'Just When You Thought You Knew...'

A few days ago was the anniversary of the death of Levon Helm. Some people credit Levon Helm with writing the lyrics to 'The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down' although formally it is still credited to Robbie Robertson.

(Mark) Levon Helm

Whatever the truth is there we don't really need to know for sure because it doesn't really matter now...

(That's a kind of a Confederate thing to say, y'all).

Levon Helm is the person who played the much acclaimed cameo role of a legendary gunsmith and ballistics expert in the Mark Wahlberg action-thriller 'Shooter.' And what a good movie it is. And what great performances by all involved.

And this is where we can see an effective example of the Calibi-Yau Manifold in auditory action:

What's The Significance?

I hope there are more than just a small handful reading these last few posts because we are about to say something that is very likely a 'first.'

This is not something I am personally responsible for and I have to say that in private emails someone who has commented here in the past was the first person I have ever encountered to have realized the possible relationship - and maybe he even made the actual discovery himself; it's entirely possible.

I know one or two advanced mathematicians who have endeavored to explain to me recently, something about 'how space unfolds,' and apart from observing a particular 'elegance' in the arguments they are making, I am not sufficiently possessed of the maths nomenclature in the usual short-hand descriptions of what is being said to be able to do much more than nod my head whenever something seems to sound as though it might be correct.

But let's get to the point:

Something like the Calabi-Yau Manifold is let's say 'merely a structure' that, whilst Mankind might have had knowledge of the sort of thing it is - you know, like turning an anulus inside out (and this itself is not 'new' to the mind of Man) - but to twist the 3-D chord of the structure, and THEN turn it inside out, AND THEN to actually focus with the scientific mind on the discrete mathematics description of the dynamic, the mathematical focus on it is new. 

And there are very massive significant consequences when Man focuses on something in this detailed kind of way - for example - (and this is the bit that was conveyed to me in the private email) this possible behavior of shape dynamics could be a starting point for the eventual explanation of the issue that has been an open question to physicists for a long while regarding whether light beams are specifically 'beams' (as in 'pulses' of photons) or waves.

One of the really new areas of commercial science is in something called 'spin dichroism' of electrons, which was pioneered by Thomas Prevenslik, a theoretical scientist who disappeared off the map for a while following speculation he had been given a huge grant and told to go into hiding. Spin dichroism itself is not a fully-understood phenomenon and it has characteristics that match almost exactly what could be happening if electrons in fact, are always moving somewhat like a Calabi-Yau Manifold structure... If this is true it is not something we have known before. 

But the fact is, the very fact of a new observed structure - consciously observed - means we can use it. We can use its characteristics as a tool because we have never had that structure available to our conscious work and conscious thinking before.

There is no possible way the CERN project would have as much impact on any scientific move forward as the 'conscious understanding or observation of a new type of structure, a new shape - or let's just say a new mathematical shape.

We use mathematical shapes as tools. 

We have been saying some rather profound things here!

There is this tendency for the mass of the public to go to some exaggerated extreme end of any sine curve and quickly leap to the conclusion this is where the importance lies - for example, it might be that 'the Universe' is not something that ever happened with a 'Big Bang' and is ever-expanding, but is in fact one single Calabi-Yau Manifold structure in motion and with energy, but which 'simply' twists itself along the apparent 'expanding' part of its path, and then turns inside out and then returns to point mass, or what looked like point mass according to the previous 'best theory of the Universe and Everything.'  

It might be, but so what even if it is?

What's much more important to you, let me tell you, is that every molecule of scent that is 'understood' in your brain because of the data transferred via molecular spin dichroism on account that electrons are in constant dynamic Calabi-Yau Manilfold motion.

Why is that important?

Because your computer will one day be able to send ANY scent down a small ionic digital device by manipulating the spin dichroism of the ions - WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL CHEMICAL STOCKPILES BEING REQUIRED TO BE LOADED INTO SOME CUMBERSOME STUPID 'INK-WELL' ATTACHMENT.

Now this kind of idea - when it becomes practical, well, what's such a thing worth, a hundred billion, more?

Neither you nor I have the laboratory facilities nor the competitive capital which would allow us to be the actual producers of such a device, having committed much into the research and development.

But the beauty of being a racing handicapper, rather than an owner or trainer - is that you can take your measly fifty bucks and make a godzillion because you put your money on the right horse went it was presented in the mounting yard.

...While everybody else was sitting back twiddling their thumbs going 'what the hell are these guys talking about?!' 

Shing-Tung Yau

We are indebted to one of our friends here - 'JP' - who posted a comment to an earlier article in which he managed to include the following words in just a few brief sentences:

'Calabi-Yau Manifold.'

'MacGuffin'

'Mirror Symmetry'

...and 'Personal Individuality.'

It is with quite some sense of humour that I noted the same day I read his comments, another article in the Parisian Gentleman in which a bespoke boot-maker says 'such-and-such (a thing) is the cause of polemic argument.'

I am still here, at simple Euler characteristic forms...!
Turning things inside out - in motion - from within, is, I think,
broadly speaking, a way to understand 'Calabi-Yau.'

I am sure you can find people around the place who would be prepared to argue about any or all of the above all day long - and using polemics ('polemics' -  a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something; a controversial debate or dispute) to do it.

But we cannot allow ourselves to fall into that practice here. 

What a wonderful idea - both in its visualization based on practical mathematics, and in the structural characterization entailed - that the 'Calabi-Yau Manifold' is.

I am of course, interested to know if there is a way of talking about 'personal individuality' using manifold space... This would certainly be a new way of thinking about human psychology, but not necessarily illogical or invalid at all. Even if one were a 'depth psychology' practitioner, or a Jungian or the like.

Because after all, there has long been a tradition among classicists, that whatever is aesthetically pleasing, is likely to be 'true.' ...In some fundamental way.

Mr. 'Yau,' the second part of the eponymous geometrical idea we have noted here, wrote a book called 'Lectures on Harmonic Maps.'

This could be the famous mathematician Yau Sing-Tung,
or else it's Mr Chen from the back cover of my Tai Chi book

 
I might almost say, at this point: 'I rest my case.' Because there is nothing truer in business and finance and economics and everything, than that there are special relationships between all things that have harmonic equivalences.

And these 'special relationships' are the 'izme-azm' (the magical words, the 'gold') of making things happen that give you money. The opaque nature of humanity in its mass social forms, is the reason it seems difficult to move money from the broad public into your bitcoin vault - there is no obvious 'harmony of altruistic or even rational economic value-based social cause' obtaining in people in their daily routines;' they are, as I suggested, asleep or vegetative. 

They are vegetative because they are fed on fertilizer and thrive on it and 'move' in ways determined by the fertilizer until eventually, they also become fertilizer themselves.

Or they are asleep because their senses are muted to such an extent that even danger or wealth passes under their noses and they barely mutter a sound.

The Republic Of The Social Soul Of Mankind

“The object is not the gratification of fellow-slaves, but the gratification of masters who are supremely good.”

This is a quote from an ancient text whose name need not be a concern of ours here and now.

The meaning of it however, does concern us here.

The meaning is that in the usual course of things, humans are more or less slaves to material existence, with its obvious and simple 'cause-and-effect' style of persuasion onto uncritical minds. Our fellow men and women are also very good at being insistent for the gratifications that come from having those demands fulfilled, that pertain to immediate material causes and their putative effects.

Roman 'Hall of the Philosophers'

This piece cannot speak to a very large percentage of ordinary people because such individual's consciousness is too strongly positioned already within its existing and pre-committed belief systems concerning material causes-and-effects.

“A particular sort of speech inevitably produces conviction in a particular sort of person, and fails to do so in another...” (A quote from the same ancient text).

The ultimate in personal gratification and pleasure comes therefore from a self-indulgence not of purely one-sided feelings in and of themselves alone, but in mutual indulgence of shared pleasures equivalently invested with value among people of equivalent conceptual and emotional standing.

The human social nature is not organised along the lines of a Democracy, nor is it even a Constitutional organisation - it is purely a Republic; there are only a very few elite members who act in harmony with each other, fundamentally because they are all cut from the same silk.

Everyone else flounders along, wondering what 'rule' to obey to make themselves happy within the circle of other individuals they find themselves, largely accidentally in, and with whom they assume happiness and satisfaction is in fact to be found.

Because these assumptions are not correct, humans have invented 'money' as a solvent between all of their conflicting purposes and mechanisms and practical material frictions and inertia. But money itself is simply the fraudulent theft of real satisfaction away from someone else, and from some future or past smooth process of 'Cosmic' or Universal Nature, in order that those who are themselves not in the Universal ruling elite, can have what they are not entitled nor properly used, to having.

And this is of course not an idea which will find root in the minds of idiots. In fact it's not an idea that you will encounter a lot, in the broader world of men and their ideas.

But the practicality of what I am saying is this - you know perfectly well, that in the world today, where any good idea can suddenly be spread like a wildfire around the globe very quickly, it is impossible for anyone who knows where money is or how to get it, to 'tell' too many people, even if they are 'sworn to secrecy(!)' about it. One will tell their best friend, another will try to do some poor unfortunate a favour and yet another will simply hold the secret like a hot potato.

And the next thing you know, in almost no time at all, the whole thing is altered by the fact of too many people knowing about it.

The media resorts to phrases like 'sharp data...' But they don't have anything. Not anything worth knowing.

Please follow in the car of your mind, or else come with me
in mine...

There is no data at all that means anything to someone who wants to make money, or to find quick and easy money, or to even leverage that which they have in order to create more value.

There is only me.

And I am the grey seal. I will teach, but you have to be able to follow.

'Fool!' Said God to the Rich Man

'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman.' The title of a one-point, though nonetheless important dystopian novel by the legendary Harlan Ellison. I say 'legendary' because I could never much get into his actual writing - although he has avid followers. And so I only know him from 'legend' and from the fact that pretty much every reference to his name all across the internet says that he is 'the legendary Harlan Ellison...' Fair enough.

Oh, and from the covers of his books, which belonged to someone in the house but not me, and were pretty amazing I always thought.

"Repent, Harlequin!"
Some of the early published books
had Mondrian-influenced cover art

Ellison tried to have a Hollywood film called 'In Time' injuncted because his suit claimed it stole from his original work - and I agree with him. Not sure what happened to the suit but the movie was released and has some decent visual aspects.

The problem with the basic premise as a skeleton for a story is that it is pathetic: in some proposed dystopian world, it is a crime to be late. As well it should be too.

(I just thought I'd add that because it kind of fitted here, as droll humour). Actually I'm not all that pedantic when it comes to being on time although I suppose we all like others to make our schedule! 

Anyway, I think it's in one of the Epistles attributed to 'James' - which appears to be dedicated to a discussion on wealth and trade and the selfish tendencies of the rich ('it is the rich man who drags you into court, it is the rich who oppress you') - where you will find these rather poetic words: 'So will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.'

In the Gospel of Luke 12:20 it even has God saying to a rich man 'Fool! this night your soul is demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'

God is calling the rich man a fool.

Interesting.

What's in your bag?
aka - why should someone know you?
And, who should know you?

But you see you have to go a bit beyond the seemingly obvious, and realize that these old texts were composed by extraordinarily learned and schooled minds - this is not all as simple as 'oh, this was written by poor people jealous of the wealthy.'

You see the significant point that is continuously made in contrast above the negating ones (points), is itself a very pragmatic and even one might say a matter of actual material 'relational' construction and value: 'store up in a purse that will not decay.'

So the concept of 'the greater' compared with 'the lesser' still applies, and there is of course, something about why - that is, the motivation behind wealth-seeking behaviours - that is discussed. The case is made that there is a difference between those whose behaviour seeks wealth or is in pursuit of wealth, and those whose attitude creates wealth. And the conclusion is made that the attitude is categorically more significant than the calculation of or enumerating of someone's temporary material possessions.

And this is of immense importance, in fact.

Next article, we do the 'John' practical workshops for the modern intellectual wealthy mindset. Not for everyone, of course.