previously regarding extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence yet, you mention the spectre of life so alien we possibly could not comprehend it as such. We may as well argue that rock on the beach nearby is life but 'not as we know it.' Not sure I follow you there... What Im saying is, definitely discounting WOW! is wrong. It should be classed as unproven but potentially a viable signal. Here's the thing:
Message 780281- Posted 7 Jul 2008 15:54:28 UTC Hello all This post is a very very good read. I see now how people have different ideas on the known universe. Is the WOW signal truely a WOW or not? We may never know...ID: 780281
Message 780340 - Posted 7 Jul 2008 19:23:37 UTC - in response to Message ID 780281. Last modified: 7 Jul 2008 19:24:34 UTC the earth has been here for millions of years. (this is very short time) The Earth has been here for about ~ 4.6 billion years. When the WOW signal was found, how long was it before the public was informed? I don't think the public was ever officially "informed" since the scientists at the Big Ear felt there was nothing to "inform" them about; there was no confirmation, hence, nothing to announce. So there were never any public press conferences on "WOW!" Next question is that, every signal that comes from earth has some kind of data in it. It is very hard for me to take in that the WOW signal cant be traced back to some kind of transmition. If the signal came from earth, it would be very easy to know what it was and where it came from. Nope. http://www.bigear.org/6equj5.htm The wow signal must have came from deep space. Many SETI scientists disagree with you. Also, "must" is a strong word. Like I said, it's possible. Also there would be some kind of data in the WOW signal. Since Big Ear only recorded the intensity of the radio waves, it did not record any data that might have been encoded on the signal. Of course, *IF* any data was encoded on the signal in the first place; there's no evidence of that. I know there is alot of back ground noise that could make a signal Just to be clear and fair, to my knowledge there is no known natural background noise in interstellar space capable of producing an emission similar to WOW! But most signals that have came from humans has some kind of data. It is safe to say that any ET that can produce a signal that would be dected from earth would be far more advance than us, and would put some kind of data in the signal also. I agree that ET would likely encode data in any emission we detected. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if any data was encoded in WOW!
Message 780360- Posted 7 Jul 2008 20:48:46 UTC I disagree with a number of Taurus' points.
Message 780376 - Posted 7 Jul 2008 21:34:25 UTC Last modified: 7 Jul 2008 21:35:33 UTC Centenary writes: "Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else." (Han Solo) ID: 780376
Message 780384 - Posted 7 Jul 2008 21:55:39 UTC Thank you for your views centenary , Taurus. I did not know that there was not a recording of the actual signal. It seems to me that there would be some kind of recording of this signal somewhere. ( i know if i was working there that would be the first thing I would do is record it )
Message 780431 - Posted 7 Jul 2008 23:04:33 UTC - in response to Message ID 780360. I disagree with a number of Taurus' points. The WOW! signal was not immediately 'detected' by the Big Ear team. Such was the state of SETI signal searching at the time, Ehman didnt even get around to reading the data output from Big Ear until sometime afterwards. In fact, he states it was a couple of days later that he found the signal data. First of all, for your information, the Big Ear's detection of the WOW! Signal was discovered by Jerry Ehman the same night it was detected. He circled the detected emission and wrote "WOW!" that very night. The Big Ear's project director saw the detection report the next morning. Second of all, I absolutely never said it was "immediately detected" by the Big Ear team anyway: My posts are above for all to see. ...and I'm VERY well aware of how SETI signal searching currently works. You say "at the time" which implies that it works differently today; it doesn't. Ironically, unlike the radio detection work being done at the Big Ear, whether it's the work of the SETI@Home team or the SETI Institute, any potential signal that is detected won't be "seen" by the team until well after the detection has actually occurred. Even the work units being processed on the distributed computing network here represent "old" data, not detections in real-time. Its true other scientists attempted to re find WOW! but the EXACT position that the signal came from is not certain. Therefore, trying to find the signal again is like searching for the proverbial needle. That's a gross exaggeration and a misunderstanding on your part. Its also interesting to note that WOW! is mainly talked about to debunk it coming from a non terrestial source. If the signal had of been re detected, it would be interesting to know IF as much effort would have been put into letting the public know it WAS a signal rather than it not being. We've already been over this. If you think radio astronomers and SETI scientists would conspire to keep a confirmed signal like WOW! from the public, then you might as well be wearing a tin-foil hat. Next point is Taurus states many SETI scientist disagree WOW! came from deep space. Really! Let's hear their arguments then because I havent seen any. ALL the indications are the signal came from outside our solar system (assuming it wasnt a glitch, of course and if it was a glitch, statistically, that 'glitch should have been repeated but it never did!) You're stating patent falsehoods without even doing some basic online searching yourself. With all due respect, that's lazy and sloppy on your part. "Something suggests it was an Earth-bound signal that simply got reflected off a piece of space debris." - Jerry Ehman, 1994 "I can speculate, too, but there's nothing to back it up," "Yeah, the wow signal. Well, it's pretty wow-y. But it doesn't seem to have been ET. Lots of people have gone back and they even, they immediately had a following beam on the sky that swept through that same patch of the heavens, just shortly after they got that signal, and didn't see it. And people have gone back there looking, you know, with more sensitivity, more frequencies, and nobody's ever found it again. So it's not good enough. It's like seeing a ghost in your basement once. It's not enough to believe in ghosts. If you see them every time you look, now that's okay, you might believe then. So it was undoubtedly some sort of interference." http://www.bigear.org/Wow30th/wow30th.htm#speculations He now personally places low probability in every alternative explanation for WOW! other than ETI. As I said, the reasons for his change of heart are difficult to ascertain. Whilst I conceed there is no definite proof that WOW! was from an ET civilisation, there is sufficient evidence to suggest it possibly was. The problem is, scientific proof doesn't work that way. For example, the SETI Institute's multi-million dollar Allen Telescope Array is the most expensive and powerful devoted SETI tool in the world. SETI astronomers have devised targeted lists of locations which the ATA will scan....
Message 780506 - Posted 8 Jul 2008 1:25:55 UTC Cyrax wrote: "Also, I feel the earth is like a becon. We are sending out lots more data into deep space then there are people looking for ET's signal." Actually, in terms of radio emissions, earth is more like a kerosene lamp in thick fog than a beacon. Many of the radio signals we generate never make it out of our atmosphere. They're reflected back by the ionosphere. Most of those that do are very weak, and fade very quickly into the cosmic noise. Nothing we transmit could probably be detected by anyone, no matter how advanced, at a distance of more than a few lightyears. To make things more difficult, there are at least two other more powerful radio sources here, the sun and Jupiter. If a civilization with radio habits just like ours existed in the Tau Ceti system, 12 light years away, or the Epsilon Erandi system at 10 lightyears, we probably wouldn't ever be able to hear them unless they decided to send a very powerful signal directly at us, and kept sending for a long time. We'd never be able to watch their TV programs or listen to their Top 40 radio. Those signals would simply be lost in the cosmic noise. "Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else." (Han Solo) ID: 780506
Message 780755 - Posted 8 Jul 2008 15:25:29 UTC Hello Sparrow, I agree with everything you stated. The only problem is that, your statment may have been true in the 1950s , 1960s , 1970s. Our level of technology has increased 1000 times sence then. The power of most transmitters are powerful enough to go very very far into space. Even alot of earth's satellites are powerful enough to transmit very very deep into space and they are already beyond our atmosphere. You are very correct that TV and Raido may not go far into space. This is true if the broadcast is from ground level. But we do have other broadcast that are very strong that go into space every day that are not ground base. Also it is true that our brodcast would get weaker the further it went into deep space and the background noise may over come any brodcast we send, but there is data in all our brodcast. If ET is smart, they would be looking for very very weak signals that may have data or structure. And we should be doing the same. thankyou for the wounderful information, I love to here all view points and consider all. ID: 780755
Message781005 - Posted 9 Jul 2008 2:16:55 UTC - in response to Message ID 780755. You are very correct that TV and Raido may not go far into space. This is true if the broadcast is from ground level. But we do have other broadcast that are very strong that go into space every day that are not ground base. The problem with those satellites is that they're not broadcasting into deep space, their signals are aimed directly down below towards Earth; this is different than what the transmitting towers of the 20th century did when they broadcast omnidirectional radio signals around the globe.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_search_action.php Messages matching your query: 1) Message boards : SETI@home Science : Help with Signal Candidates (Message 917395) I disagree with THE statement made in this forum, that THE so called 'WOW SIGNAL' was all media hype. THE SIGNAL was and is a genuine unknown. Its source was never identified. Given THE fact that its duration matched THE time a star would take to cross through THE antenna beam, it seems likely that THE source was at least interplanetary, if not interstellar. No known space craft from Earth was at that location in THE sky at THE time. THE fact that THE SIGNAL could not be heard again made it impossible to prove beyond all doubt it was from an extraterrestrial intelligence. Michael Michael, Enzed my old friend, I cannot give you a straight answer because i don't know. But i would also like to know THE answer to your questions.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_search_action.php
Answer 1. I don't know. But i do know that THEy test THEir algorithms regularly by adding a man-made SIGNAL to see if THE algorithm with pick it up. You should watch THE video's of THE 10th anniversary, you will learn lots about THE exact science. Answer 2. I don't know. I believe THE recording part of THE work-unit is base 64 encoded for compression. You could try base64 to un-compress it and see if you can get THE recorded data. THE bit between <data length=354991 encoding="x-setiathome">BASE64_STUFF_HERE</data> (Note: I could be completely wrong) Answer 3. I also could be wrong but i believe its only recording 1.42GHz + or - a few Hertz eiTHEr side. On anoTHEr note, Steorn are still tagging people along for THE elusive ride. I'm sure its a scam, THEy have nothing new to contribute to science. THEy have picked THE "300", I'm one of THEm. Might as well be inside raTHEr than outside...LOL John. Watch THE SETI@home Science Status page; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sci_status.html (Its down at THE moment being repaired!). This is where you will see Candidate information. Lots of info in THE "About SETI@home" page; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_about.php. You could also read About AstroPulse; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/ap_faq.php and AstroPulse Science; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/ap_info.php You cannot listen to THE SIGNALs that your computer is processing because its recorded around THE 1.42 GHz frequency, THE Hydrogen line. Your ears can only hear sounds between 20Hz and about 20,000Hz. You can however listen to modified space radio noise here; http://www.spacesounds.com/ John. 1st.. Where are THEse 150-200 narrowband candidates that I have read so much about.. I would like to give THEm a listen if possible. 2nd.. Have THEre been any candidates from THE Astropulse survey and if so, is THEre someplace i could listen to that?? So far all i have heard are about 5 candidates one being THE WOW SIGNAL, I have read that it was almost certanly from 200 light years away and ive also read that it was confirmed to be terrestrial interference.. If someone could direct me to some kind of reliable source, that would be awesome. Thanks, Message boards: SETI @ home Science: If someone found a signal would the public know ?
JUST SIX NUMBERS Martin Rees 1 OUR COSMIC HABITAT PLANETS STARS AND LIFE Page 24 A proton is 1,836 times heavier than an electron, and the number 1,836 would have the same connotations to any 'intelligence'
THE DOG THAT WORE ITS NAME BACKWARD SOUNDED A BOW WOW WOW WOW
27 Aug 2007 ... Frank Drake sat down with Astrobiology Magazine’s Leslie Mullen to .... The price of SETI is not a lot, only a few million dollars a year. . 27 Aug 2007 ... at Cornell University and the University of California, Santa Cruz. ... Frank Drake sat down with Astrobiology Magazine’s Leslie Mullen ...
The Man to Contact
"In the field of astrobiology, few people have had a bigger influence than Frank Drake. In 1960, he conducted the first radio Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). He formulated the “Drake Equation,” which set the standard for the search for alien life in our galaxy, providing scientific rigor to a field of inquiry that previously had been derided as pure science fiction.
Drake, along with Carl Sagan, designed plaques that were carried on the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft. The Pioneer plaques depicted symbolic messages for any aliens the spacecraft might encounter as they travel outside our solar system. Drake also worked with Sagan on theVoyager Golden Record. Containing sounds and images of life on Earth, the record was sent on both the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft." "AM: Listening at the right time, at the right star that has a planet with life at the same point of evolution as us – the chance of that seems so small. Extracts posted 27/8/08 ----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Denison
To: info@seti.org
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:31 PM Subject: THE LIGHT IS RISING NOW RISING IS THE LIGHT FRATERNAL GREETINGS CITIZENS OF PLANET EARTH
GOODWILL SALUTATIONS TO ALL SENTIENT BEINGS
THOUGHTS OF PEACE AND LOVE OF LOVE AND LIGHT
MESSAGE EMANATING FROM DAVID DENISON 9 WINDSOR ROAD
IN THE LIGHT OF THE WOW SIGNAL AND SETI - LO AND BEHOLD SUCH A SIGNAL AS THAT
RA-IN-BOW GOOD WISHES DAVID
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Denison
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:33 PM
Subject: THE LIGHT IS RISING NOW RISING IS THE LIGHT
FRATERNAL GREETINGS CITIZENS OF PLANET EARTH
GOODWILL SALUTATIONS TO ALL SENTIENT BEINGS
THOUGHTS OF PEACE AND LOVE OF LOVE AND LIGHT
HEARKEN ECHO OF PREVIOUS MESSAGE EMANATING FROM DAVID DENISON
IN THE LIGHT OF THE WOW SIGNAL AND SETI - LO AND BEHOLD SUCH A SIGNAL AS THAT - WOW O WOW - SUCH A SIGNAL AS THAT RA-IN-BOW GOOD WISHES DAVID
Seti message received in 2007 in response. 7/18/2007 3:15:32 PM (PT) David Denison Thank you, David, your information has been received.
---- Original Message ----- From: Dave Denison
To:Dennison Matthew
Cc: sherpa 42
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:36 AM
Subject: THE EAGLE HAS LANDED
Hiya Matthew I thought to mark the moon landing of the 20th of July 1969 with this e-mail. At the time I was painting the Nuclear family in the front room at 75 Kingsway and watched the moon landing on the 21st of July at around 3-20pm GMT.
Both Florence and I thought this an inspired moment.
The material below I sent to the all and sundry of Planet Earth some years ago.
Have a lovely time when you go to Lee-on-the solent, I have invoked the good wishes of the God of the sea Neptune, (Roman name), or (Poseidon) in Greek.
Take care and look forward to seeing you soon.
Love and good wishes to you all, and a big kiss for a big lad wah Frank.
David.
From; sherpa42
To:david denizen
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:36 PM
Subject: Thank you
Good Afternoon Davide, Hope all is well? Good to see you last night. It was a nice crowd that were out. I drunk a bit too much too quickly and bailed out about 11-00. I had a good birthday though... Thanks for the card and the money. It is much appreciated. They have a tent sale on at Mitchells at the moment and I have an eye on one that will be great for the 3 of us. You probably know but Grandma would have been 99 tomorrow. God bless her... Have a good weekend and speak to you soon.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Denison
To: sherpa42
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:45 PM
Subject: Ninety nine and all that.
Matthew thank you for the photographs. Also I very much appreciated being reminded about Grandma, that had she lived she would have been 99 tomorrow. So I will visit Norah and Ernests grave Number 99 tomorrow Sunday 26th of July 2009 All good wishes David
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Denison
To: english bird
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:36 PM
Subject: Fw: ninety nine and all that
Hi Nicola I have just sent the e-mail below to wah Matt. I hope you and Rosie had a good day and you got back home safely, and no doubt back to work tomorrow, but hey Nic we have the Emley show next Saturday. Love David
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Denison
To: sherpa42
Cc: Dennison Matthew
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:29 PM
Subject: ninety nine and all that
Hi Matthew just to let you know I went to the cemetery this afternoon around 4-opm. I took some wisteria flowers and bought a begonia which I have planted. Two of the previous plants were still showing a red one and a nice yellow. Also the rose bush at the side is coming into flower, The grave could do with weeding and the grass chopping back a little. But I will do that later. I was so grateful that you told me Matthew, it was amazing how did you make that association?. Certainly I would have been upset to have missed that most important recognition, so thank you very much. Take care
FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS Graham Hancock 1995 Page 490 Library angels The missing piece of the puzzle "The novelist Arthur Koestler, who had a great interest in synchronicity, coined the term 'library angel' to describe the unknown agency responsible for the lucky breaks researchers sometimes get which lead / Page 491/ to exactly the right information being placed in their hands at exactly the right moment"
MIND BORN SONS, THOSE PATENT PATIENT PATENTED PATTERN MAKERS MIND=4 BORN=4 SONS=4 THOSE=4 PATENT=4 PATIENT=4 PATENTED=4 PATTERN=4 MAKERS=4
O NAMUH BELOVED CHILDREN OF THE LIGHT BLESSED DREAMER OF DREAMS AWAKEN THE ETERNAL MOMENT BIRTHS ITS FUTURE
ARTHUR KOESTLER EXHIBITION LONDON Organised by the Home Office October 1977 Yorkshire Post Review of the work of David Denison Prison Officer. Richard Seddon "...Given his technical skill, the images pack a disturbing punch that reveal the inner world of the Freudian unconscious..."
SUNDAY TIMES LIFESPAN ARTS IMAGE OF THE WEEK SURREALIST 24th July 1977 Pages 16/17 "Where are the good painters of the 1970s In quite surprising places, very likely. One of them is in a West Yorkshire school for prison officers (of whom he is one) giving classes in first-aid. David Denison, who has a current exhibition at Ilkley Manor House, Yorkshire, is almost entirely self-taught. As a result he has learned an astonishing skill of a highly personal kind. He is a natural surrealist - a breed that is commoner In England than in more rational countries, but is very rare even here His imagining has a sardonic poetry of its own. His Study of a Head, for example (right), builds spectacles and dentures into a skull. Each eye socket contains minutely glittering machinery like a watch. Denison is great on eyes. In another picture, a bushy insect likeness of himself sits down to make a meal of a pair of eyeballs. A reflective painter will often discern something cannibal in the way an artist consumes his experience and himself, but here the arched brows and the clown-like red nose have a look of a Prime minister of Mirth, The hilarity resides in the fantastic human mix - the very combination of ebullience and decreptitude that you can recognise in any pension queue. It is the living flesh of our time, shabbily facetious and libidinous but decayed and dependent on spare parts. Other Denison pictures are more sombre, poetic, or horrendous. Even in their farthest extremity there is a often a quality of the real from which fantastic art is usually protected. One can sense that the painter is familiar with rigours and incongruites that are by no means imaginary. A first-aid officer sees violence and self-mutilation, and looks aggression and despair in the face - no painter can know better the constraints from which imagination is literally the only escape. Denisons best pictures have a quality of serious need. At 37 this remarkable painter is still little known, but Sir Roland Penrose reports that when Max Ernst came to England it was Denison that he wanted to hear about. In a year or two Denison will be famous and we shall wonder how we managed to neglect him. David Denison's work will be on show at Ilkley Manor House Yorkshire until August 17. Lawrence Gowing
SUNDAY TIMES LIFESPAN ARTS 24th July 1977 Pages 16/17 Science Fiction: an inter-galactic trip among the paper backs Review Alan Brien "...It turns out to be a donkey, a fearsome sight to a visitor from a planet without animals. Perhaps ESP has been at work, for almost the same incident occurs in Arthur Clarke's Imperial Earth (Pan 75p) where Duncan, another moon- man, this time from Saturn's satellite Titan, visits the home- land of Terra, from which his ancestors had emigrated to con- quer new frontiers. He too has never seen an animal before, here a giant Percheron cart-horse. A mild, gentle eye, which from this distance seemed about as large as a fist, looked straight at Duncan, who started to laugh a little hysterically as the ap-parition withdrew. . . .. Look at it from my point of view. I've just met my first Monster from Outer Space. Thank God, it was friendly." The usual SF situations continue to be reversed with neat, mild wit as when Duncan cowers inwardly.at the thought that he might even be obliged to eat meat and is kept awake by the un- Titanly noises and, worse, smells of this weird place, at once primeval and decadent. Clarke is by no means a political innocent. As ever, he logically thinks out all the implications of his speculative fictions but his ' attitude remains Olympian..."
"Sir Arthur Clarke "Leslie's House, 25 Barnes Place, Colombo 7. Sri Lanka. 27-11-2001 Sir, you may find the attached of interest With every good wish Dave Denison"
"Dear Mr Denison, Thanks! Ive written an article 'SEPT 11" but it hasn't been placed yet All good wishes Arthur Clarke 3 Dec 2001"
Reverse of Letter "THE FOUNTAINS OF PARADISE"
ARTHUR C. CLARKE The Fountains of Paradise 1979 "NIRVANA PRAPTO BHUYAT"
OF TIME AND STARS Arthur C. Clarke 1972 The Sentinel "I can never look now at the Milky Way without wondering from which of those banked clouds of stars the emissaries are coming. If you will pardon so commonplace a simile, we have set off the fire alarm and have nothing to do but wait. I do not think we will have to wait for long."
----- Original Message ----- From: david denison To: Webmaster@Seti.org Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:25 PM Subject: Frank Drake SETI-INSTITUTE- 1 of 2 The Pictures
----- Original Message ----- From: david denison To: Webmaster@Seti.org Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:29 PM Subject: Frank Drake SETI-iNSTITUTE- 1 of 2 The Pictures Subject: Fw: 2 of 2: The Message For the attention of Frank Drake (Message omitted) With a Ra-in-bow of good wishes David Denison
----- Original Message ----- From: david denison To: Webmaster@Seti.org Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: FRANK DRAKE IMAGINE THERE'S A HEAVEN
----- Original Message ----- From: david denison To: Webmaster@Seti.org Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:22 PM Subject: Fw:Frank Drake.Sir,Consider, The Root numbers forI=9 Me=9 Ego=9 conscience=9 Jupiter=9 Sun =9 Oxygen =9 Physics9 Albert Einstein9 Satan+God=9 Serendipity = 9 ?
OF TIME AND STARS Arthur C. Clarke 1972 Page 68 Into the Comet "Pickett's fingers danced over the beads, sliding them up and down the wires with lightning speed. There were twelve wires in all, so that the abacus could handle numbers up to 999,999,999,999 - or could be divided into separate sections where several independent calculations could be carried out simultaneously."
REACH FOR TOMORROW Arthur C. Clarke 1956 Introduction to 1989 Edition "However I have made some interesting discoveries; for instance, on the very first page of the first story, I see the number 9000. Ive no idea why I selected it again for HALs serial number 20 years later. . . "
OF TIME AND STARS Arthur C. Clarke 1972 FOREWORD "'Into the Comet' and 'The Nine Billion Names of God' both involve computers and the troubles they may cause us. While writing this preface, I had occasion to call upon my own HP 9100A computer, Hal Junior, to answer an interesting question. Looking at my records, I find that I have now written just about one hundred short stories. This volume contains eighteen of them: therefore, how many possible 18-story collections will I be able to put together? The answer as I am sure will be instantly obvious to you - is 100 x 99. . . x 84 x 83 divided by 18 x 17 x 16 ... x .2 x 1. This is an impressive number - Hal Junior tells me that it is approximately 20,772,733,124,605,000,000. Page 15 The Nine Billion Names of God 'This is a slightly unusual request,' said Dr Wagner, with what he hoped was commendable restraint. 'As far as I know, it's the first time anyone's been asked to supply a Tibetan monastery with an Automatic Sequence Computer. I don't wish to be inquisitive, but I should hardly have thought that your - ah - establishment had much use for such a machine. Could you explain just what you intend to do with it?' Page16 'We have reason to believe,' continued the lama imperturbably, 'that all such names can be written with not more than nine letters in an alphabet we have devised.'
I = 9 9 = I R = 9 9 = R
OF T9ME AND STA9S A9thu9 C. Cla9ke,1972 Page 15 'Th9s 9s a sl9ghtly unusual 9equest,'sa9d D9 Wagne9, w9th what he hoped was commendable 9est9a9nt.' As fa9 as 9 know, 9t's the f99st t9me anyone's been asked to supply a T9betan monaste9y with an Automat9c Sequence Compute9. 9 don't w9sh to be 9nqu9s9t9ve, but 9 should ha9dly have thought that you9- ah - establ9shment had much use for such a mach9ne.Could you expla9n just what you 9ntend to do w9th 9t?' 'Gladly,' 9epl9ed the lama, 9eadjust9ng h9s s9lk 9obes and ca9efully putting away the sl9de 9ule he had been us9ng fo9 cu99ency conve9s9ons. 'You9 Ma9k V Compute9 can ca99y out any 9out9ne mathemat9cal ope9at9on 9nvolv9ng up to ten d9g9ts. Howeve9, for ou9 work we are 9nte9ested 9n lette9s, not numbe9s. As we w9sh you to mod9fy the output c9rcu9ts,the mach9ne w9ll be p99nt9ng wo9ds not columns of f9gu9es.' '9 dont qu9te unde9stand…' 'Th9s 9s a p9oject on wh9ch we have been work9ng fo9 the last th9ee centu99es - s9nce the lamase9y was founded, 9n fact.9t 9s somewhat al9en to you9 way of thought, so9 hope you w9ll l9sten with an open m9nd wh9le 9 expla9n 9t 'Natu9ally.' '9t 9s 9eally qu9te s9mple.We have been comp9l9ng a l9st wh9ch shall conta9n all the poss9ble names of God' '9 beg you9 pa9don?' / Page16 / 'We have 9eason to bel9eve' cont9nued the lama 9mpe9tu9bably, ' that all such names can be w99tten with not mo9e than n9ne lette9s 9n an alphabet we have dev9sed,' 'And you have been do9ng th9s for three centu99es? 'Yes: we expected9t would take us about f9fteen thousand years to complete the task.' 'Oh, Dr Wagne9 looked a l9ttle dazed. 'Now9 see why you wanted to h99e one of ou9 mach9nes. But what exactly9s the pu9pose of th9s p9oject ? 'The lama hes9tated fo9 a f9act9on of a second, and Wagne9 wonde9ed9f he had offended h9m.9f so the9e was no t9ace of annoyance9n the 9eply. 'Call9t 99tual, 9f you l9ke, but 9t's a fundamental pa9t of ou9 bel9ef. All the many names of the Sup9eme Be9ng - God , Jehova , Allah , and so on - they a9e only man made labels. The9e 9s a ph9losoph9cal p9oblem of some d9ff9culty he9e, wh9ch9 do not p9opose to d9scuss, but somewhe9e among all the poss9ble comb9nat9ons of lette9s that can occu9 a9e what one may call the 9eal names of God. By systemat9c pe9mutat9on of lette9s, we have been t9y9ng to l9st them all' 9 see. You've been sta9t9ng at AAAAAAA… and wo9k-9ng up to ZZZZZZZZ …' 'Exactly - though we use a spec9al alphabet of ou9 own. Mod9fy9ng the elect9omat9c typew99te9s to deal w9th th9s 9s of cou9se t99v9al. A 9athe9 mo9e 9nte9est9ng p9oblem 9s that of dev9s9ng su9table c99cu9ts to el9m9nate 9 9d9culous comb9nat9ons. Fo9 example, no lette9 must occu9 mo9e than th9ee t9mes 9n sucess9on.' 'Th9ee? Su9ely you mean two.' 'Th9ee 9s co99ect; 9 am af9a9d 9t would take too long to expla9n why , even 9f you unde9stood ou9 language.'/ Page 17 / '9'm su9e 9t would,' sa9d Wagne9 hast9ly. 'Go on.' 'Luck9ly, 9t w9ll be a s9mple matte9 to adapt you9 Automat9c Sequence Compute9 fo9 th9s wo9k, s9nce once 9t has been p9og9ammed p9ope9ly 9t w9ll pe9mute each lette9 9n tu9n and p99nt the 9esult. What would have taken us f9fteen thousand years 9t w9ll be able to do 9n a hund9ed days.' 'Dr Wagne9 was sca9cely consc9ous of the fa9nt sounds f9om the Manhatten st9eets fa9 below. He was 9n a d9ffe9ent wo9ld, a wo9ld of natu9al, not man-made mounta9ns. H9gh up 9n the99 9emote ae99es these monks had been pat9ently at wo9k gene9at9on afte9 gene9at9on, comp9l9ng the99 l9sts of mean9ngless wo9ds. Was the9e any l9m9ts to the foll9es of mank9nd ? St9ll, he must g9ve no h9nt of h9s 9nne9 thoughts. The custome9 was always 99ght…"
OF TIME AND STARS Arthur C. Clarke 1972 Page 68 Into the Comet
DECIPHER MANKIND HAD 1200 YEARS YEARS TO CRACK THE CODE WE HAVE ONE WEEK LEFT Stel Pavlou Page 357 24 hours "We live in a universe of patterns. Every night the stars move in circles across the sky. The seasons cycle at yearly inter vals. No two snowflakes are ever exactly the same, but the all have sixfold symmetry. Tigers and zebras are covered in patterns of stripes; leopards and hyenas are covered in pat terns of spots. Intricate trains of waves march across the oceans; very similar trains of sand dunes march across the desert . . . By using mathematics... we have discovered great secret: nature's patterns are not just there to be admired, they are vital clues to the rules that govern natural processes." Ian Stewart, Nature's Numbers, 1995
THE MAGIC MOUNTAIN Thomas Mann 1875-1955 Page 466 "Had not the normal, since time was, lived on the achievements of the abnormal? Men consciously and voluntarily descended into disease and madness, in search of knowledge which, acquired by fanaticism, would lead back to health; after the possession and use of it had ceased to be conditioned by that heroic and abnormal act of sacrifice. That was the true death on the cross, the true Atonement.
WAY OF THE PEACEFUL WARRIOR A BOOK THAT CHANGES LIVES Dan Millman 1980 Page 44 "...do you recall that Itold you we must work on changing your mind before you can see the warrior's way? / Page 45 / "Yes, but I really don't think. . ."
YEA THOUGH I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH I WILL FEAR NO EVIL FOR THOU ART WITH ME
THE MAGIC MOUNTAIN Thomas Mann 1924 Page 711 THE THUNDERBOLT "During those days of stifling expectation when the nerves of Europe were on the rack, Hans Castorp did not see Herr Settembrini. The newspapers with their wild, chaotic contents pressed up out of the depths to his very balcony, they disorganized the house, filled the dining room with their sulpherous stifling breath, even penetrated the chambers of the dying. There were moment when the "Seven-Sleeper," not knowing what had happened, was slowly stirring himself in the grass before he sat up, rubbed his eyes - yes, let us carry the figure to the end, in order to do justice to the movement of our hero's mind: he drew up his legs, stood up, looked about him. He saw himself released, freed from enchantment - not of his own motion, he was fain to confess, but by the operation of exterior powers, of whose activities his own liberation was a minor incident indeed! Yet though his tiny destiny fainted to nothing in the face of the general, was there not some hint of a personal mercy and grace for him, a manifestation of divine goodness and justice? Would life receive again her erring and "delicate" child - not by a cheap and easy slipping back to her arms, but sternly, solemnly, penitentially - perhaps not even among the living, but only with three salvoes fired over the grave of him a sinner? Thus might he return. He sank to his knees, raising face and hands to a heaven that howsoever dark and sulphourous was no longer the gloomy grotto of his state of sin."
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
THE WOW SIGNAL THE DRAKE EQUATION
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
|
 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
