E V O L V E</a> <br><br> <center> <img src="evolveTOP.jpg"> <table border="0" cellspacing="10"> <tr align="left" valign="top"> <tr> <td width=500 align="justify" valign="top" bgcolor="Black"><font size="2"> <font face="Arial"> <p> //BEGIN 12 | 23 | 2008 1:26 AM <p>like most of america, i am visiting my parents for the holidays. i sit here on my father's computer in the basement office, drinking leisurely from a fresh bottle of Glenlivet which my father had bestowed upon me earlier this evening. naive and possibly un-pure thoughts and aspirations flood my mind and sputter around as i sit in front of an inappropriately bright 23 inch flat screen computer monitor to do nothing more than record this collection of words. aside from the giant computer monitor, soft buzz of idling electronics and A/C systems, and the occasional whir of luxury sedans outside, not much has changed in the last 500 years. <p>we are precisely exactly the same human we were before we possessed the powers we wield so hastily today. that is, to say, we are PROPORTIONALLY identical, within the time and space we currently occupy. i may be entirely "wrong," but what kind of human would i be if i didn't believe that i was "right?" the point is, none of this seems to matter anymore because we have cell phones and chat rooms and myspace and microwaves. so evolution, as it were, is so totally boring compared to the latest and greatest MMORPG. FUX0R! sometimes i agree...but lets get "real." just cuz... <p> <h1><font color="Red">VIRTUAL vs REALITY: part 1</font></h1> <p>modern language, as it lay, has given us the power to override the the mental tyranny of idolatry and its "idols" therein. however, the cyclical nature of our evolution has folded time in on itself once again, as the "idol" gains popularity within the superstructure of the once, enlightening and revolutionary, now prevalent and familiar modern language. <p>the ancient ideals of love, respect, gods and hierarchy have been tabled as just that; "ancient." through the "great divide" of communications after the fall of polytheism, we had hoped to gain a more practical understanding of our reality and the origin of our being. while accelerating at almost uncomfortable speeds to a seemingly hastily "enlightened" state, we suddenly look back at the ancient ideals and relearn the languages as if we had landed here from another planet, poking and prodding at our history as a foreign entity, catergorizing our discoveries, writing essays, expediting our efforts into foreign lands, smoking the leaves of the ancients, hoping to catch a glimpse of their prophecy. what was once commonplace, has become the infatuation and fantasy of a world cloaked in a kind of front end, humanized "GUI," allowing us to stay disconnected from the ACTUAL, therefore experiencing the PERPETUAL VIRTUAL. <p>while we have developed and possessed a great and beautiful power to use this kind of interface to vicariously re-experience our history, we have often mistaken this vicarious (virtual) experience to be the actual. "if we have learned it, we must BE it." what ancient languages and communication as a whole had achieved, was a kind of presence that was undeniable, as if to say, "this is the way it is, because this is the way we understand it NOW." the grandiose idea of the future was perhaps more a simple mathematical function, rather than the prophetic END OF LINE that has plagued the modern perception of our role in time and space, henceforth driving us to near madness trying to "understand" as much as we possibly can, before its too late. <p> <h1><font color="Red">VIRTUAL vs REALITY: part 2</font></h1> <p> we have within our grasp, the staggering ability to believe anything we want. we are, by our current understanding of the condition, an entirely schizophrenic species. quite literally, working ourselves to death trying to make the "others" understand our point of view in the hopes that some sudden apex of harmonious coexistence will be conquered. none of us really want to "win" as that would simply destroy the possibility of ever being truly acknowledged for our efforts. to WIN, by all modern standards, is to DEFEAT, henceforth implying our utterly delusional sense of independence, in a world where we are undeniably tethered to the common man whether we want it or not. this does not mean i have to UNDERSTAND the other man's peril, or the other's triumph, or the other's confusion, but rather that i should be compelled to unify with a seemingly deeply rooted, nearly programmed sense of self which we all struggle to identify properly. our schizophrenic nature as a collectivized species should ideally slip away in the wake of this individually realized quest. i believe this is happening as we speak; observing the cascading transparency of modern world social infrastructures, once established as grounds to awaken and evolve, the lexicon of man and the byproducts therein should sever their codependence with humanity as the paradigm inevitably self destructs. <p> in other words...we're right on target. <p> <h1><font color="Red">VIRTUAL vs REALITY: part 3</font></h1> <b>Fundamental Observations of Time and Space, and The Metaphysical properties of Proprietary Observable Space</b> <p> When dating a document properly, we include the time and space in which that document was concieved; Chicago, 2009. Neither of these measurements are true, nor do they hold any meaning to those outside the infrastructure of modern culture. To say "Chicago," is perhaps to imply that this point in space is unlike any other and is therefore the only space capable of containing any such event. To say "2009," is to imply the same, except on the even more arbitrary scale of time. We have encased our species in webs of measurment and systems of value. There is nothing that can exist without the accompanying subtitled numerical attributes that allow us to group variables together and pull them apart systematically. There is no such thing as addition, and there is no subtraction. There is only movement through "space." This is however, arguable. It is entirely feasible to observe an object moving through so called three dimensional space from A to B, however, the position of A only exists in relation the position of B, and the position of both require a control. There is no observable "center" or point of origin, so if there is no origin, then how is it that A or B even exist? <p> Perhaps because it is indeed observable. Even in this very piece of text: <p> A ----------------------------- B <p> Yet, if science continues to prove itself wrong, and cancel itself out, as it seems to have developed a knack for, then that observation is null and void, simply because it has been observered. It is done. Case closed. Over. Go home, A+. <p> Now if we throw the elusive TIME into the equation, we can make several more profound, or entirely redundant, observations. If time is indeed present, then A and B can exist in different space at the same time. If A is "Chicago, Jan. 17 2009" then B can surely be "Espedal, Norway, Jan 17 2009." However, this is a singularity and is therefore useless. Once objects begin to move through space, our measurement of time changes, yet our measurement of space does not. If I begin travelling from Chicago to Norway, Norway does not necessarily get "closer" per se, but my destination is reached in "more" or "less" time. If I leave Chicago on Jan 17, I may arrive in Norway on Jan 18. AMAZING. <p> Now, the opposite observation can be made in an entirely different scenario. Two people in the same room are having different experiences. After they leave the room at the same moment, one exclaims, "Wow! I didn't realize it was so late!" just as the other exclaims "Wow! I can't believe it's so early!" Their references to time are entirely false, if our meausurment of "time" is to serve its purpose. They both experienced the same passage of time, and experienced the same outcome upon exiting the room. They did not however experience the same space, which is, in the end, much more susceptible to one's own perception. Thus, the "passage of time" becomes skewed, and irrelevant when in fact it is simply a "proprietary observable space." <p> Now, having introduced the human element, we can dive into the metaphysical realms of one's own perception which hands us another variable entirely. Proprietary observable space exists in one's line of sight and peripheral awareness, and calls on the five (or six) readily availble senses to develop an overlay of the time and space around us. We project this overlay when needed and make decisions accordingly. It is this act of "choice" that affects our perception of the time and space therein. Furthermore, the fact that it is PERCEPTION and not OBSERVATION, removes "IT'S" root construct from "ITSELF" and allows us an immediately digestable program that is exclusive to our (one's) own experience with IT. It is arguable, similar to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal, that observation has a similar effect of negating the root properties of X simply through the act of observing. Human perception however is a much more carnal interpretation of reality, as opposed to the seemingly educated conclusion that observation implies. By observing the presence of a pencil on a table in an empty room, we do not shun the existence of said scenario. To perceive such a scenario, demands not only presence of the observer, but presence of the observer's instinct and reaction, which is something that remains exclusive to each person. By allowing reaction to take place, the pencil is now a PENCIL and nothing else. <P> <h1><font color="Red">VIRTUAL vs REALITY: part 4</font></h1> <p><b>The Cosmic Tumbler and the Impatience of Humanity</b> <P> By now, we have convinced ourselves that "change is good." This is not untrue, but I dont think we really understand what it means to start talking about this profound arrival of CHANGE. This is a concept that holds as much power as we assign to it...and the assignment of power is merely governed by our desires and what we decide is "necessary." We fail to understand that we are all programmers. This shouldn't be hard to accept. We have become far too dependent on systems that are verifiable only through observable, tangible documentation. This is why the political sphere succeeds in spite of its vast collection of incomplete thoughts and sloppily improvised communications. It has adopted a language so inaccessible that we, as a PEOPLE, have no way to truly digest and understand the logic that hides behind the veil of the political lexicon. Suddenly there is a product in front of us and we are able to confirm the efficiency of the system because we can now hold it in our hands... <P> Its all a bunch of hooey. Yes, hooey. The entire planet is in cahoots right now and we still find time to sit back on facebook and comment on our friend's photos of that one time they blew mustard out their nose. I think its wonderful. I really do...as long as we stop complaining about the other stuff as if we have the physical reach to step into the white house, or warner bros. studios, or wall street, and actually flip switches that are merely props anyway. <P> As we continue to evolve, instant gratification becomes more feasible and if we are to allow this, we need to learn to discipline ourselves. It does not yet seem that we are able to understand the function of our digital counterpart. Technology can only evolve proportionately to our own evolution as a species...until it ceases to be "technology" and simply becomes the OTHER, all the while we eventually cease to be human. This is why we must continue to develop a truly symbiotic relationship with our externalized interfaces, UNTIL they become intelligent enough to sustain themselves...Much like raising a child. We have to stop pretending that its a horrible dystopian fate to allow these "machines" to conquer our being. We are so turned on by the prospect of conflict and resolution that we fail to allow the prospect of harmonious evolution to prevail. We are nearly sexually driven by the impending doom of our species as we write plays, produce films, publish books, all centered around our demise. Are we that globally schizophrenic? Perhaps... Until when? <P> //END TRANSMISSION <p>© 2009, Artemis St. Geraldine III