Forum Thread

regarding last week's Note to a Newborn

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    My little essay, “A Note to a Newborn”, though inspired and “cued” by information read and/or otherwise learned here and there (the “quanta”) really represents an expression of a field of awareness. The overall inspiration (and also specific instances of “data-conclusions or ‘concatenations’ ”) expressed was, essentially “off the top”. The “field”, format, paradigm (or however else we might try to term it) of existence which I conveyed in the piece derived from (or “quantified”) that level of our beings which seems, as I put it, to be an (ideational) analogue of the universal being-state.
    Simply, though “referenced” by things I‘ve read, I myself pretty much came up with what I wrote in my “ . . .Note to . . .” off the top. (I sure hope not “off the wall”.) And though I think my spontaneous, free-association extrapolation of where it’s at is a bit profound, to term it erudite, much less scientific, would be rather presumptuous. For I’ve really just prattled a layman’s level on the matter.

    Now, before continuing significance, let me note that it’s amazing what one finds that another has thrown away. Some years ago now, in the dumpster at work (a trucking company terminal) there were a number of books atop the strew and waste. The majority of the thirty or so texts were from from the M. I. T. Press and likely, in toto, represented $2500 worth. I quickly salvaged as many as I could carry. (By the way, the IBM Selectric (on which I originally typed the majority of what I’ve written) was the only one of at least a dozen that I could obtain from the dumpster at a regional hospital one time. My other two electric typewriters came from other sources -- dumps per se!!) Alas, I had to buy the computers I now use . . . thank god!!!

    Back to the point. In reading one of the scavenged books mentioned above, I came upon a chapter wherein I found myself “reading myself”, I might say. Here was the “field or “Platonian matrix” which I had extrapolated from existence by my own thought-processes. Only here, from the book, was the erudite, yes and truly scientific referencing (“quantumfication”) of inspiration. Here the profundity encompassed credentialed qualification and in-depth study (neuroscientific) of matters by the author of the tome.
    Yet even here on this hierarchical level, the decadency from an undeniable dualistic dimension of human being-awareness dwells. Despite the research and techno-comprehension of the MIT process and product, still the field of the inexplicable . . . . the “ascention” (if you will) of the neurological intricacy of material-dynamic unto the “recognition” (and proliferation beyond) of being from inception unto denouement . . .Alpha unto Omega . . .whatever . . . .by man’s mind.
    I don’t feel at all “elevated” that my inspiration equates with the pages I read of formal (MIT-level) erudition. For the author, professor Pribram, and I both merely tapped into the “energy-field” level of man’s being and expressed our conversion-units of the conscious level according to our programmings including his degrees and research.
    But I’m moved to another dimension of inspiration based on my “Note to a Newborn” and Prof. Pribram’s material too.
    To account for man’s existence without extrapolating from the insufficient matrix-data of neurology a dimension of “mind” or “soul” . . as pervasively dynamic and, as well, (“prime”) causal (subtending) is an error of omission. Obviously this would be the case for the philosophical-parametered inclusion of consideration. But also from the strictly scientific standpoint, to deny the “metaphysical” substrate (and transtate) of dimension is tantamount to disallowing the “twisters”, strings, waves, fields, forces, and even Bang of cosmic’s inclusion of existence. . . . . . . . . . .