Tuesday, February 3, 2015

EC 484 Hiermalgamated History
Change the World! Think It Through! Do not Vote! Remember:
What if they declared war and no one came? Don’t go.
© Eso A. B.
A Brief History of Prehistory 2

Hieros Gamos means Holy Marriage, and ‘hiermalgamy’ means a forced or unholy marriage by secular authorities of people to governments through the act of taxation or other violent and unnatural join-tings or divorces.

Our secular religion began with the threat by armed men to rape women, whose wombs thereupon contracted in fear and gave birth to autistic (and psychotic) children. This religion of govRsmnt, a one legged wonder or monopod, then moved on to impose the first tax which was the fur tribute or tax; which created an early governing class of ‘germans’* or a princely class; who then deposed what was left of the sacred King (2015 is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta) and gave birth to ‘democracy’ in England by deposing King John I; then created a Middle Class by way of the French Revolution and guillotined King Louis XVI of France, the last of the kings worth noting; and by way of the Industrial Age and imprisonment of humankind in factories then led to today’s America, which having destroyed democracy is about to destroy privacy to better nuclearize Eurasia and establish a city called Monopodopolis for oligarchs.

While artificial intelligence (AI) is not a new subject, its dangers are only now being discussed with some seriousness and apprehension. Even so, the fear element all too often gets pushed aside, as if to say, well, we will deal with it when fear strikes us (scientists) personally. This brings the question: What is our tolerance and when comes its breaching point?

As we are told through the link, the future belongs to the quantum computer, and when we have it, we will be able to solve problems which otherwise will take us thousands of years. Thus, as if obviously, it appears that AI has many advantages over the computational abilities of our ordinary brain. Such a statement, however, is true only if we are locked into our very own circle of perceptions and thoughts. This is what Jungian pshychology calls or likens to the uroboros—not, however, devouring ourselves (though that, too), but sooner locked in on ourselves, as a married couple is locked together by a wedding ring, which forms a circle that cannot escape itself as a Mobius strip can. This dilemma of the married couple was known by the ancients, and sometimes played an important role in mythology. For example, in the story of Cadmus , the founder of Thebes, which plays (unbeknownst to most psychologists) an important role in the story of Oedipus.

However, the linked-to story tells only a half of the story of King Cadmus. I suspect this is because by the time the story was told, the mind of western man was no longer a free flowing imagination, but an orthodox presumption, because it was manipulated and put in the service of elite, which was afraid of imagination. Here then is the resolution of the uroboros’s dilemma:

While the dragon is devouring itself, it is under a delusion that it is resolving its dilemma. However, as soon as it has devoured itself and, in effect, has chewed its way to its face, it can devour itself no longer. At this point, it becomes pure hunger or, if you will, rage to become fat. In the Far East, this face was known as the Face of Glory or Kirti mukha. The desire to devour itself or lock itself into oblivion still exists (see ‘fat’ America), so the question arises: How is it to put an end to itself?

There is but one answer: it must become reborn as a twin of itself. In the Cadmus myth, this rebirth is accomplished by Cadmus sowing the teeth of the dragon into Earth, whence arise an equal number of paired warriors. By throwing a stone between them (note: not at them), Cadmus gets them to fight with each other until only five remain. These ‘five’ are the five fingers of one remaining hand. The lesson: Thebes is built by Cadmus with one hand. The myth continues by way of the two sons of King Oedipus (Eteocles and Polynices ), who kill each other at the Seventh  Gate of Thebes, where the philosophers and wise men meet. The vicious circle is also represented by the necklace that is presented to Harmonia at her wedding to Cadmus. When doubled upon itself, the necklace forms number 8—it can enhance as well as choke. Furthermore, it is represented by Europa, who clings to the horns of the white bull that stole her away from her father’s, King Agenor’s, house. Today we see these horns, Europa and Eurasia, meet in the Ukraine, where their clash will—according to the prophecy—leave behind a man with only one hand.

I have strayed or paradolied my way far from what began as a discussion of Artificial Intelligence and its facilitator the ‘quantum’ computer. My reason for straying is based on my perception that AI is no solution for the slowness of the human brain, which slowness is a consequence of Nature perceiving AI as a dangerous tool, one that has the potential of killing it. This danger is also perceived by the physicists Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk who have issued a warning about the dangers.

But if ‘Nature’ denies us AI, does it also deny us the knowledge of proof of cause? The answer may lie in the fact that no matter how superior a quantum computer may be to the human brain, it does not have a subjective mind or anything that resembles a living memory such as dreams are made of. The absence of the subjective is the floorboard of the coffin lids on which Quantums dance with Quarks and AI never reaches the joys of love.

*’to german’ or ‘to germain’—I derive from the a verb (in my Latvian language) ‘ghereht’ (ģērēt), which means to skin an animal, and the executor being known as ‘ghermanis’l. This likely original meaning of ‘german’ was edited out of the name, and all that is left are some distant associations as, for example, ‘its germaine to him’ (or some other being or thing). Of course, we conveniently forget that our skin is the most obvious and living part of us. A near synonym of to ‘ghereht’ is ‘shkhehreht’ (šķērēt), which means to scissor. The latter retains something of the onomatopoeic sense of the verb ‘to skin’. The conclusion is that in the distant past, some people were called ‘germans’, because they were skinners (perhaps unwilling ones) of animals, which were the tribute or tax to be paid to the ruling class, which perhaps why habituation to this unpleasant ‘job’  is the reason why early ‘capitalism’ came to them ‘naturally’. Name  of Germaine:  http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=germain also impressed the French, which may be why ‘to french’ is likely to make us think of ‘French kissing’, which suggests that the original meaning was not making love, but the very opposite: the parting of lips with the knife of a tongue as in an insult. Dictionary meaning:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/germane

No comments:

Post a Comment