The Seer

[Mole]

The Ancient Greeks had the Oracle of Delphi.

She could see things - perhaps even the future - so she was a see-er. Or as we call her today, a Seer.

At one level her sayings were not understood so it was vital to give meaning to her sayings.

Fortunately we are meaning creating animals and the sayings of the Seer provoke us to give meaning to what she says.

Normally we include meaning in our communications, but a Seer sees things without meaning. It is as though the Seer presents to us the natural world. And the natural world is natural but without meaning.

It is up to us, the meaning creating animals, to give the natural world meaning. Just as it is up to us to give meaning to the sayings of the Seer.

So we say, the meaning of any communication is its response.

This of course only applies to the sayings of a Seer.

Oddly enough many here complain they can't understand my sayings.

This is because I do not include meaning in my sayings. I rely upon you to give meaning to my sayings.

I know this is counter-intuitive but as a Seer I need my Amanuensis to give meaning to what I see.

So this is the choice the Oracle gives you - you can know the meaning but be blind, or you can see but not know the meaning.

Or you can put your assumptions aside and give meaning to what I see.

So together we can see and know the meaning.

 

[Moiety]

You like to speak as if all you did was to number facts. But in the end you emit just as much opinion as the rest of us.


What's the meaning behind the above saying (of mine)?

 

[simulatedworld]

...what?

 

[placebo]

Isn't there a theory that Seers saw visions due to inhaling the fumes of ethylene gas?

Anyway, meaning is inherently created in the order of your words. You can't place all the responsibility upon the reader to create meaning. You have deliberately chosen the words to convey a message. Perhaps we can place it into our own concepts, but it is up to you to express ideas in a way that can be perceived as meaningful.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is nonsensical, and has no inherent meaning, but we understand the meaning of it as a concept of it being an example from Chomsky about meaning of sentences. Every sentence you have written makes sense, therefore has some type of meaning suggested by YOU.

 

[Mole]

Isn't there a theory that Seers saw visions due to inhaling the fumes of ethylene gas?

Anyway, meaning is inherently created in the order of your words. You can't place all the responsibility upon the reader to create meaning. You have deliberately chosen the words to convey a message. Perhaps we can place it into our own concepts, but it is up to you to express ideas in a way that can be perceived as meaningful.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is nonsensical, and has no inherent meaning, but we understand the meaning of it as a concept of it being an example from Chomsky about meaning of sentences. Every sentence you have written makes sense, therefore has some type of meaning suggested by YOU.

This is superficially logical.

However it leaves out the fact that the cognitive faculties, including logic, are suspended in a trance.

And rather than inhaling ethylene, the Oracle spoke in a deep trance. And her saying reflect this.

So I am inviting you to co-operate with me while I am in a trance.

Of course you may not know how to do this. Or you may not want to do it.

But it is an invitation I make to you.

I am inviting you to be my Amanuensis.

I would think you respect the invitation and accept or not.

There is not much point arguing about an invitation - even with logic.

Mathematics, for instance, begins with an injunction - "make a distinction".

And there is no more point in arguing with an injunction than an invitation.

 

[simulatedworld]

.......WHAT?

 

[placebo]

This is superficially logical.

However it leaves out the fact that the cognitive faculties, including logic, are suspended in a trance.

And rather than inhaling ethylene, the Oracle spoke in a deep trance. And her saying reflect this.

So I am inviting you to co-operate with me while I am in a trance.

Of course you may not know how to do this. Or you may not want to do it.

But it is an invitation I make to you.

I am inviting you to be my Amanuensis.

I would think you respect the invitation and accept or not.

There is not much point arguing about an invitation - even with logic.

Mathematics, for instance, begins with an injunction - "make a distinction".

And there is no more point in arguing with an injunction than an invitation.

Ok. I Seer.

 

[Mole]

An amanuensis is to a seer as text is to an image.

An image has no meaning of its own, but it can be given meaning by a text.

So interestingly, an image can have many meanings.

And of course a seer sees images.

The seer is after all a see-er.

And naturally what the seer sees has no meaning, so it is normal not to understand the seer until you bestow meaning yourself.

You already do this when you compare a member to an image. You give meaning to an image my naming it after a member. And this is a popular and successful thread.

So essentially you are making metaphors by comparing members to images. And its fun.

In the same vein I am asking you to give meaning to what I see - to make metaphors - to mint metaphors.

I have the courage to say what I see, so why not have the courage to say what I see, means?

You may think it is too complicated but look how complicated and silly MBTI is.

Try something new.

 

[silverchris9]

So together we can see and know the meaning.

But wouldn't the Greeks themselves have rejected that particular third way? Unless you and I (metaphorically speaking, and btw, I love the word Amanuensis; where'd you find it?) are to be radically united, how will I see what (as) you see, and you know what (as) I know? And, for that matter, isn't seer and speaker united in the lyric poet, at least in theory?

Of course, "we" may not refer to an entity wherein properties are shared (this would be closer to my "radical union" concept), but rather to a self-completing system. Interestingly enough, this distinction is central (I bet) to the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Trance is pleasantly metaphorical. Is the state of awareness a trance? (interpretation is a funny process. Am I reading me into you now? Is that invalid?)

So the point is that you say something and we interpret it?

 

[Mole]

But wouldn't the Greeks themselves have rejected that particular third way? Unless you and I (metaphorically speaking, and btw, I love the word Amanuensis; where'd you find it?) are to be radically united, how will I see what (as) you see, and you know what (as) I know? And, for that matter, isn't seer and speaker united in the lyric poet, at least in theory?

Of course, "we" may not refer to an entity wherein properties are shared (this would be closer to my "radical union" concept), but rather to a self-completing system. Interestingly enough, this distinction is central (I bet) to the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Trance is pleasantly metaphorical. Is the state of awareness a trance? (interpretation is a funny process. Am I reading me into you now? Is that invalid?)

So the point is that you say something and we interpret it?

You ask some interesting questions and I would like to address them one by one.

But in the meantime I might say, every seer has his amanuensis. In fact I thought of calling myself, "Victor Amanuensis", but I realised I can't do both things at once.

Of course I can do them separately, but not together.

And I want to do them together because it opens up the possibility of harmony, just as two instruments may play together in harmony, and so play a tune greater than the sum of the parts.

So for harmony, each instrument is dependent on the other, just as a seer and the amanuensis depend on each other.

- to be continued -

 

[Mole]

I love the word Amanuensis; where'd you find it?

The word, 'seer', comes from the preliterate world, the world without text, the world of images, that we have inhabited for the last 200,000 years.

Whereas, 'amanuensis', comes from the literate world that is barely 200 years old.

And the Bible warns us of graven images, preparing us for the invention of the printing press in 1440, giving rise to the dream of universal literacy, only achieved in the last 200 or so years, and at first only in the West.

The seer is vouchsafed visions or images, while the amanuensis appears on the surface to be a mere clerk, but he holds the key to meaning.

And be not fooled - always remember Clerk Kent is superman.

And if you don't believe me, look what universal literacy has achieved over the last 200 years.

But the world is changing. We have moved from tribal illiteracy to universal literacy. And now we are moving from literacy to electronic tribalism.

Now, now is the right time for the seer and the amanuensis to work together.

 

[Synarch]

The word, 'seer', comes from the preliterate world, the world without text, that we have inhabited for the last 200,000 years.

Whereas, 'amanuensis', comes from the literate world that is barely 200 years old.

The seer is vouchsafed visions or images, while the amanuensis appears on the surface to be a mere clerk, but he holds the key to meaning.

And be not fooled - always remember Clerk Kent is superman.

And if you don't believe me, look what universal literacy has achieved over the last 200 years.

But the world is changing. We have moved from tribal illiteracy to universal literacy. And now we are moving from literacy to electronic tribalism.

Now, now is the right time for the seer and the amanuensis to work together.

You're fucking brilliant, Victor.

 

[matmos]

The Ancient Greeks had the Oracle of Delphi.

She could see things - perhaps even the future - so she was a see-er. Or as we call her today, a Seer.

At one level her sayings were not understood so it was vital to give meaning to her sayings.

Fortunately we are meaning creating animals and the sayings of the Seer provoke us to give meaning to what she says.

Normally we include meaning in our communications, but a Seer sees things without meaning. It is as though the Seer presents to us the natural world. And the natural world is natural but without meaning.

It is up to us, the meaning creating animals, to give the natural world meaning. Just as it is up to us to give meaning to the sayings of the Seer.

So we say, the meaning of any communication is its response.

This of course only applies to the sayings of a Seer.

Oddly enough many here complain they can't understand my sayings.

This is because I do not include meaning in my sayings. I rely upon you to give meaning to my sayings.

I know this is counter-intuitive but as a Seer I need my Amanuensis to give meaning to what I see.

So this is the choice the Oracle gives you - you can know the meaning but be blind, or you can see but not know the meaning.

Or you can put your assumptions aside and give meaning to what I see.

So together we can see and know the meaning.

You are of course correct, Victor. But remember what happened to the Trojans, when they didn't listen to Cassandra?

A snake may have licked your ears (as it were) but like Cassandra, the Trojans will never listen. Like Piggy (the epileptic in Lord of the Flies), the visionary - they'll deal with you if they can get their grubby little mitts on ya.

Which of course they won't, unless Ajax (or his modern equivilent) climbs down your chimney and kidnaps you.

Wonderful thing, these interwebs.

All the best.

 

[Mole]

You are of course correct, Victor. But remember what happened to the Trojans, when they didn't listen to Cassandra?

A snake may have licked your ears (as it were) but like Cassandra, the Trojans will never listen. Like Piggy (the epileptic in Lord of the Flies), the visionary - they'll deal with you if they can get their grubby little mitts on ya.

Which of course they won't, unless Ajax (or his modern equivilent) climbs down your chimney and kidnaps you.

Wonderful thing, these interwebs.

All the best.

Dear Bananatrombones, it was wonderful to hear from you on Australia Day. And yes, the Trojans are an object lesson. And yes, the Flies and Ajax are a danger. So I'll take the next step.

Perhaps I will step into topology, after all it does bear a resemblance to typology. Perhaps we can throw the Flies and Ajax off the track.

Look to your left, BT, and look to your right and you will see a left hand and a right hand. But all we have to do is turn you inside out and your left becomes your right, and your right becomes your left.

And it is the act of turning you inside out that is interesting. Normally we move things around - but we leave them as they are. We don't normally think of turning them inside out.

But of course once we turn you inside out, we know we can turn you outside in.

And it is possible to move smoothly from inside out, to outside in.

And although it is more fun to turn BT inside out and outside in, for those a little squeamish, a sock may be used instead.

All this of course illustrates a double movement. A seer, for instance, turns himself inside out, while an amanuensis turns herself outside in.

They are not moving in opposite directions - they are not moving at all - they are simply changing left to right and right to left. It is a bit counter-intuitive.

Until now the seer and the amanuensis have been at war. Both believe they are right - and both have good reason to believe they are right.

From the seer's point of view, the amanuensis is authoritarian and insists on the dominance of the outside. While from the amanuensis' point of view, the seer is chaotic and insists on the dominance of the inside.

So one might say that the amanuensis is extroverted, while the seer is introverted.

And, as you say, the interweb is bringing the Es and the Is together. In fact you might say the purpose of MBTI is to help Es and Is to understand one another - the Flies and Ajax meet Piggy and Cassandra.

And the seer, we hope, shakes hands with his amanuensis.

But the first meeting is a scary one, on both sides.

Thank heavens, we have Bananatrombones to mediate.

 

[matmos]

Perhaps I will step into topology, after all it does bear a resemblance to typology.

From the seer's point of view, the amanuensis is authoritarian and insists on the dominance of the outside. While from the amanuensis' point of view, the seer is chaotic and insists on the dominance of the inside.

Cassandra is a slave to Apollo. Always, always listen to Cassandra - or the Greeks will get ya!

But the first meeting is a scary one, on both sides.

Thank heavens, we have Bananatrombones to mediate.

My pleasure... I'm also available for marriages, wakes and barmitzvahs...

 

[CrystalViolet]

Victor, You have the most amazing way of looking at things.

 

[Mole]

Victor, You have the most amazing way of looking at things.

It was Ezra Pound, the infamous American Fascist, who taught me to look at things this way,

In his advice to young poets, he said, "Make it new, make it new".

And rather than being hanged for treachery after the war, he was taken home with the rocket scientists and records of all the medical experiments carried out in the Camps.

'Cause he was the father of modern poetry and Abstract Expressionism, used as a flag in the Cold War.

So it is not so much the way I look at things that is amazing, it's that things are amazing.

The maze under Chartres Cathedral was built in 1235, and to discover one's true self, you enter the maze.

You should not enter the maze lightly as you will meet the cloud of unknowing, and you will be lost in the wild forest without a track to follow.

But this is only way to discover your true self - by following the path of Parsifal into the trackless forest.

And when you discover your true self, you will be a-mazed, or simply amazed.