Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Aether is the empty space
- On Apr 9, 2009, at 4/9/099:07 AM, chris lofting wrote:-----Original Message-----[mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon MaurerSent: Thursday, 9 April 2009 10:11 AMSubject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Aether is the empty spaceon which the Universe sitsOn Apr 7, 2009, at 4/7/098:39 PM, chris lofting wrote:<snip>To be dimensionless means to focus on a point and assuch a realm ofpositive feedback dynamics free of negative feedbackwhere the latterimposes dimensionality through 'connecting the dots'.When negative feedbackis lost the amplification and discretisation dynamicsof the positiveintroduce us to the realm of infinities (and so move usinto Cantor'stransfinite mathematics realm). Infinities take onstructure and as suchreflect the same properties as the dimensional butbeing compressed into therepresentation AS IF dimensionless.Only in metric directional terms -- that become applicableAFTER the abstract potential energy (primal G-force)manifests and descends fractally through enfolded hyperspacefields to become physical/material forms of mass-energysubject to measurement.gobbldy-gookOnly if you are blind to the actual multidimensional fractal involved hyperspherical geometry of the primal fields of cosmogenesis it refers to. See:This "blindness" is evidence of the knee jerk, mind blocked thinking of all= preconditioned eliminative materialists. ;-)Prior to that, Absolute space contains potential mass-energy in the form of nonlinear spin ornon measurable abstract motion.... Therefore, metrically orlinearly "dimensionless.""Absolute space', by the definition of space, is dimensional. To be aCONTAINER makes it more so since as a container it contains more than apoint, there is negative feedback present holding things together. ThedimensionLESS means a point and so negative feedback loses its definitionsince it needs at least two points to be defined. IWO the container propertyalso disappears since containment implies dimensionality and the focus is onthe dimensionless. Your prose is rubbish Leon, you need to find alternativeterms or define new ones since what you are using is not serving you well.Thanks for the advice, but since we are talking about initial conditions that are far different than the limited physical/material realm that your language deals with -- I guess I will just have to muddle along trying to define my vocabulary in simple terms you might understand. (That is, if you can open your mind to see angels, fairies and demons, as possible invisible conscious entities living on higher frequency phase order fields of fundamental unconditioned "absolute space.";-)Can you imagine any finite metric dimension or *linear* motion that didn't begin and end at a point of absolute zero (pure non dimensional emptiness or self centered non-linear motion)? If so, then what do you think it is, that must exist in or under that zero-point in metric spacetime?Absolute space (NOT metric 3-dimensional spacetime fields) is specifically defined as a primal (eternal) substrate having no physical vectorial dimensional measurements whatsoever, that underlies, generates and supports all 1, 2, or 3 dimensional immaterial and material objects or radiant fields. Such dimensionless or *empty* (of form) "absolute space" would have to be located ubiquitously (at infinite ZPE centers) within the overall hyperspherical (toroidal) field of metric 3-dimensional space, at the zer= o-point center of every radiant energy field (and their harmonics) -- each vibrating at specific finite frequencies, ranging between near zero and near infinite phase orders... And, totaling four such phases at each level of hyperspacetime and observable spacetime fields (prior to symmetry breaking on the lowest order physical/material plane) -- in accord with fundamental cyclic and electrodynamic laws inherent in fundamental ZP spin momentum. See:IOW, overall absolute space, composed of infinite coadunate zero-points of infinite spin momentum, underlies all of manifest spherical metric spacetime gravitational fields, as far as it can possibly extend radially on all its harmonic levels. Each form in such metric space, from galaxies to quantum and sub quantum particles begins with a zero-point singularity of finite spin momentum equivalent to the total mass energy of the form, including all its radiant fractal involved harmonic hyperspace fields and their virtual particles.Note, the analogous *octaval* field nature of the overall cosmic fields and the lowest order physical fields (before symmetry breaking on the material level). Also, note the dual quaternary field aspects of the upper and lower realms (phases) of the First (triune) Logos. Can you see the causative relationship to the dualities, trigrams, and hexagrams of the I Ching? Can you see the origin of the Tai Chi or Yin-Yang symbol and its analogy to the spherically polarized harmonic field structure of a photon particle standing wave? See:This dual quaternary inner field structure is analogous to the different phase changes of different substances on the physical/material plane, such as water, carbon, gases, etc., at different levels of temperature and pressure... And even explains the nature of BEC's... As well as justifying the four elements, fire, air, water and earth of the ancient philosophers... Not to mention your four Bs, based on the same laws of fractal geometry and fundamental four phased cycles. Note that a sine wave consists of a positive phase up-down and a negative phase down-up... Which is the basic ideal model of ALL vibrational energies at any frequency spectral phase order. The EM spectrum being at the low= est order of the physical/material level of metric spacetime.If a radio field carrying FM or AM information were not a perfect sine wave (as its fundamental carrier frequency_ -- perfect undistorted information transmission could not be achieved. And unless the inner biological based field carrying the information of vision were not perfectly symmetrical and vibrating at a fixed fundamental frequency -- we could not be able to see the outer world in perfectly undistorted motion and capable of being coordinated exactly with our body movements and positions (given no defects in the mechanical or chemical hardware along the transformation and transmission pathways).The presentation of infinities is a presentation ofpure symmetry in asequence form of expression where the perfection of thesymmetry is notrepresentable by particular numbers, there is nopossible 'rounding' ofvalues that can express the perfection - all that canbe done is tosubjectively select the rounding position (as we dowith PI etc); here weare into the realm of irrational numbers and theirassociation with form(the dimensional) in the dimensionless.But Pi is inherent in dimensionless cyclic spin -- whichbecomes, when expanded radially, circular (at the perfect Piratio between radius and circumference).Your confusing PI as an agent of imposing order with the most commonly-usedexample of it - its use in measuring circles. The focus is on the ratio22/7. The CONTEXT in which such is manifest can differ in expression.e is another term that represents a ratio found in imposing order and againit is CONTEXT that covers its many manifestations in that imposition.PHI is another term that represents a ratio found in imposing order - and soon and so on. The infinite mantissas of these values reflect their PERFECTexpression in that perfection is not 'roundable' and so when we reducestructure and so dimensionality to a point and so the dimensionless thestructure is manifest as an infinite sequence of 'numbers' and subjectivityis then employed to 'round' such values; we use PI as 3.14 since that is'good enough' for reality.The realm of irrational numbers is a realm of BONDING, of linking entitiestogether, make them share space, and so introducing order/structure. When wetry to reduce dimensionality, and the non-reducible, to the dimensionless weget irrational numbers and infinite sequences - As such we cannot reduce topoint all we can to is compress the data into a infinite sequence of points,all ordered hierarchically in their sequence.This dynamic covers the play of anti-symmetry and symmetry, partness andwholeness and brings out the inability to 'cut' the whole and maintainproperties of symmetry; to cut means to move into the realm of theasymmetric and so unique and THAT equates with the dimensionless, bothliterally and figuratively.That's because all you can see is the material nature of the overall reality... And can't imagine fractal involved alternate spacetime fields, each at different phase orders of frequency/energy, that have no "material" metric dimensions -- which precede and underlie the metric spacetime that you base all your limited materialistic theories and arguments on.So, all your B-B-B-B (baloney?;-) arguments are irrelevant to an understanding of the true underlying structural and energetic nature of fundamental reality... Even though your material-limited causes and conclusions of meaning are based on the same fractal mathematics that was initially expressed when fundamental cosmic ZP spin momentum transmuted into fractal involved radiant fields on three perpendicular spherical axes.The so calledirrationality of the Pi number has nothing to do with thepotential circularity of the zero-point since a ratio is nota linear measurement, and the point source of radiation inspace must be potentially spherical -- with potentiallyinfinite great circles on infinite polar axes.LOL! your lost.No. You are... Since you can't see the forest for the trees and are trapped in the physical/mater= ial realm.A good example is your description of a point as if it were a reduction of a line to its zero dimension -- without realizing that the "potentially spherical" point I refer to is the reduction of a spherical radiant energy field to its absolute zero-dimension... With its total energy compressed into the dimensionless non linear spin momentum of that point. And, if we consider the spin as having a radial dimension, its center would consist of nothing -- which is impossible.This makes it perfectly obvious (which your specious arguments totally ignore) that if the energy field has a certain level of mass-energy, its absolute center point would have to have an equivalent amount of primal spin-momentum force... Yet still have no radial dimension. Thus, the point would necessarily have all the *potentialities* (both qualitatively and quantitatively) of the energetic spherical field radiated from it... And, since the spherical field has infinite radii, the potentially spherical point (at the exact center of its spin momentum source) would have the same infinite number of potential axes. Since only three of those axes are sufficient for this universe, why wouldn't it be possible for that initial zero-point singularity to have the potentiality of generating infinite analogous parallel universes? Or, in the limited realm of our metric physical universe, generating infinite fractal involved radiant fields that interpenetrate each other in every level of material spacetime and hyperspacetime (which some might call physical and metaphysical space).<snip>Illogical. What your trying to focus upon is the realmof points where suchdefinitions of objective/subjective disappear due to the lack ofdimensionality required for their definition - as sucha point is notidentifiable as a whole or a part, it is both and yetneither. Such labelsthus become meaningless since we have moved out ofrelational space(negative feedback) and into pure object space(positive feedback reduced todifferentiating a point)Pardon me for inadvertently not putting the word"potential" before subjectivity and objectivity -- whichwould make your argument irrelevant.tsk tsk - you wrote something and didnt check it - and when it appeared youdidnt notice the error and correct it - unless it WASNT an error, all we seehere is your struggling to cover-up a blatant error in your thinking! LOL!get real Leon.You still don't get it... That the "relational space" you talk about and base your entire specious arguments and snotty remarks on, is the limited realm of physical/material reality for which you have no bases of origin. Apparently, you believe that metric space, time, energy and matter is all there is, and just emerged out of nothing -- just like you believe that awareness and will emerges from the neural complexity of the brain. How blind can you be? Or, is that the only way you can justify your IDM theory of meaning?What's really "real" (in spite of your arbitrary denials) is the underlying absolute space substance (without linear metric dimensions, time or motion) upon which the entire physical (linear metric) spacetime cosmos must emanate (radiate or emerge) from, and totally rests on. How else could you explain the basis of inertia, linear motion, mass-energy, wave particles, etc., or resolve all the hard problems of conscious experience (qualia), brain-mind binding, non locality, etc. -- without drowning us in incomprehensible confabulations based on an assumed eliminative materialism?How can a theory explaining meaning, based on a fractal geometry limited to the metric universe alone, explain the fundamental cause of both matter (mass /energy and consciousness (awareness/will) -- one subjective and the other objective -- with neither one having any purpose without the other right from the start?And, how can any argument with such limitations, be capable of refuting the ABC model as I've presented it, along with its fractal geometry and electrodynamic laws governing all physical phenomena -- including the transformation and transmission of the holographic information of consciousness, and its reconstruction, detection and perception? ... None of which can be explained with conventional physics or its "renormalized" mathematics (just like your similarly limited 'renormalized" fractal geometry).That potentiallyinfinitely conscious and format= ive point can be consideredboth empty and full, as well as part or whole. Without suchan infinitely potential zero-point of unconditioned absolutespace prior to cosmogenesis, there could be no relationalspace or conditioned reality.Your use of such terms as "potentially infinitely" and "infinitelypotential" etc does you harm. Your trying to use terms that do not fit whatyour trying to explain - this is intellectual laziness.Well, if you understand what I'm trying to explain... Why don't you offer some alternative way of explaining it? I suppose you think that nit picking words is a much less intellectually lazy way of refuting a logically rational theory or model of fundamental reality. As it stands, my ABC theory and model of cosmogenesis rests on the proposition that absolute space is both substantial and infinite, and that any radiation from it has potentially infinite extension and is potentially, infinitely divisible... In addition to resting on the proposition that both "potential" phenomenal consciousness (expressed awareness/will) and noumenal spacetime/matter/energy are dual aspects of that *absolute* (zero degree Kelvin) primal *space*... That, in itself, is both metrically dimensionless and timeless (existing everywhere in infinite duration, undiminishable, no matter how many potentially infinite universes emanate from it). If you can't comprehend or visualize that in your conscious mind's eye (imagination) -- then there is nothing more I can say... And, as bright as you are intellectually -- you will never know or experience the light of your own soul (attain self realization) or understand the true meta[hysical nature nature of the cosmos.Unfortunately, people who are totally convinced eliminative materialists -- whose minds are closed to any other spatial reality when they die and their *relatively eternal* (sic) highest order triune monadic field leaves the body -- will experience nothing until they awaken again in a new body in some (now) indeterminable future world -- with an absolutely blank slate and an even weaker intuition and imagination. Fortunately, many such people (who are NOT killed instantly in an unexpected accident, murder, or other disaster) will experience an NDE and see the light (at the end of the inter-field wormhole tunnel) in the last moments of brain death. (This is predicted by the ABC model -- but which can only be proved to anyone who thinks like you, at the moment of their death. ;-)<Snip>Totally irrelevant. I never said that absolute space ISa BEC -- but that it ACTS as (if it were) a BEC.your making the analogy of absolute space to A BEC - but a BEC is notdimensionless and the concepts of 'infinitely expandable' and 'infinitelycompressible' are meaningless terms - they are imaginative terms andreflect the use of positive feedback in thinking where amplification of adiscretisation will lead to a runaway system and the appearance AS IF'infinite'. To expand means to contain as one expands and so covers aboundary issue and so difference-to-sameness mappings and sodimensionality and so CLOSED SYSTEM dynamics and emergingsymmetry.Naturally, once the first triune fractal involved field emanates from its singularity or zero-point (non linear) spin momentum, it can start expanding linearly. This us the only state at which a true BEC can appear as hyperspherical radiant energy fields and their harmonics.After it's third fractal involution and the cosmic matter reaches the physical phase, to eventually break symmetry and form ponderable material particles, that ultimately consolidate into atoms and molecules, to eventually evolve into organic beings with brains -- is when you can start rationalizing the supposed emerging of consciousness... Which (if consciousness reefers solely to awareness, will, qualia, etc., as I define it) is simply a nonsensical presumption based on no scientific reality. It's the same illogical assumption that presumes matter is fundamental and emerges out of nothing.But, in contrast to that kind of reductive thinking, my "infinite linear expansion of space" refers only to the metric aspects of that radiation -- NOT the absolute space that is already infinite and eternal -- both as a container and a generator. And, no matter what is generated or contained, it remains forever unchanged and undiminished... Yet infinitely compressible, malleable, and expandable spherically from each ubiquitous zero-point (as fractally involved harmonic radiant energy fields of consciousness).As for the analogy of absolute space to a BEC... That only refers to its manifestation into the initial super symmetric Cosmic hyperspace fields prior to breaking of symmetry on the physical plane (at the third logos). Therefore, all such metaphysical hyperspace fields (including those on the physical plane during initial inflation after its Big Bang) ARE actual BEC's with spherical dimensions capable of expanding and involving infinitelySo, we can say that each and all of the total Cosmic fields "contain" infinite zero-point spin-momentum singularities. Since all those zero-point singularies can generate their own harmonic fractal involved fields on whatever hyperspace plane they occupy. See:And, since all such fields interpenetrate each other on all hyperspace levels, and can carry information as wave interference patterns on their surfaces... This is the basis of the overall holographic cosmos (along with its analogous, fractal involved, lower order physical universe.This expanding and contracting equates with the concept of BOUNDING, ofdifferentiating A from B, us from them, accepted from rejected, differencefrom sameness. The QUALITY of bounding is built-in as a class of meaningused to describe aspects of reality - real or imagined and as such will berecruited by you as you try to build your model. The issues then are in thetotal terms you use to instantiate that class of meaning in your particularperspective (ABC).My model starts at the primal beginning and follows the fractal involution of the primary field emanating radially from the cosmic zero-point singularity and its inherent spin momentum -- that is equivalent to the total mass energy of the subsequent hyperspherical cosmos.Of interest is that positive feedback moves us into a high energyutilisation and so the fragmentation of a BEC! Thus a BEC cannot be'infinitely expandable' since expansion from 0 Kelvin means heating up andthat means fragmentation of the BEC (and so your 'absolute space'). In theother direction, 'infinitely compressible' leads us into issues we find insuch as neutron stars! more heat, black holes etc etc and so no more a BECor even close to one - unless one tries to interpret a black hole as agraviton version of a photon's BEC? ;-) - THAT then equates the overallconcept of a superposition of bosons as a general concept applicable to allintegrating processes.Gobbledygook (if not complete materialistic bullshit)You can't use the properties of ponderable matter on the physical plane to refute or verify the properties or functions of any of the higher order fractal involved fields on the cosmic (or physical) hyperspace levels. All that zero-degrees Kelvin means is that there is no linear motion of ponderable matter in metric spacetime.Heat is only a measure of *linear* motion of matter-energy on the physical/material level... And has no relevance to the nonlinear spin or *abstract* motion at the zero-point origin of the cosmic or physical hyperspace fields (such as those postulated in string and M theories, etc.) Nor can it apply to the expansion of any such fundamental radiant fields on any level of spatial reality. If expansion generates heat, how come expanding space on the physical plane is so cold? And why don't expanding electromagnetic energy fields on the physical plane freeze up their transmitter antennas (like expanding compressed gas from a nozzle)?Your reaching for straws is laughable.The firstphysical BEC is the initial manifestation of the zero-pointsingularity at the instant of the "BIg Bang" on (the lowestfrequency phase order) physical/material spacetime (Aether)-- where the "chaos game" beginsit cant - a BEC is not noisy - it manifests symmetry, perfect order, totalsameness. No direction. Thus the analogy of 'absolute space' to a BEC is ananalogy to order as originating when that does not appear to be the case.The chaos game begins with the containment of noise and this gets back toyour use of the term 'container' applicable to your absolute space. In otherwords we can see your recruitment in and ad hoc manner of all of thepossible classes of meaning available as you try to put your map together -but the issues are that your logic is faulty, influenced by metaphysics. ;-)- too symmetric.Just because you do not believe in the reality of the metaphysics on the higher order frequency-energy levels of manifest spin momentum singularities of absolute space -- doesn't make it untrue... Or give you any justification to use material based theories of meaning to try to negate it.It's your logic that is faulty -- since you assume that asymmetry comes before symmetry -- as the universe involves spacetime as it originates and expands out of its initial singularity, and later evolves material forms AFTER symmetry breaking. As usual, you put the cart before the horse in all your reasoning.<snip>The hierarchy of infinites that come with afocus on ordinality is aproperty of thinking where the NATURALhierarchic dynamics of precisionthrough differentiating (and so positivefeedback bias) brings out thesyntax bias of that style of thinking and withthat the formation ofpyramid/tree-like hierarchies. The other formof infinities in manifestthrough considerations of cardinality. See Cantor.Back assward irrelevant nonsense -- that begins withthe end. Like saying cause follows effect -- which cannotapply to progressive involution and evolution of matter outof empty space. Just like your convoluted arguments leadingto your assumptions that the neurology determines the causeand nature of underlying spatial reality.Your confused. All the neurology does is present us with the CLASSES ofmeanings we will use in describing reality. We cannot escape such in thecontext of communicating reality, it is the underlying SAMENESS of ourshared neurology that defines us as a species and our instruments areextensions of that neurology and its sensory systems.The neurology reflects adaptation to the universe and the stability of theneuron over hundreds of millions of years indicate that what it does is a'best fit' for representing reality.Yes, but only representing the *physical/material* reality of overall metric spacetime (i.e., the physical Aether) -- while completely ignoring the possible underlying higher frequency-energy phase order hyperspacetime fields that would have to precede it, as well as the absolute space that must exist before the initial radiant manifestation of the cosmos. And, even if that metaphysical proposition is unprovable, it still is a better assumption and rests on a sounder reasoning than your material only guess and reductive analysis -- that cannot imagine the universe as a simple hologram... If that is the actual case, and metaphysics is the basis of physics, then all your physical relationships are nothing but temporary expressions of the laws of nature being measured by similarly objective parts or aspects of itself... Although, capable of being subjectively experienced (perceived and responded to) only by absolute zero-point consciousness (a= wareness, will) itself -- that must be outside of all metric time and space.As a species we are a DETERMINED form, grounded in genetics and as suchreflecting the extraction of essentials from experiences to forminstincts/habits then usable for dealing with future 'like' contexts - thisbeing an energy-conserving activity and so reflecting the underlyingsymmetry present. What this dynamic does is FORCE the emergence of symmetryfrom asymmetry and on into emerging abilities to process details (parts) andon into mediation across the part/whole dichotomy in the form ofconsciousness and is languages. As such we have asymmetry to symmetry toasymmetry but the latter at a more developed level than the originalasymmetry.Original ONLY to the ponderable physical/material universe at the fourth lowest ƒ-E phase order level of cosmic hyperspace -- AFTER the breaking of initial symmetry on its fourth lowest order level. See illustration at the web site noted above (and refer to the fractal mathematics of string theory based on the Kaluza-Klein manifold. How can the dynamics of material nature determine the causation of that nature or the consciousness that experiences it? All your irrelevant arguments have explanatory gaps you could drive a galactic sized trick through. ;-)So, it's like you're trying to determine the cause and nature of the seed by reductively analyzing the fruit surrounding it. It's no different than your assumption that matter, in the form of the brain's neurology, is creative perceptive and willful, and that absolute consciousness (perceptive awareness= , responsive will and qualia) emerges from the neural processing.The moment you imagine Hilbert space and so arealm of points you have infact introduced dimensionality in the form ofimagination! ;-)But, that meaningless statement has no relevance inproving that there is not an underlying metaphysical realitythat exists now and prior to the material reality your entireIDM reasoning rests on."... there is NOT an underlying metaphysical reality"? More confusion. Themetaphysical is emergent from the dialectical, the noise of dynamics getsencapsulated and 'order' emerges in the form of symbol usage.Talk about "gobbledygook"...This is ridiculous. How do metaphysical higher order energy fields in different dimensions of hyperspacetime "emerge from noise of (what) dynamics"? And what is it that "encapsulates"that "noise" to "emerge 'order" in the form of symbol usage"? Where do you get the nerve to call that an explanation of anything?Certainly, you cannot, by sucheliminative ass backward reasoning, prove that imagination isa product of material processes... Like you continue toassert that the neurology can determine the nature offundamental timeless and dimensionless, non metric realityout of which metric spacetime and matter-energy first
> -----Original Message-----<snip>
> From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Maurer
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2009 7:32 AM
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Aether is the empty space
>not my job - that is YOUR job... and your not doing very well at it at the
> Well, if you understand what I'm trying to explain... Why
> don't you offer some alternative way of explaining it?
For example, this is meaningless outside of your mindset:
>.. as is your need to include the taking of the concepts of angels and
> My model starts at the primal beginning and follows the
> fractal involution of the primary field emanating radially
> from the cosmic zero-point singularity and its inherent spin
> momentum -- that is equivalent to the total mass energy of
> the subsequent hyperspherical cosmos.
demons etc literally.
>your confused - my take is there is no NEED for such beliefs other than as
> Just because you do not believe in the reality of the
> metaphysics on the higher order frequency-energy levels of
> manifest spin momentum singularities of absolute space --
> doesn't make it untrue... Or give you any justification to
> use material based theories of meaning to try to negate it.
> It's your logic that is faulty -- since you assume thatNo. I have stated that OUR nature as a species is symmetric and that in
> asymmetry comes before symmetry -- as the universe involves
> spacetime as it originates and expands out of its initial
> singularity, and later evolves material forms AFTER symmetry
> breaking. As usual, you put the cart before the horse in all
> your reasoning.
RESPONSE to an asymmetric, thermodynamic, universe where the only form of
long term survival in a 'noisy' universe is to conserve energy and THAT
immediately applies all conservation classes that come with symmetry.
The focus on conservation introduces the containment of noise and THAT leads
us into the chaos game properties, the main one being spontaneous order
generation through recursion. That order is NATURALLY grounded in symmetry
in that the containment sets a boundary and so a closed system.
From our determined, symmetric, holistic, organic, species nature has
emerged mediation and with that language and consciousness. IOW our genetic
determinism is 'general' and exposure to contexts has favoured, over time,
the emergence of mediation and choices in behaviours, particulars refined
into singulars. This realm of high precision focuses on the dynamics of
anti-symmetric and into the asymmetric (they are closely related).
The basic brain dynamic is aspect/whole, concentrated/diffuse, and so
covering anti-symmetry/symmetry. Mediation emerges out of the middle of that
asymmetric dichotomy and as such presents consciousness as asymmetric but
also exploiting of feedback across anti-symmetry/symmetry,
Thus a path of mindless asymmetry through symmetry (the agent of pattern
matching and so order/law establishment) to mindful asymmetry (consciousness
and its languages and imagination) is manifest in species development and on
into singular being development.