The Data-to-Theory feedback path, in conjunction with further theory-bound
observation, forms a theory-reconfiguring feedback loop that adjusts the Theory
to lock-on to data and be better organized for the purpose of efficiently
explaining and perceiving the data.

Observation of data is theory-bound. The scientific method is usually expressed
in too-crude form: you make a predictive hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and
observe whether the predicted outcome occurs or not. If not, make a different
prediction. When the prediction is confirmed by the outcome matching it, the
theory has been confirmed.

Then you communicate that theory to other observers (scientists) who repeat the
experiment and collectively tally their results, producing scientific consensus.
That's the popular, crass "Scientific Method as Predictionism" model, or way of
putting it, that I so disparage.

"Prediction" is far too crude a model of science, yet all the poor books still
push the crude vague ideology of Predictionism: the scientific method is
Prediction then Confirmation or Refutation, then Collective re-Testing,
achieving Scientific Consensus after Collective Confirmation.


My better, more flexible model than the crude model of the scientific method as
"prediction and confirmation", with dynamics added, instead producing
"theory-bound data-observation reconfiguring the theory to enable more coherent
and distinct data-observation":

1. You create a partly right theory, and test it against the data, but are
unable to perceive the data clearly. The data pushes back in a complex vector,
shaping the theory.

2. The adjusted theory is better able to perceive the data, and the adjusted
theory pushes against the data, and the data pushes back in another complex
vector, shaping the theory further.

3. Finally the fully adjusted theory is able to perceive the data perfectly, the
data doesn't push back with any vector, the theory is not altered, and the
theory is now shaped in perfect accordance with the data.


There's a difference between the quality of your Theory or Mental Model in step
2 and 3:

In step 2, your model [eg my main article of 2005-2006] has barely enough match,
is green, has minimal sweep/scope of confirmation, with the minimum possible
indexings: a robust sapling, a glorious young tree.

Step 3 is a cornucopia, with increasing rate of lock-on feedback to quickly
reshape the theory, perceive and gather data more effectively, and based on
what's now perceiveed more clearly, further adjust the Theory-lens.

Step 2's mental model was solid, great, commendable. But step 3's resulting
theory is masterful, luxuriant, copious, overflowing, plethora, is more concise,
more organized, more dense, more capable. The more mature, well-formed,
refactored, fine-tuned Theory after step 3 has greater explanatory power,
greater conceptual coherence, fuller mapping to previous theories.


In 2005, I was busy writing the Theory-specification including metaphor, for the
first time. 2011 with only a few more months of work compared to the end of
2007, ... I evaluated what happened that enabled my recent feedback-buildup to
yesterday, and the answer amounts to "all the ideas in the postings I wrote,
Sep-Nov 2011".

The idea of Priority Sequence, being first Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Entheogens,
then Metaphor.

Quitting paying any attention or giving away and legitimation to "what people
think". Giving the finger full-on, to Establishment thinking; becoming
radicalized and "militant", becoming a rabid, frenzied, berserking theorist; I
went berserk on the received view, even taking down my fellow would-be cohorts
for their being complicit with the Establishment. You have to violently rip and
tear the received views and biases out of your thinking!

Tear out the hypnotizing worm! (The Matrix)
Rip off the tranquilizing control-puck from your android torso! (Star Wars)
Pluck the implanted controller-pill out! (The Candidate)
Stick the plucker-stick up through your nose into your brain and pull out the
tracker! (Total Recall)

Leverage the force of hard-core doctrinal purity. Be ready to dictate to the
data what it must say and be. Be extremist, simplistic, minimalist,
doctrinaire, put all attention and commitment on defining the simplest possible
1st-order approximation -- screw the fickle, mentally enfeebling politically
correct efforts to please everyone. Anyone who doesn't like some aspect of the
Theory, go jump off a high place.

If the data doesn't agree with the Theory, then too bad for the data -- the
Theory is correct.


I am in the headspace to shove those ideas to fullness and purity, to take the
metaphor-extended Theory from the 2005 first effort first version, green, babe,
hatchling, to sophisticated/masterful.

Theory develops by adjustment in light of data partially perceived. A
phase-locked loop feedback. In loosecog, you perceive aspects of the target
understanding, which enables you to perceive the object dynamics in question,
which shapes your mental model (theory), through which you perceive in a
theory-bound way (not a static theory though -- a theory-under-adjustment). The
result is dynamic theory adjustment based on observation feedback, with
increasingly capable observation.


Doing the early 20th Century Modern Physics experiments in the laboratory helped
me have the confidence, not alienation, to be an independent philosopher of
scientific discovery and an independent philosophical interpreter of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. When you cannot perceive every aspect of an
object, it is insane to conclude with Bohr that the object must not have the
aspects that we are incapable of observing.

The sane approach, per Albert Einstein, Heisenberg, David Bohm, and James
Cushing, is to use the clues that are avaiable to construct a conceptually
coherent model of what is evidently going on underneath the covers of what we
*can* see. That model, being tangible and visualizable and comprehensible
(unlike Copenhagenism) then provides maximal ability to do further experiments
and observations, making progress in expanding the mental model and Theory.

Science must not be derailed by the separate, distinct issue of Ontology. We
must look to Engineering instead, seeing as Science has lost its mind and its
nerve and has prostituted itself in subservience to propping up the egoic
project of freewill reification; when we need to figure shit out, Science gets
off on throwing up its arms, while Engineering says "step aside: let me make
sense of things and construct a sensible model of what's going on under the
covers.

Go do your Ontology stroking your beards, reveling in the prospect of joyous
incomprehensibility, but don't confuse that with real Science, which is about
figuring shit out by hook or crook to make sense of the world, leveraging
Feyerabend's story of real science, which is "whatever method gets the job done,
whatever it takes, case-by-case".


What Philosophy of Science book discusses feedback between theory and data: the
theory shapes the observation of the data, and the observed data shapes the
theory, forming a feedback loop that alters the theory and the observing of
data, until the theory and data match.

That's how real science really works. hypothesis/prediction-->experiment to
confirm/disconfirm (or way better, to *partially* confirm in particular ways:
the confirmation isn't a Yes or No; it's a *complex vector* serving to push back
to reshape the theory, not dumbly answer Y or N. A dynamic, elaborate data
pushback vector.

The data to be explained (the explanandum) is: things experienced in loosecog,
and mythemes.
Put simply:
Explain entheogen tripping, and explain mythemes.
Approach the data (explanandum) with initial rough ill-formed theory "mythemes
are something to do with Cybernetics, Heimarmene, and Entheogens". Tune and
adjust some of the hypotheses in line with the explanandum:

Maybe snake = heimarmene.
Maybe the ancient banqueting tradition = entheogens.
Maybe "being alone and wrestling with the unnamed man all night to get a
blessing from God" = control-cybernetics.
Maybe king = cybernetics.

Is there evidence throughout Western Esotericism and Western religion to support
such conjectures? Yes, to the extent that metaphor is so interpreted, which
requires judgment on "reading" metaphor, judgment to measure the degree of
confirmation.

During 2001-2005, I got some possible confirmation of the 3 pillars
(Cybernetics, Heimarmene, Entheogens) being expressed in the 4th pillar
(Metaphor), in Western Esotericism and Western Religion. Entheogens were fairly
easy and concrete to confirm the presence of.

Then, a few weeks ago (such as Sep 2011), I thoughts about books that have bits
of my pillar-topics in them and yet fall miles short -- that led me to invent
the idea of organized weighting, in mythic Esotericism interpretation: the Pri1
referent and emphasis is required to be Cybernetics; Pri 2 = Heimarmene, and
Pri3 = Entheogens, particularly mushrooms.

That Priority Sequence is versus Carl Ruck et al, who implicitly theorizes that
the Pri1 target of myth is entheogens, and there is no Pri2 required, to
understand myth.

Acharya S asserts, in throwback 1880s fashion, that the Pri1 reference topic is
(literally) the sun, and there is no Pri2 target topic, to understand the
religious myth around Christianity. Look at my posts 2001-2005 and ask in what
way they were not yet a complete breakthrough to the degree I now have.

Why, or in what sense per Paul Thagard's cognitive science-based computer
modelling of scientific discovery, did I manage a mountain of total breakthrough
around November 23, 2011, while in comparison, there was less complete
breakthrough around November 14, 2001, 2005 with my main Theory-specification
article, and by the end of December, 2007, when I tore myself away to hiatus til
Sep. 2011?

It's a matter of degree of cross-indexing, "deepening" the associations, and
refining the internal infrastructure of the Theory, and gaining fluency and
facility and adeptness at "reading" myth. I had to apply pressure for a few
months in 2011 to turn the relatively charcoalish diamond of 2005 into a pure
diamond. I had to do some passes at refining the Theory, making various *kinds*
of improvements.

I finally had to yesterday start working on a model of theory-deepening or
"breakthrough", because I keep re-learning is that a breakthrough comes not at
one moment, one day, but is preshocks, big earthquake, then aftershocks. The
weeks and days leading up to yesterday, November 23, 2011, felt like a jackpot,
joined by an increased rush of gold coins, followed by further bursts of
increasing the flow every day, over a couple weeks.

I feel today that I'm past the peak of this unexpected motherlode jackpot,
though I expect to find plenty more confirmation, not that any is needed. Now
myth is before me like a library to read for general strengthening of the Theory
and enjoyment -- just the same way that reading yet another mysticism or
religion book often feels worthwhile, for a somewhat different tone and
perspective.

In 2007, I reached 70% toward 100% breakthrough. What was the 30% still
missing?
o Priority Sequence (Pri1:Cyb Pri2:Heim Pri3:Mshr)
o Mushroom focus (very streamlined and thought-clarifying compared to hazy,
uncertain, doubt-inducing "entheogens")
o In 2005, I relied and was dependent on piecemeal evidence, needed Diamond
Hammer of Interpretation to transcend bits of evidence -- as I wrote recently:
Quit acting as if the entheogen theory stands or falls with individual mushroom
findings in art; certainly there are lots, it's way too late to act as if we can
dismiss the whole by rejecting every instance.

Andy Letcher in his helpful and harmful, badly argued, uninformed book (do your
homework!), barely even acknowledges any of the by-then well-known instances of
mushrooms in Christian art; his careless waving-aside of them starts to sound
like that move JZ Smith critiques as obstinate apologetics: Protestant
Jesus-guild members write "Because no one instance of pagan mythic religion is
*exactly* the same as Christianity, we are justified in facilely dismissing the
assertion "Christianity is like pagan religion; Christianity is pagan Mystery
cult in Jewish drag."

Letcher acts as if it's unimportant whether his arguments actually have any
persuasive power, or whether he presents a coherent argument; the only thing
that's important is to, one way or another, including kettle logic (inconsistent
argumentation structure) to dismiss any bits of evidence he admits exist, to
discredit in any way, in favor of any other (inconsistent) goal he invents on
the spot to represent his own (inconsistent, shifting) position. His aim isn't
to construct a consistent position, except the general, ludicrous and
ill-defined position, vaguely amounting to the position that religious mushroom
use has no history.


o With the major topic of Entheogens, too, for a breakthrough, I had to
recently quit piecemeal data-consideration; leverage the whole hypothesis system
with vigor of consistency of assumption and interpretation/observation. I had
to end the mere *piecemeal*-oriented focus to get it in our heads that "We get
it, yes, mushrooms are all throughout myth."

It's not as if the Entheogen Theory of Religion any more these days hangs on the
interpretation of a single item of data, like we could use the Plaincourault
fresco as proxy for all the hundreds of explicit mushrooms throughout Christian
and religious art.

o For yesterday's breakthrough, there was a similar situation regarding the
Heimarmene hypothesis/interpretation. *If* we interpret and "read" all snakes
in all world myth as representing Fatedness of your worldline of your life, then
certainly the idea of Heim is everywhere in religion. Indeed the snake is
everywhere: why would it be, unless Heimarmene really is important and the snake
really represents it?!

Snakebite and shedding skin are *not* represented; they are specifically --
deliberately -- *not* represented. That omission strategically only leaves the
*shape* of the snake as the point, the reason, why the snake is chosen by
religion as the main symbol depicting religious wisdom.

Then I combined 'thread', and the turning point was the argument I posted around
Nov. 21, 2011 that snake = heimarmene based on:
Fates = finite thread = worldline
thread is isomorphic with snake
thread in Daedalus' Labyrinth and Daedalus' ant-threaded seashell.
serpent = wisdom

That finally led to my insight yesterday or so (~Nov. 22, 2011) of "serpent vs
tree... oh, I see!, serpent in tree as a compare/contrast teaching-instrument, ;
the serpent teaches about thinking about treeness (decision-tree openness or
illusoriness) in the course of our life as control-and-decision-making agents.

My grasp of metaphor broke through to a greater depth of facility and skill in
that I got that much better at reading mythemes, metaphors, analogies -- for
example, a big mytheme-recognition recently (one of many, coming too fast to
type) was "the revealed knowledge in initiation is like a snake in a basket with
a lid that can be removed to reveal the hidden snake". Thus "initiation =
revealing the hidden snake"

Also my recently forged Hammer of Interpretation rejects irrelevant noise: it
told me that "shed skin and poison" are false derivations of why serpent =
wisdom.

Also a big jump in my reading-ability was a deepening of associations, going a
bit beyond what I wrote years ago. Why ivy is closely related to
mushrooms/entheogens: things make sense if ivy's *shape* is important and the
mushroom reveals insight about the *shape* of a snake and *shape* of ivy vine.

How is 'vine' related to psychoactive 'mushroom'? Either it's a vine we never
heard of (a long shot, pure conjecture), or, vine = mushroom because the
mushroom reveals vine-shaped Fatedness of the worldline of a person's life (a
close association with great conceptual coherence, if we adopt my Cybernetic
Theory of Ego Transcendence).

70% reading-ability --> 100% reading-ability -- involved many, many insights in
the past week, 2 weeks, 2 months. The missing 30% was - of course -- by
definition, the ideas in my recent postings. So many of my recent postings are
"the explanation" of why I had a breakthrough, a deepening, a great increase in
the number of associations and the ability to read myth with greater facility
than in 2005 or 2007.

I was working on so many different, interrelated topics through 2007, I didn't
only work on how to read religious myth. I made record progress 2001-2007, and
was severely constrained in word-count in my main article.

I was greedily staking a claim across all religious myth -- yet there were
various major points still to be prioritized and somehow(!) squeezed in; which
words could I have omitted to buy some more space to write explicitly the
particular spin of the following idea, very important in myth?

male-->female = uncontrollable thought-source-->helpless thought-receiver

source domain (metaphor) = target domain (non-metaphor)
metaphor = non-metaphor

A key idea was one that came to me in a forest walk on the path, thinking about
whether Antiquity could have been able to comprehend the idea of worldline and
heimarmene in a block-universe. Of course they could: the worldline idea is
merely, simply like walking on a path. Actually I had that "path to Eleusis =
worldline" idea for some time, from back when I read about Eleusis; see posting
dates.

Well there's an example of "getting an idea, yet not getting it all the way yet"
-- a common experience for me.

Yes, say in 2005, I had the idea that "path to Eleusis = worldline = snake", but
that's slightly different than the recent 2011 idea that "That the concept of a
worldline in a changeless spacetime block was easy for Antiquity to understand,
is proven by the analogy of "procession along sacred ancient path to the
Mysteries of Demeter at Eleusis = brass snake = vein in marble block =
presetness of our lives and stream of conscious experiencing = worldline =
heimarmene."

Iterative, "deepening" Theory design is like the visual lock-on process when
ferreting out a hidden autostereogram image: you glimpse some bits of data,
create a theory of what else is there, try it, let the data push back, revise
the theory, look more, see more, that perception of data pushes back more,
revising your theory more, until you gain coherent lock-on, and then form a
perfect theory (image) in your mind.

In 2005, I deduced the image yet didn't truly directly perceive it. I saw the
correct reading of Esotericism and religion correctly, but still it felt
indirectly, piecemeal, haltingly, unnaturally.

11/23/11, I saw it in its direct fullness, richness, directly, thoroughly, via
the more rigorously tuned, clarified, amplified, Diamond Hammer of
Interpretation.

This was like correctly figuring out the autostereogram image by still only
glimpsing pieces, so having a full image in mind yet not able to actually
directly perceive and simply "read off" that image; your mental model/theory
then is still not strong enough, good enough, to truly tune in, lock on, to the
point of reading-off -- it's like singing along holding a hymnal but really just
winging it, vs. actually reading-off from the hymnal.

Like looking while near-blind, and correctly knowing what's there, but barely
seeing it directly. Or accurately determining which song is playing on hissy FM
reception and singing along, but really going from memory rather than truly
hearing the song that's playing.

Now I can sing along with the dead religions, even though the hymnal is too
blurry to truly read.

I couldn't actually *hear* it before, when I wrote my complete Theory-spec in
2005, which achieved closure and (at least implicit) comprehensiveness despite
its severely constrained length (28 pages to dominate the entire set of fields,
to take ownership of the entire field of religion, myth, altered-state
mysticism, revelation, enlightenment, and satori, showing the way all the way
for Cognitive Science of altered-state phenomenology as called for in Benny
Shanon's 2002 Antipodes of the Mind).

In 2005, I stated what I deduced the meaning to be -- labored strenuous
word-by-word reading or translating one word at a time. Like me reading French.
I can eventually produce a translation, like working a jigsaw puzzle, out of
order, with much hypothesis and tentativeness: correct, but anything but fluent;
halting, struggle, unsureness but "I'm pretty much sure that's what it is saying
to the native speakers".

In 2011, I directly perceived and read-off the meaning -- fluent "transparent"
direct reading of the text. Like me reading English. I do on-the-fly
translation, not even felt as translation but "simply reading".

My recent Priority Sequence idea was important -- has roots in top-level outline
of main article 2005, but then, I didn't firmly list the *sequence* of
priorities, such as judging Cybernetics to be more Important than Heimarmene,
which was more important than Entheogens, which was more important than
Metaphor.


I recently (see posting dates) thought of the *Priority Sequence* idea and the
ancient *simplicity* (or "obviousness") of the seemingly esoteric
*heimarmene-snake* idea while I was walking in the forest looking at the
changing mushrooms that are always there at the base of the decision-branching
trees while controlling my legs to walk myself meandering along the fixed
serpentine path that already existed winding itself around the executive
decision trees such as are used by the king as pilot who steers the ship of
state.

I was complaining about Manly Hall's Secret Teachings of All Ages, which
emphasizes most what matters least, but should emphasize most what matters most
(that's the Priority Sequence idea; walking myself with my weakened leg and my
powerful leg along that winding path, I identified "Cybernetics, Heimarmene,
Entheogens, Metaphor" as the correct priority sequence.


Degrees of comprehension:

The final paragraph of my main article/theory-specification does talk about the
sacred marriage such as Dionysus and Ariadne, and Christ and his Elect (those
who were chosen for regeneration before the foundation of the world), but a few
important points are only implicitly present (the cost was a million dollars per
word) -- omitted partly because of intense self-imposed word-count limitations,
and partly because more time was needed to do more extensive cross-indexing of
the ideas and metaphors.


Copyright (C) 2011 Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.