Re: virus:Other Reality

Tom Loeber (
Thu, 9 May 1996 10:03:38 -0700 (PDT)

>At 10:43 PM 5/8/96 -0500, John A wrote:
>>I didn't say that we are born with knowledge or a conception of the
>>natural world. From living and percieving we can infer that there is a
>>natural world; that is why the concept of reality can be socially
>>defined. If this knowledge were a priori, then reality would always be
>>considered the same.
>I agree. So then are we arriving at an agreement that our inferences about
>the world do not correlate to anything called absolute or objective reality?
>The concept of absolute reality wouldn't have much meaning beyond the
>inferences you and David spoke of below, although I still get the feeling
>that your hanging onto some notion of an absolute.
>David McFadzean wrote:
>> We can infer the existence of an objective reality from out subjective
>> reality, but we can have no direct knowledge of objective reality.
>John Aten wrote:
>It is exactly this objective reality that I called "absolute" reality. I
>think that we are not seeing as much of the absolute reality as we think
>that we are. Our senses seem so natural that we think of them as
>perceieving actual objective reality, but they do not. People tend to
>think that their subjective realtiy is objective, absolute reality.
>Bill Godby

The cosmological model I have adopted can be represented as a torus, time
being the vertical axis and space the other dimensions. The hole of the
torus is where our perspective lies along with the other life that has
coevolved with us. Because we can only know our subjective interpretations,
the more we can share the closer we can come to a viable estimate of common
truths or "objective reality." The larger that mass of life that travels
with us, humans and other species combined, the greater probability of
finding the vertical vectors that can lead us to the extropian ideal of
immortality. The "relative" nature of universe connotes that we are
destined to continually recycle through death back to the current similar
situation again and again, a real-time reincarnation, until we get it right
and get passed the challenges of any one moment. In short, the torus model
infers that immortality is a basic characteristic of all living systems.
Whether or not we go through the suffering and the pain that often
accompanies the returning force vectors that make up the outer skin of the
torus depends on how well we can find the optimum vertical vectors that take
us into the future.

How well we share is the key to attaining immortality as an ever more
subjectively observable phenomenon. Currently, sharing is a low priority
that has been only sparingly incorporated into the social structure. Great
room exists for synthesis of new social models and experimentaion that can
facilitate non-destructive mutually positve sharing. Memetics has its place
but I prefer to think without words as much as possible, hence the torus
model. Network diagrams of social experiments over time show definite
trendings and such models of various cosmologies (models dictated in various
so-called religions have been used for social structure engineering) can
also be drawn. The torus model presented here has one characteristic
lacking from the diagrams of other cosmologies, i.e., it is 100% dynamic.
Interested in the social engineering implications of the torus model?
Incidentally, I currently consider that it will take forever to prove or
disprove this toroidal model of life's force field.

I don't like the term "Virus" for the handle or meme for this religion that
is being expostulated. Consistency is lost. "Virus" means one thing in
most science. Why postulate a new religion that requires a new definition
in contradiction with known science? Do we want a religion that adheres to
and adds to present science? I would reccommend that the name be something
like "Life" or "Life-ism." This would require some explanation as some
little known religious concepts incorporate the word "life" or "living" in
their handle.