Lionsgait: Bifurcation of the Mind Eternal …

or, How the Dream of Reason Went Completely Cracker!

 

  •  

    Prologue:

    Generally, I write artist statements to establish some semblance of clarity about my creative endeavors. They’re not written for me, but for the academically trained mind; especially for those raised-brow inquires, from which, it’s not too big a leap to view an artist’s statement as an allocution, and every inquirer my judge.

    However, this artist statement is more of a proclamation, which means, I am not here to justify anything; I am here to teach, and in some cases to lay down the proverbial law!

    Hyperbole?

    Maybe, and you may very well walk away mumbling, but you can’t be evasive. Because it’s anything but one of those ubiquitous artist’s rants customarily scripted in that lofty verbiage that’s ambiguous enough to drive a truck through.

    This proclamation was painstakingly written in the academic vernacular … well, a quasi aspect of it you will agree; enough to build a solid case against academia’s myopia, that can’t see the forest from the trees, which explains why creative types make “artist statements.” It’s that, or the ubiquitous chit chat with the proverbial brick wall.

    Although this communiqué is written in the academic vernacular, it’s not going to be an argument on academia’s home turf, adjudicated by the rules of their mind system. No. A metaphorical gauntlet is being thrown down.

    However, I would be surprised, if an academic accepted the metaphorical challenge, which is why creative types rarely give the accredited mind a second thought, as we went our separate ways thousand of years ago when those scholastic deep thinkers began to get uppity; thinkin’ they were in charge of anything other than vocational matters.

    So, just to be circumspect, regardless of your level of academic mind training, I recommend you read only one section of this proclamation per sitting, as you could be academically allergic to the ideas in this proclamation without knowing.

    Moreover, it’s considered a healthy practice to give yourself time to process small portions that are hard to digest, before lunching on the next menu. Because if you shovel, indigestion is assured, and you will likely cough up a big ol’ gnarly hair ball. I’m just saying, it’s a bit fibrous for the trained mind …

    The Metaphorical LAD:

    All right, let’s begin by talking about the Lionsgait, spelled gait, not gate, which is to say, the way of the lion, which is to then metaphorically infer, the evolution of language.

    How is that, you may ask?

    Well, it’s a metaphorical thing, which means I am speaking in the human vernacular. Allow me to explain. It may take a few paragraphs to peculate through your hypothetical programming, so be patient.

    First of all, beings do not have in their possession a thing called knowledge, they are knowledge. Because, unlike a rock, they have agency, which means; they know who they are, where they have been, where they are going, and what they intend to do when they get there, with plans A, B and C already lined up to achieve their objective.

    Likewise, if a species has assimilated its entire evolutionary trajectory with the sky, that means they chose that niche to their advantage in being. Thus, birds metaphorically expresses knowledge of the overview, because they are sky beings and master of that environment.

    Metaphorically speaking, the words being and knowledge are distinctions without a difference; just as experiential and instinctual knowledge are problematic in distinguishing one from the other, as a sky being’s experiences are aloft on a winged evolutionary trajectory.

    That tells us instinct holds biologically nested agency, similar to the nested hypothesis of the mind-system; except the former is embodied and the latter is … well, incorporeal.

    Ergo, metaphorically speaking, there is no such thing as knowledge, there is only being.

    Yet, the hypothetical trained mind insist that knowledge is a symbolic thing, and as such a mind is obviously trained to think in a hypothetical manner, when it claims to speak hypothetically, that too is a distinction without a difference, because everything they say and think is hypothetical, which engenders cognitive dissonance and distortions between hypothetical ideas and reality.

    Oppositely, the imaginative human mind thinks and speaks in terms of what it perceives. Like the nature of a thing, from which we speak about that nature in terms of that thing. Like a crocus speaks of spring time, while the falling leaves speak of winter approaching, which we all recognize as metaphorical expressions. And every human being understands my words without any hypothetical mind training whatsoever.

    Therefore, the metaphorical and hypothetical mindsets are mutually exclusive ways of being mindful, because of that fundamental divergence in methodology upon which the two minds build their logic. The former is natural and the latter is artificial.

    For the biological human mind metaphors are the building blocks from which a natural language and logic are constructed, metaphorically expressed as a lion.

    That is to say, cats, having the most tenacious memory in the animal kingdom, they chose memory to their evolutionary advantage. So, to say lion, is to metaphorically infer such embodied knowledge.

    That way of speaking was established a very long time ago during an alleged prehistoric era, as is obvious from the photo by (Hollmann, CC 2013) of the figure of LowenFrau of Hohlenstein-Stadel, dated to be in the range of 30-40 thousand years old.

    And yes, I dismissed academia’s mis-gendering of the cat. Because, when the natural mind speaks about a lioness, as she is the female progenitor, they would be metaphorically expressing knowledge of a generational tenacious memory, which is to say language.

    That tenacious memory is what makes lions unique among all beings, and that’s how my biological intellect makes sense of their place in my metaphorical mind in building its cosmology.

    The Lions dwell at the foot of the mountains in the grasslands north of the eastern forest that rises above the flood planes in my mind’s vast metaphorical Delta. Where forests and streams speak about their meaning. Even artificial human habitats have a meaningful place in my Delta, and from time to time, the lioness visits me when I have difficulty recalling what is most important.

    As I said initially, Lionsgait is about the evolution of language, as the word gait is the way of the lion, which is to walk in a certain way, which means the lion moves in a linguistic manner. Hence, the evolution of language.

    That is to say, the Lionsgait is all about the evolution of LAD (Language, Art & Dreams), as they are one and the same; just different manifestations of the same phenomena –an imaginative aspect of embodied knowledge. Because that’s OUR evolutionary strategy.

    We are the being that apperceives!

    OK … let’s take a breather to digest what was covered thus far, which can be a bit overwhelming. Not because it is complex. No. Its veracity is as obvious as it is evident to the metaphorical human mind. What’s problematic is why academia excludes such meaningful human understanding from our curriculum?

    Obviously, I am speaking rhetorically, because we know the reason why; the metaphorical and hypothetical mindsets are not simpatico, because their methodologies in building logic are contradictory.

    The paradoxical may be the metaphorical mind’s playground, but it would never speculate with hypothetically nested versions of reality, which I guess could be as mentally rewarding for the procedural mind as a gerbil’s gymnastics on a treadmill.

    However, for the natural creative mind, speculation is negotiated from what is perceivable in some way. And it most certainly would never use the procedural mind for discovery as it’s the wrong cognitive venue, because it will never bear fruit …

    The Fountainhead of all Context:

    OK … now that I put a bee in your bonnet, and your mind is hopefully receptive to metaphorical thinking, you now understand the above image from Chauvet had absolutely nothing to do with lionesses, which means we can talk about what was stated in an intelligent metaphorical manner.

    Obviously, we know this small section of the cave library at Chauvet was speaking about knowledge of language, and that Chauvet was painted prior to LowenFrau that we discussed in the previous section. Because a figurine can not communicate such intricate social concepts about knowledge of language. LowenFrau is more of a iconic expression of their cultural ethos.

    Hence, in context to LowenFrau, Chauvet’s conceptual ideas must have been established prior to 30-40 thousand years ago, and likely much older, as the date of 54 thousand years ago was expressed at Chauvet. And what that section of their social treatise communicated about the inception of language, because that’s the context of Chauvet, the premiere externalization of our imaginative mind in a repository of knowledge (cave library), stated the following:

    The human mind will henceforth split from two minds into three distinct ways of being mindful; the imaginative mind, the procedural mind, with the addition of a technological social mind; of which the imaginative mind guides them all, as it’s the lodestar.

     

    For the edification of the trained mind, I will translate the above image by deconstructing it into its metaphorical parts to explain how to read the Second-Language, that is to say, Art. And please interpret the old clechée literally, that a picture is worth a thousand words, because what they said fills volumes.

    You will find it’s not difficult, what’s problematic is your academic mind training established preconceived ideas of what Art is, which clouds your vision, as it attenuates apperception, and thus prevents you from perceiving, thinking and speaking in the human vernacular.

    You know, how you look for something that’s right in front of you, but can’t see it, because it’s not where you would put it; same thing, which is caused for one of two reasons; (A) wifie-poo is messing with your mind, or (B) it doesn’t coincide with your world view, which your mind was trained to believe, and thus determines how you look and what you are able to see.

    And as the human mind has as many was to look as there are stars in the sky, restricting that perceptive ability because of what you were trained to believe is the feedstock for comedians.

    Academia attributes that limited perception to Linguistic Determinism, and when they occasionally stumble on the truth, they kindly call it serendipity. I call it Academic Sensory Syndrome or ASS for brevity!

    OK … from the upper left is the imaginative mind split into two minds, yet transparently it’s the same mind, with its two distinct eyes. One is resting, while the other looks upward with its eye closed; as it’s the mind’s eye that can see without looking, which is the mind that dreams of the possibilities, and thus it’s the only mind with legs. Because imagination is our guiding star that leads the way.

    The mind in the middle is the performative mind of action with a wide open eye focused on the task at hand, while its second eye binds its actions to its imaginative counterpart, as it spins downward internally.

    The last mind on the lower right has three eyes, which is identical to the mind in the middle, with the addition of a very small third technological eye, which is the only eye that looks backwards at the vast morgue of knowledge on the cave walls of generations past, as a means to peer into the future with a greater understanding. Yet, that mind too, is bound to the imaginative, as it also spins downward internally.

    Ergo, they clearly stated, without any ambiguity, of the three minds, the mind that has legs to move, but has no eyes to see was the imaginative mind that guides them all, because that’s the fountainhead of all context.

    I suspect that’s the reason they stated the obvious, of the creative mind as not just being central in their social experiment, but as the bedrock of our apperceptual intellect.

    They recognized that a Cartesian mortal mind, that is to say, the procedural mind, with an ability to see across an abyss of a Great Year (25,700 Yrs.) presents the real possibility of loosing sight of its lodestar; only seeing distant horizons, hypothetical futures that may or may not come to pass, and thus becoming oblivious to what is metaphorically apparent. You know, the ASS affliction on a grand scale.

    Which is precisely what happened, because somewhere along the line the mind-tech transformed into something unnatural, which seized ownership of that guiding star … Martin Heidegger’s explanation as to why we lost our way stated, “We forgot, that we have forgotten.”

    But, to me, that excuse is a bit accidental and offers no explanation whatsoever. We are supposed to believe that a culture, during an alleged prehistoric period, that spoke as cogently as you or I today about language and history, forgot their legacy!

    Obviously, the absentminded assertion and its subsequent inferences makes no sense. And when something doesn’t pass the sniff test, especially when it stinks to high heaven, that’s precisely where to dig and deep, until you strike paydirt.

    Let’s stop there to break out the picks and shovels … as we can not set that pretense aside, to circle back at some undetermined date. It has to be resolved here and now, because it’s just too outrageous to be shelved.

    OK … and as I keep saying, metaphorically speaking, there is no distinction between LAD (Language, Art & Dreams), any more than there is a distinction between knowledge and being. You have to understand, those distinctions are hallucinations; a VR byproduct of our artificial mind training with a hypothetically symbolic mind system. Because back in the day, when the hypothetical ones were an irritating speck in the metaphorical eye, art did not exist any more than an artist, or a symbol for that matter.

    And as the hypothetical ones have clearly appointed themselves stewards of our linguistic legacy, which is their kindly word for theft, the question is, how in hell does one seize ownership of the entire kit and caboodle?

    Well, it’s actually very simple, you uproot the human mind from its metaphorically rich soil and transplant it into hypothetical ditch.

    Consequently, art, language and knowledge would now become distinct things separated from each other and from being, which can now be seized. Likewise, the being would become a hybrid with a disembodied mind, disconnected from the wellhead; you know, the lodestar.

    So, hypothetically speaking, even the ridiculous could now be made to appear reasonable to such a disjoined mind, which prior to being transplanted into a hypothetical ditch was an impossibility. Because a hybrid’s hypothetically nested hypothesis, can never make it past the embodied mind’s experientially grounded thinking that’s always planted firmly on a metaphorical deck.

    The blueprint to render the human mind into a Tuffy® Tool was always hiding in plain sight, which was mapped out, step by step, in Plato’s, Allegory of the Cave. You know, schooling humans into caves and training their mind with a Platonically sanctioned hypothetical facsimile of reality.

    However, as is customary of gift bearing Greeks, way out there Pluto had enough animal cunning to couch his nefarious intentions with a Trojan Horse of altruism; pretending to give two shits about what anyone thought.

    No … his objective was to drive the creative metaphorical mind straight into a hypothetical ditch, or as he preferred, to bury it deep down in a dimly lit underground cavern of systematic thought to manage the social mind.

    And it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out, as the one thing that got Pluto’s toga in a hysterically mortifying twist was, … wait for it, that’s right, you guessed it, the apperceptual mind, which is the embodied metaphorical mind and its imaginative intelligence.

    That’s the most cogent explanation for the reason things don’t add up. You know, “We forgot that we have forgotten.” No. You don’t forget where you left your 20 thousand year legacy, like a necklace you dropped in the ravine. That’s unadulterated gibberish.

    It was suborned, pure and simple, by you know who, and what they subsequently set out to do was very predictable stuff, because the tech-mind is an extension of the procedural mind, albeit with a longer “reach,” but procedural nonetheless, and thus it’s severely ASS afflicted and likewise it’s anything but creative.

    As such, art was relegated to a position of being a vocationally performative mind void of all intellect, while elevating themselves to a position of their ultimate incompetence.

    So, not only are the two mindsets not simpatico, the hypothetical ones are like a fatal attraction. They are desirable, because they are very smart with practical matters. But they are also dumb as a post, because they are oblivious to what is most apparent. You know, the ASS affliction, and as they are also extremely meddlesome in ideas that are beyond their comprehension, that makes them dangerous.

    The LAD, Hybrid and ASS:

    As I have clearly established a bifurcation of the social mind into two inharmonious camps; academia and the arts, if you asked me to speak to the other encampment about such matters, I would say the ensuing tête-à-tête would be akin to banging my noggin against that proverbial brick wall.

    As you can imagine, such antics would hold tremendous appeal to a hybrid’s, misery loves lots of company, sadistic streak. Ouch!

    Instead of preforming academia’s brand of kabuki theater, let’s entertain another situation and setting when conceptual metaphorical language, that is to say Art, first barged it way into social sewing circles, which must have caused many at that soirée to spin up the rumor mill into overdrive.

    I found ample evidence that abstract language (art) was well established during the Châtelperronian industry and inferential evidence that points to the end of the Mousterian industry. From which I can deduce that conceptual language was established by Neanderthal, not Cro-Academics, because Cro-Wanderer wasn’t in that region of Europe during the birth of the Mind-Eternal.

    And as I have also previously established, Cro-Academia’s grasp of the metaphorical is infantile to non existent, we can dismiss their findings on such matters, no matter how voluminous.

    As a classic example of academia’s incessant metaphorical illiteracy, they sent legions of their brightest and best descending into the caves of Europe to determine when the art was created by measuring the calcium build up on the surface of the images, which is ridiculous. Because those caves were well maintained libraries of knowledge, and thus the paint would have been reapplied thousand of years after such findings were first discovered and recorded.

    Regardless, all they had to do was read the various dates written on the cave walls, as can be recognized in the following illustration about one painting at Lascaux.

    From the illustration above, we understand that the Magdalenians were speaking about knowledge of movement (horse), that is to say, the movement of the polestar during a two and a half millennium age between Alderman’s to Deneb’s shifting position.

    There’s only one way the mortal human mind could possibly know about the drifting nature of the polestar, and understand that Deneb will be the lodestar thousand of years into the future. That’s from historical knowledge.

    Obviously, from the Mousterians to the Magdalenians, we are speaking about the same culture, as Deneb’s position as the lodestar was recorded during the previous Great Year at the Altamira Cave Library in Spain, and likewise, the impetus for the Altamira project was established during the time of Chauvet.

    That’s several thousand generations that were socially committed to observe and record history in context to astronomical phenomena. Today, the social mind, that is to say, that e pluribus unum mental principality, is so infantile it can’t recall the social meme from last week.

    The reckless nature of today’s culture is a consequence of misleading students to believe that those ancient libraries of knowledge were the efforts of some sort of mindless form of primitive creative expression, whatever the hell that means, which obscures that infamous sewing circle that revolutionized the human experience; as if it never happened.

    In the absence of that epistemological “missing link,” which is essential in understanding the biological aspect of knowledge formation, doesn’t make hybrids stupid, per se, it makes them dependent on the mind system, because it excludes them from developing their creative mental capacity into a natural ability.

    Consequently, they can not think independent of that system, which is why they all believe what they are told and thus parrot the same damn thing.

    However, when the system becomes dysfunctional, as it is today, they change their social meme as often as I change my underwear, because their mind’s ideas are as reliable as the defunct system they trained their mind to think with.

    Obviously, transplanting the metaphorical mind into a hypothetical ditch is what leads to such foolishness, because the epistemological roots must be severed to hybridize the human mind into a Tuffy® tool, which means their mind is divided against its Non-Cartesian creative core.

    And today, after thousands of years on auto pilot, we can safely assume such behavior is prima facie evidence for an open and shut case built on volumes of Linguistic Deterministic blindness; not that the statute of limitation will ever expire on that original palace coup for artists.

    So, if we view the “words” from the Châtelperronian to the Magdalenian industry in a meaningful way, which is to use our noodle, not our mind training, to see what is actually being inferred, then and only then will we get a clearer understanding about how our creative mind languages.

    What do I mean, when I say, use your noodle, not your mind training?

    It means to stop reacting from your programming, in order to slow down, and stop thinking about thinking, so you can simply listen to how your mind has evolved to engage in a biological manner in the world, not a hypothetical facsimile about the world.

    Then and only then, if you want to go full Tuffy® tool, hell, knock yourself out. But don’t confuse the Tuffy® tool’s training and its knee jerk reactions for the creative human mind.

    And contrary to academia’s self serving mythology about the metaphorical mind’s primitive nature, I have clearly established it is the progenitor, because it created historical language, and without historical language, civilization would not exist.

    OK … it’s time for another breather to gather up all of the detritus, and with consideration to our previous woolgathering, which established the inimical nature of the two minds, the question is not what can go wrong, but how wrong it can go?

    Well, as most no longer have an understanding of what languaging actually is on the root level, or how it came about, and what is this thing that we train our mind to think with and its ramification, or what the future will be like for the metaphorically illiterate, I don’t know what could be more wrong then that, as it’s a rejection of our evolutionary trajectory and thus our creative nature.

    The Evolutionary Idiot:

    What kind of evolutionary idiot mangles that which makes them unique among all beings? Initially, they record a few millenniums of findings. Then, out of expediency, they concocted an ad hoc mind system from those limited findings, which splintered the creative mind into fragments. Subsequently, while the lodestar was out picking daffodils, the procedural mind was spinning in circles chasing its tail.

    Obviously, the cobble together mind system was problematic. Because creativity and expediency are mutually exclusive paradigms, which is why our creative nature was/is considered kryptonite to that social system, and the reason why hybrids are conditioned to believe that a human’s creative nature is, well, let’s just say, not up to their expedient expectations. And if I have learned anything in my limited experiences, it’s that the short cut is always a dumb idea.

    Moreover, when we consider that expedient advise is coming from an AI trained trans-human cybernetically hybridized Tuffy® Tool, which means their knowledge of human nature is infantile, because it never developed its metaphorical intellect, their assertions about a human’s nature is hilarious, because we are being counseled by a toaster.

    As such, their trans-human efforts today will be another in a long line of hilarious misadventure deep into the brambles, because is not an ideology, it’s a symptom of a biological imperative to eradicate an infestation of a technological parasite invading our creative mind with the embodied will of a system, which is like that trans-human itch the cyborg can never scratch.

    However, the question that’s most likely rattling around in your tin can is, how come I speak the human lingo?

    Well, I could say something witty, as to why my mind was not fragmented from being trained, but it would be disingenuous, because it’s not a simple answer. Let’s just say, when I am thirsty, I go to the well, not a stagnating linguistic swamp. And as dreams speak in the First-Language, that’s my collaborative source.

    During those introspective reflections to explore how my subconscious mind’s creatively speaks, to better understand my creative process’ potential and its limitations, I found a connection between those efforts and the writing on the cave walls from the Mousterian Industry.

    Specifically, my understanding of what the Mousterians said was not recognized from what they wrote, but how they syntactically expressed it. Because, like my efforts to understand how my sub mind threads metaphorical concepts into theories, it was only when I recognized the same syntactical expressions in the writing of the Mousterians, that everything they stated unfolded like a flower.

    You can imagine how I felt when I knew I was standing in front of the wellhead. I was as thunderstruck as you, when you understood that conceptual language was established by the Mousterians, and not the e pluribus unum Cro-hybrids, who never quite grasped the concept of language, which is why hybrids confuse the tool for the mind, and why they train their initiates to believe our “prehistoric” cousins had trouble counting their toes.

    The truth of the matter is, our esteemed cousins established conceptual language, and thus history, philosophy along with mathematics in the form of addition, multiplication, and ratios. In land navigation they used the polestar, and built stellar annual and galactic calendar systems; to track the days and seasons of the year, and to situate the age in which they dwelled.

    From that conceptual ability to socially express their situation and setting, they were able to build a culture. Because, without that social ability, it’s impossible to plan an epic knock down drag out shindig, or work toward common aspirations, nor can one pass historical experiences, observations, conjectures and theories on to their progeny.

    OK, it’s that time again; to digest the implications of the decisions of the expedient one. Obviously, there is nothing deep to ponder here. It’s more of a recognition, that our language, which reflects our thinking, is not human, because it lacks a pulse.

    I mean, our language is as artificial as our history, because our imagination is governed by a mind system. Likewise, without access to the wellhead, we have no alternative, but to believe what we are told. Unless we as individuals, like the Mousterians, embark on a quest of self discovery, which BTW is guarded by cybernetic dragons of unintelligible systematic complexities … AKA, self-censorship.

    For example, in my language and its history, I know the year is not 2024 AD, because that date was established from a theological chronology that expresses when time began for religious learners. The actual date of the exodus from the glacial “garden” was closer to 54,000 years ago.

    Our metaphorical history tells us we are living during the time when Orion is in its apogee, during the mid point of the third Great Year from the age of Chauvet, which is when time began. Because Chauvet is the birth of the Mind-Eternal, and thus the fountainhead of all context.

    Although a vast ocean of time has passed from those first words spoken about building the Mind-Eternal, they resonate in a pointed way today. Because, for us, it’s about rebuilding the Social-Language; retrieving our linguistic legacy from a moribund mind system, and repatriate it to its natural metaphorical habitat, where it rightfully belongs, as it has way too long longed to be.

    Sounds Like Linguistic Expediency:

    OK … now that I have raised the issue of a seminal shift in our linguistic legacy during the previous few thousand years, and as I consider the expedient nature of that shift short sighted, because the creative aspect of our mind is left feral in favor of its hybridization, let’s talk a bit more about what a metaphor is actually.

    The reason for expounding on the nature of the metaphorical is, if I was to use one word that expresses our creative nature, it would be that. And I’m not talking about some literary device used to be expressive, which is not an incorrect definition of a metaphor; it’s just colossally incomplete.

    In the previous example of a crocus, which speaks of springtime, that’s called abstract thinking, because we did not simply see a flower. We viewed the flower in an embodied manner, in a much larger context than the immediate situation and setting.

    Thus, metaphorical thinking is to imagine the creative possibilities in a worldly manner. Because that is who we are; we don’t perceive, we apperceive. You know, that thing, which caused way out there Pluto to climb the subterranean cave walls of his hypothetical mind.

    Without metaphors, conceptual language would not exist. After all, a mind system’s symbols have no meaning, as they are merely place markers, from which meaning is derived from a systematic negotiation and re renegotiation.

    What’s the diff you ask?

    That’s a no brainer; symbols are technological and metaphors are biological.

    For example, when I look up at clouds in the sky my natural mind begins to fill with an array of ideas about what I am perceiving, like a natural form of taxonomy; transformative, light, bright, drifting, fuzzy and so on and so forth.

    So, if I want to express to some idiot that their ideas are a bit “fuzzy”, I simply draw a cloud, from which they walk away in a huff.

    However, unlike clouds, living beings are another metaphorical matter, because they are also syntactical, as they tell the reader, with which specie of knowledge to be mindful. Like the bird tells the reader to look and think in terms of knowledge of the overview, and not to drill down and get lost in the details, because, if you do, you will not catch the author’s linguistic drift.

    Likewise, if someone from 50 thousand years ago needed to express the abstract concept of, “Historical Knowledge of the Earth”, they did so by associating the following metaphorically syntactical expressions:

    As we previously established, all beings are knowledge, and the lioness, as she is an expression of knowledge of language, which we also previously established, and snake being an expression of concomitant knowledge, because of the serpentine manner in which the snake moves its being, thus their association infers, “Historical Knowledge of Language,” or the short version, “History.”

    Then when we associate the boar, which is knowledge of the Earth, because that’s where boars dwell, thus the boar gives us the genre. Hence, we have a metaphorical phrase that communicates, “Historical Knowledge of Language about Knowledge of the Earth,” or the shorter version, “Earth’s History.”

    Oppositely, for the academically trained mind, which we previously established as disembodied hybrids … when hybrids hypothetically claim that meaning in language comes from sound, which is the very foundation of their understanding of what language is, originating prior to that infamous sewing circle from 50 thousand years ago, we can dismiss that wild assertion, because sound holds emotional, not visually abstract metaphorical meaning.

    And good luck using your academic violin to express emotional sounds that convey visually abstract metaphorical concepts like, “Historical Knowledge of the Earth,” because it’s not going to happen, no matter how much feeling you put into your violin bow and yodel in accompaniment. Because without metaphorically abstract visual thinking, historical language can never be built; not in a bazillion years!

    If I was a dolphin it would be a different matter, because a being’s intelligence is built from its perceptual ability that has the farthest “reach.”

    Obviously, in a liquid environment, as visual perception is limited, a water being’s intellect would be aurally based. But we are not talking about a dolphin’s intellect, or a clam’s for that matter, we are talking about a human being’s visual mo-lingua-jo.

    The reason I previously used the word “reach” in context to perception is, all perception is fundamentally touching, with an evolutionary propensity to extend that “reach.”

    For example, our olfactory sense extends touching to the particles that drift in the air; our aural sensibility is touched by the vibration from movement; and our visual acuity is the sense that extends our ability to touch the light reflecting off the focus of our attention as far as the eye can see.

    Obviously, the olfactory is a forensic sense that is attuned to the past, the aural is all about being emotionally in the present moment, and why the crack of thunder raises our emotional roof, while our visual acuity is not phased one whit by the flash of lightning.

    Because vision is not emotionally reactive, it is imaginatively proactive, focused on the future as far as the eye can see. Which establishes our apperceptual vision as the sensibility that can “imagine” one of many possible paths to choose to “reach” an objective far down range.

    So, when speaking about a being’s perception, and its ability to act, that is to say, negotiate the possibilities in that perceptual mind-frame, we have to be absolutely clear as to which form of touching we are taking about. If we are speaking of humans, we are talking vision, not sound, because vision has the farthest “reach.”

    And as free range humans are limited to being emotionally in the moment, and thus can only vocalize experiential history, because they are not aware of the visual aspect of the subconscious mind’s conceptual nature, which means they would not have the technological “reach,” to extend their visual acuity to a library, be it a cave or a computer, so, the question becomes, what’s the reason for academia’s divergent view from reality, when they claim language’s abstract conceptual meaning comes from emotional sound?

    In a word, expediency.

    The mind system used by hybrids can not function, if they are aware of the meaningful aspect of language, because being descriptive and being meaningful are two entirely different frames of mind, which, like water and oil, do not mix; something to do with our inability to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

    That is to say, the human mind can be trained to be Cartesian or non-Cartesian. You can either be a useful Tuffy® tool or endeavor in a meaningful creative profession. What you can not do is both, like semiotics. Which is a hilarious endeavor of constructing a system about meaning, in a mind system that can not function with meaning.

    As such, we can dismiss academia’s claims about LAD, because they are fundamentally not credible. Hybrids may be handy with banking, harvesting, piloting, engineering, and vocational things of that nature, but their thinking on matters of great meaningful importance are unreliable. And that’s being kind, because they speak with authority without understanding.

    OK … it’s reflection time again, to revisit that issue of what could possibility go wrong during language’s tenure with the hypothetical ones.

    Obviously, it went about as wrong as it could possibly go … and as we already fleshed out what went wrong, and the reason why, what’s unclear is if the problem can be rectified.

    However, prior to that, we have to make academia aware of the discrepancy. And there’s the rub. The peer review process is exclusive only to those that have contracted a severe case of ASS; you know, the blind leading the blind.

    Now you understand another reason why the Châtelperronian’s established the imaginative mind as the lodestar, not the procedural or technological minds. Because the creative mind would never sacrifice meaning for expediency; in fact it’s an impossibility.

    As such, the arts must insist that academia focus on their practical vocation, and remain in their hypothetical ditch where they belong, and that which is meaningful, is not in their purview.

    Obviously, the time is growing late in reclaiming our legacy from a conclave of short sighted academicians, who ripped language from being to yield a disembodied mind filled with meaningless linguistic “things”, and now they want to continue the devolution and transport the hybrid’s mind Back to the Future in an idiodyssey where free range deep thinkers acquiesce all determinations to a machine programmed with centuries of seminal screw ups.

    To wit, I would highly recommend a creative intervention, PDQ, prior to merging such flawed thinking with that expedient of all expedient minds -AI.

    Natural Born Syntax:

    OK … we are now going to speak about the heart of language -syntax. Let’s call it the First-Syntax, which can be recognized by how our dreaming mind builds relational meaning into theories, regardless of if we are consciously aware of that cognitive process or not. Because it doesn’t really matter, as dreaming subconsciously imbues emotional significance into decision making for the free range mind.

    What’s interesting about that subconscious process is, it’s primarily syntactical in nature. That is to say, understanding what our subconscious mind is expressing, is not so much about what is being said, although that’s important, as it gives us the current context, what’s central is how it’s being said in context to our experiential and evolutionary trajectories, because that’s the conceptual realm.

    Thus, understanding the First-Syntax gave us the capacity to communicate in a conceptual manner socially; from which we were afforded the opportunity to build that creative capacity into an amazing social ability. Excluding the unfortunate, “We forgot that we have forgotten” gibberish.

    OK, enough with the preliminaries … let’s get into what we are actually talking about when we use the phrase First-Syntax. And similar to how the hand connects to the arm by tendons and cartilage, First-Syntax is about articulations. That is to say, First-Syntax is how we build an array of metaphors into a living mosaic.

    Likewise, First-Syntax is not about the meaning of things, because metaphorical thinking is never about what is being stated. It’s always about what is being inferred.

    In the same way a crocus speaks of spring time and not the flower, First-Syntax speaks about the meaning between the meanings, or as I like to call it, “tweening” for short. And as we are talking about a whole lot of tweening in our vast world of interactions, syntax is a probative, non-Cartestan state of mind, and thus the only rule of First-Syntax that I am aware of is, it’s not Cartesian in character.

    However, to the academician, whose function is to train the mind to think with a hypothetical mind system, and as systematic thinking is Cartesian exclusively, which is in contradiction with the one and only rule of First-Syntax, we must conclude their rules for thinking are not syntactical.

    The question is, if it’s not syntax, what is it?

    Well … what academia calls syntax appears to be the rules of a collective utilitarian mental system with little appreciation for anything that can’t be added to its bill of fare.

    Obviously, First-Syntax is also human-centric, as we perceive the world as human beings; albeit in a more comprehensive manner, as our metaphorical imagination knows no such bounds. Like the array of metaphorically syntactical fauna of birds, lions, snakes, and boars, that tells us, with which species of knowledge to be mindful, while we swim like fish beneath the waves, and fly like a birds when dreaming.

    However, for the hybrid such imaginative ways of thinking is not in their skill set, because it can not think metaphorically, as it’s locked in Cartesian mode, which is like installing a cognitive check valve preventing reverse flow. Thus the hybrid’s procedural mind does not have access to the wellhead.

    They certainly dream, and those dreams will have an emotional effect, but their metaphorical intellect will remain infantile, which is the reason they can build amazing engines, but can’t read the language at Chauvet. You know, their mind is no longer human, it’s a Tuffy® tool.

    Now let’s get into the nitty gritty of what we are actually talking about when we say First-Syntax, which is more than a point of view. It’s also about establishing a phenomenological state of mind, which simply means the manner in which we are naturally aware, of which there are four obvious ways that an author, or your dreaming mind situates the viewer’s state of mind in context to a point of view, so the listener can understand what is being expressed.

    If there’s ambiguity between those distinctions, and in dreams there is always ambiguity, that is between our point of view and state of mind, like when we need to be theoretical in our state of mind, but it has to be expressed by a procedural action, that’s when the metaphorical mind deploys phenomenological syntax in creative ways.

    Like when you dream of theoretically observing yourself perform the action, as opposed to being a first person performer. You are both the observer and the performer, which situates your state of mind between being subjective and objective. As I stated initially, that’s the entire point of First-Syntax; to situate your mind in a tweening state.

    Those four phenomenological ways of being mindful, which can be deployed individually, or in concert in context to a point of view, are expressed in four syntactical marks comprised of two dualistic siblings. In Latin they are the vowels (A&E ) / (I&O).

    That’s right, the Third-Language was built from the Second-Language, void of its meaningful aspect, for reasons we previously established. Here are the syntactical vowels:

    • (A) Artfull: while viewing the clouds in the sky, I see in the shifting billowing shapes flora, fauna, places and things that emerge from my mind’s eye, in an aperceptual vision.
    • (E) Existential: while looking at the same clouds my mind fills with an array of perceptual ideas, like a natural form of taxonomy; light, bright, fuzzy, changing, and so on and so forth.

    • (I) Individualness: while focused on a person place or thing, or being mindful of a task at hand, in the former case, my perception is singularly attentive, and in the latter case, my thinking is in a linear performative state.

    • (O) Orbitalness: My mind is in a probative state, searching for the relationships between things in time (memory) and space (perceptual), as it’s bridging the present with the past to expand its reach.

    Obviously, the boundaries between them are not clearly delineated, which means there is overlap. However, (A&E) appears closest to how we perceive and apperceive, while (I&O) seem more about how we are using our noodle, during conscious or subconscious mental processes.

    Moreover, the two dualistic pairs are reflections of one and other. That is to say (A&O) are non-Cartesian, while (E&I) are Cartesian in character.

    ⎼ ((A) Artful-Idea-Imagined)

    ⸻ ((E) Existential-Actual-Perceivable)

    From the Aurignacien to the Magdalenien industry they used the above short and long lines to make the syntactical distinction between the way in which a human was either imaginatively seeing “⎼“ ((A) Artful), or they were looking in a sensually perceptive manner “⸻” ((E) Existential). Which is an essential distinction to make for the being that does a lot of abstracting.

    • ((I) Individualness-Thingness-Distinctness)

    🞏 ((O) Orbitalness-Allness-Aboutness)

    If an Aurignacien author wanted the reader to know if they should be Cartesian or non Cartesian in their thinking, they did so with a “•” ((I) Individualness) or an “🞏” ((O) Orbitalness) syntactical expression.

    In other words, if the author was speaking about something specific, like the apple, they would use the “•” ((I) Individualness) syntax accompanied with the “⸻” ((E) Existential) syntax; naturally with a image of an apple to give their expression context.

    But, if the author wanted to say an apple, which is no apple in particular, because it’s a hypothetical apple, they would used the “•” ((I) Individualness) syntax accompanied with the “⎼“ ((A) Artful) syntax.

    If they wanted to express a large quantity of apples, they would use the “•” ((I) Individualness) syntax with the “🞏” ((O) Orbitalness) syntax to multiply in the following fashion (……….🞏 •) where the large syntactical dot on the right is imbued with the sum of individual syntactical values on the left side of the “🞏” ((O) Orbitalness) syntax. Rinse and repeat and they were able to express millions, which the Magdalenians did at Lascaux by using that multiplication technique with geometric ratios.

    However, if an author wanted to express something that is not obvious, like a process in time, or if the author wanted the reader to be relational and relative in their thinking, or they wanted to express something that’s not clearly delineated in space, like the sky, they would use the “🞏” ((O) Orbitalness) syntax accompanied with either the “⎼“ ((A) Artful) syntax, or the “⸻” ((E) Existential) syntax.

    When used in combinations and recombinations they got complex. Like the syntactical matrix from the Altamira cave in Spain below, which used three syntactical scalers (expressions ⎼ ⸻ 🞏), in three arrays (a group of scalers).

    That matrix is part of the cave’s legend filled with metaphorically syntactical fauna. That is to say; the female horse and her yearling, which is knowledge of old and new movement; associated with the hind, which is knowledge of eternal time; the boar, which is knowledge of the Earth; and an emaciated ice bison, which infers the burrvous weather, as the bison was a visual pun of galactic drift during a Great Year.

    Ensemble, their association metaphorically communicates, “Knowledge of Old and New Movement of the Earth During an Ice Age.” In other words, they built a historic record of climate change during an academically alleged prehistoric period.

    BTW, as a heads up to climate scientists, the Aurignacien to the Magdalenians wrote down the exact ages of glaciation. So, you may want to review your data and methodology when studying climate history, because the two don’t jive (see Dream Duet, Chapter 5).

    OK, … in the above matrix from Altamira, the two actual elements, “⸻” ((E) Existential) in the top two arrays in green are understood from three ideas, “⎼” ((A) Artful) that are the same, but different, because the three ideas are reflections of two actual elements “⸻” ((E) Existential) as they converge in a singularity that change over the course of space in a left/right or east/west manner.

    Moreover, as the two green arrays are also conjoined with the bottom black array in that singularity, that brings those reflections into a pointed focus, by which they become three actual elements,”⸻” ((E) Existential) that are only perceivable in a non-Cartesian and lateral manner, indicated by the “🞏” ((O) Orbitalness) syntax on the left side of the bottom array.

    As you can see, that syntactical matrix is … well, it’s not real complex, but it’s not simple either. You do have to use your syntactical noodle in context to metaphors to understand what is being expressed, which are the bison that are expressions of galactic drift during a Great Year.

    I am not going to flesh the Altamira library out here; been there done that, along with most of the ancient caves of Europe in my magnum opus titled, Dream Duet. However, I wanted to show you how the Aurignaciens expressed the syntax of our dreaming mind in a social manner to build theories in scaler, array and matrix formats in context to metaphorical expressions.

    OK … it’s time for another breather, not to compare natural to systematic syntax, as that will just facilitate the onset of a migraine, but to contemplate the function of natural syntax as the conceptual glue that forms the metaphorical aggregate.

    Oppositely, the trained mind speaks about syntax in the same way they speak of knowledge and language. All of which are things to them, that do not operate by the will of the human mind, but are determined by the disembodied logic of their hypothetical mind system, which is the proverbial tail wagging the boneheaded mutt.

    Just as obvious is, seizing ownership of our metaphorical language was all about controlling the creative mind to harness its social potential. For creative or destructive ends, is besides the point, and if it’s on auto pilot or not, is also incidental.

    What’s central is, for that e pluribus unum mental principality to be effective, like a vivisectionist, the metaphorical embodied mind had to be disassembled into its constituent parts, to uproot the creative mind; the same mind of Chauvet that initiated the social dialogue 30-40 thousand years ago.

    And that’s the dilemma addressed in the next and final section. That is to say, the exclusion of the creative mind from social discourse will be our undoing, one way or another. Because those conditions facilitate that inevitable conclusion; actually, they demand it.

    How?

    I have no idea, but you know the old cliché, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad,” and identity politics tells me the gods are angry as all getout.

    Upshot of Mind Training:

    We begin the learning process as rebels, initially during the terrible twos. It’s not that we are rebellious in nature, its that learning is such a amazing human thing to do, and we don’t want some control freak mucking around in apparently very disorderly initial creative efforts.

    That in your face interference continues relentlessly and unabated right up to the don’t tell me what to do teen years, which appears to be a last gasp of their creative nature being expressed in the only way they can, with style as a form of social identity.

    Eventually our creative spirit yields to that collective will as we become fearful of expressing our real identity as creative independent thinkers.

    And as our mind is trained relentlessly to be part of that social system, and as such things have inertia, yet, do not function when individuals begin to think in a manner other than how they were trained, and thus don’t perform as intended, that makes creative thinking a liability, that is, so long as blue skies prevail.

    However, when clouds begin to accumulate, that’s when the metaphorical mind has to earn its pay; figuratively and literally speaking of course, as it’s the only profession without a paycheck, yet it’s the only mind that can think independent of academia’s systematic box.

    During my obligatory pro bono efforts, I have found that moments of creative clarity do occasionally occur, and during one such moment of crystal clarity, and I say this with all due derision, I came to the inescapable conclusion that academia has lost its proverbial mind. Because whatever they are teaching their new recruits, they are transforming them into the emotionally driven free range loons from long long ago.

    Now I know how that vanguard felt at that infamous sewing circle 50 thousand years ago. Instead, of being celebrated, they were given the third degree, with a verbal tongue lashing, similar to what an academically accredited loon might say today:

    You must be an elitist, because you’re saying things I don’t understand, which hurt my feelings. Obviously, you did not identify with who I am before speaking with me, which also means you’re insensitive prick. Thus, I can’t identify with you!

     

    Okey-Dokey … setting aside that passive aggressive justification for going completly crackers, let’s assume that truant system can survive on auto-pilot, which is magical thinking, the obvious question is, what manner of fiduciary sorcery is academia performing?

    Clearly, academia didn’t appoint themselves stewards of our linguistic legacy for purely altruistic reasons; it was to establish control of the social language, mind and thus our collective will by oligarchs, like way out there Pluto.

    Apparently, even in the misinformation age, academia has lost its pretense, and thus their true mandate can no longer be hidden behind a fig leaf of altruism. So the question becomes, how long can the natural mind endure being schooled from one manufactured crisis to the next?

    My guess is, not for very long, as there’s nothing to learn from the ignorance and fear of a culture in perpetual crisis, which means the imaginative aspect of the human mind is the only mind capable of finding a rejoinder to academia’s social puzzle box.

    If you’re thinking academia’s aggrandizement of a trans-human agenda, with its maternal yearning for a hybrids machine interface is a new direction, forgetaboutit. Because that’s the inevitable consequence of cave dwellers who haven’t used their creative mind in thousands of years.

    Ergo, only the lodestar established at Chauvet will guarantee the creative human mind’s metaphorical bond with its experiential and meaningful language of the ages, and thus readjust our systematic azimuth to be correctly aligned with our imaginative evolutionary trajectory.

    Until the infantalization of human mind becomes an impossibility, that is to say, so long as humans remain illiterate of their human vernacular, by maintaining their cybernetic religious learning experience with its systematic bias, I will remain trepidatiously optimistic!

    However, be advised we have arrived at the second bifurcation of the human mind, from Tuffy® tool (Third-Language) to AI (Fourth-Language), which brings us to the end of the line, and explains the eternal social upheavals, as the Mind-Eternal has just crossed the Rubicon …

    Creatively Yours,

    Edmund Double-U Dalpe, MFA. @ theLionsgait

    24Nov24