Friday, February 02, 2007
Resilience Project White Paper
(Response to note from The
Speaker’s Office [376] )
(Response ŕ to [376] )
Starting the Discussion with the National Science Foundation
About the proposed Resilience Project
Hi Paul,
I think large scale musicality is
more or less what everybody wants from the world. They want contact with some
sort of natural law as universal and all-pervading as gravity
that produces bliss in consciousness, and they want the world to deliver
it. They want a world in which bliss is the overarching law of nature and the
phenomena of consciousness a product of that bliss.
Bliss, it appears to me, is a
natural phenomenon in a body that is well-tempered (tuned to a set of fixed
intervals that allows key transposition). Well-temperedness is or can be a
feature of human bodies. The well-temperedness of the body is not nearly as
simple or as ready to demonstrate as the well-temperedness of the piano or
the guitar, but it is there. It depends on a number of complicated and mobile
structures and functions in the body, including the bones and ligaments, the
blood and pulmonary circulation, and the nerves and central nervous system. By
meditation and moral conduct in general, bodies can be tuned up so that bliss
is more or less reliably inducible in the individual. Native American
Beauty Paths are undoubtedly also examples of that tuning process.
With a general agreement on
what conversation actually is (it is a moral, meditative process) and
how it can work in ideal situations, I think, we would be in a position to
engineer the bliss states that are intrinsic to the human consititution. If
significant numbers of people began to induce the musicality of bliss in one another
there would probably be spillover effects into material nature. Material
nature would begin to respond to human energy. If we became socially serious
about managing states of consciousness, we'd probably begin to see a completely
different kind of physical world begin to evolve.
Carl Flygt/Feb 07
Note sent January 29th ŕ [382]
January 30th reply from NSF ŕ [383]