Wednesday 10 November 2010

Lots of blogging in the last week.

I have been creatign and posting questions of the day for the last few days.

Question of the Day for November 7, 2010
Describe some strange thing that has happened to you near water?

Question of the Day for November 8, 2010

What is the most “turned around” situation in your life?
One that either looked like a complete disaster at the time, yet later seemed like great fortune;
or one that appeared to be good fortune, yet later was viewed as a disaster?

Question of the Day for November 9, 2010
What is the most awe inspiring walk you have done?

And I have been keeping up with Laurie’s ABCs.

B is for BEing

Great question and great comments all.
I just had this image in my mind of a multifaceted jewel, with what seemed like an infinite number of facets. Each facet a distinction, that gave a small view of the whole jewel, and the jewel is the infinite potential contained within each of us; with the particular expressions we bring into being, moment by moment.
I be what I am, when I am.
My intent is bring the highest level of being that I can manifest, and to be the greatest contribution I can be into the eternal present, and ripple out to others.

C is for Clairs

Hi Laurie
I am familiar with all of those things, and in my world they are the result of the way in which we store and retrieve information within our brains, and the levels of context that we mange to create or raise.
It seems that most people are trained from a very early age (by cultural conditioning) to ignore or suppress such things. For me, having few people able to understand me as a child (due to being tongue tied), led me to develop and learn to rely upon these ways of knowing. To learn when they worked, and when they were unreliable, and to learn to test them, and recontextualise them as required.
I remember about 30 years ago, when breaking the copy protection on a game for a TRS80, I had a friend staying, and he was watching over my shoulder as I worked away with the debugger. He could not understand what I was doing, and when I explained to him about the shape of the logic I was starting to see in the protection mechanisms, I don’t think he got it. I was seeing the complex logic encoded in the hexadecimal digits on the screen in front of me as a three dimensional image. It was simply the context that my brain chose to use to show me the pattern, and I was happy with that.
I have thousands of examples of each of the “Clairs” and for me there is nothing at all “supernatural” in them. They are, simply amongst the many mechanisms available for our brains to reveal the “holographic” relatedness which appear to our particular minds from the specific patterns of the experience sets we have had during our lifetime.
They are very fast, and it takes quite a bit of practice to “catch” them and bring them to conscious awareness. They often appear as “fleeting phantoms”, that leave just a hint of their passing to our very much slower consciousness. Learning how to “record”, then “play back” these experiences, at a speed more suited to conscious awareness, is often quite a trick.
Sorry I can’t give much advice, except to say, that with persistence, one does eventually work out how.

And a post in the
Our community vision/mission discussion

Hi Michael

I love what you said, with the contexts of cultural evolution, over biological evolution, over cosmic development; and there are more layers which are important to my understanding.

Cultural evolution most certainly gives us as individuals the capacity to self start.
Without cultural evolution providing a language with abstract concepts, including a valuation system, self awareness would be impossible. Cultural evolution provides a lot more also – which is a distinct problem. All of that “extra stuff” must be examined and “unbundled” by each individual before they become free of culture, and become fully creative beings. This takes time, determination and persistence. Without all of those, most people remain cultural entities, for the most part.

The evolution of the individual is, to me, the most fascinating aspect.
The cultural, biological, and physical/cosmological background are interesting (even fascinating) and the path of an individual from cultural/biological automaton, to fully aware creative entity, is orders of magnitude more fascinating. (Acknowledging that one is rarely completely either end of that particular spectrum.)

To me, the role of “holographic association”, (often known as intuition, “pure practical reason”, clairecognisance, and any number of other terms) is a breakthrough in understanding the process, both how it work, and where it may lead. It seems that this process of intuition can create a potentially infinitely recursive set of new contexts as our awareness grows.

For me, one of the keys to moral context comes from a deep understanding of “Games Theory”, and a recognition, that given a sufficiently long term outlook, and a sufficiently small discount rate on future returns, self interest and altruism become almost indistinguishable. One starts to see, that in the very long term, one can only ensure one’s own survival and prosperity if one guarantees the survival and prosperity of everyone else (no exceptions). Currently I have many exceptions, my parents have both died, my own survival probability is nowhere near as high as I would like it to be, thousands of people die every day of essentially easily preventable causes; and yet the underlying theory remain true. is my attempt to provide an empowering technological and social context for this greater vision. And for each of us, the journey is ultimately a personal one, one of choices, actions and consequences.


About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Wednesday 10 November 2010

  1. holessence says:

    Ted – What a treasure trove to find this “hub” of your recent sharings all on one convenient place. Whoohoo — I love it!


  2. Most Awe Inspiring Walk….
    And also near water…

    Hubbys dad (who was Irish had recently passed away….Mike and I took a trip to Ireland and we were walking on the beach…We met a man who was a clone of his father even a cap like he wore. They talked and walked for over an hour walking the beach…I just sat on a rock in awe of what was happening..Mike came back in tears and really relieved of his grief of his dads death…Angels present


  3. Gil says:

    I really liked your explanation about the “Clairs”, that is how I see it but have never been able to explain it coherently. Sort of like trying to explain a sphere when you have only seen circles before?
    Loved your questions this week!


    • Thanks Gil

      I was thinking last night about the role of intuition in science, and the relationship of between skepticism and mysticism.

      It seems to me that science relies on intuition (the side effect of a mind storing and retrieving information in holographic fashion – the formation of associations, the formation of abstractions), at two distinct levels.

      At the lower level it relies on this process to generate hypotheses for testing. For the original idea that leads to experimental design and results. Often there can be many intuitions in the design of a new experiment also.

      At the next level, we rely on this intuitive faculty to provide new contexts of interpretation and understanding of the results we have gotten from our experiments.

      Often experiments are designed to prove something from a particular contextual paradigm. Quite frequently, the process of experimental design and operation and results leads one to intuit a whole new contextual framework for the interpretation of those results. There is no need to alter the experiment in any way; just an alteration to the way in which we think about the relationship of the elements in the experiment.

      In thinking about this, it occurred to me that hard skeptics are as equally trapped in an equivalent (and different) paradigm as hard mystics.

      I class myself as a skeptic, and one of the things I am most skeptical about is skepticism itself.
      Sometimes (often) we need to allow ourselves to dwell in some possible paradigm for significant periods of time, if we are to allow our intuitive faculties to become familiar with, and fully functional within, that particular mode of thought. We may have other modes of thought within our minds going “No that can’t be right, what about this evidence“, and we need to just say to ourselves something like “come on now, you can create a context within which both things can be true, shift up a level and find it“.

      I’m still playing with it, and it somehow feels significant putting it in words like this. It is certainly how I have been operating for almost two decades now.


      • Gil says:

        Hi Ted,
        What comes to mind here is developing ways of remaining fluid and keeping open to expanding paradigms. Becoming “hard” anything is very limiting.
        This last week I read a very interesting book by Lyall Watson- “Gifts of Unknown Things”. Lots of very fluid holographic thinking involved…
        On another matter I have send you an email about our wordpress blogs being liked.


      • Gil says:

        oops I mean linked, not liked, although I do like your blog 😀


  4. [I’m evesdropping and love what I hear]…


Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s