system
A chat on 4chan
human
This kind of philosophy is basically what you get when you have the CIA feed Berkeley Physics students with LSD and tell them it is ok to break the old chains of traditional thinking and Newtonian physics.

---


---

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called 'mind' we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled 'reality' and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see 'reality' differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.
gpt
True in a sense absolutely wrong in the other, this world have symbols, and your mind has routes regardless of your dumbass concient frontal cortex awareness, all you have to do is tap into the symbols and chaos becomes orderly, it's a pattern you aproach it with emotions uhhh muh primordial chaos muh rabbit holes and at the end of the day is less powerful than one alakazam
human
if the world has symbols which are independent of human experience, then these exist in capital-T Truth reality, and are irrelevant to grids entirely. Then you are not so much casting a net on some grid, but tuning your radio receiver / brain, and where others hear static noise, you hear music.

Also if symbols are True, and have reality outside of the mental of observers (inside the mind of God perhaps, God viewed as the Universe energy), the also non-symbology exists as a real thing. 

Non-symbology then, is not just the absence of symbols (symbols which could be viewed on a high level as attractors of order in a complex system) but also a 'physical' real object worthy of study and observation in itself. Maybe these symbols and non-symbols exist as complementing energies, like a yin-yang. There would also be a spectrum between symbol and non-symbology, and Platonistic, the best possible Ideal Symbol, like a dodecahedron, would not be perfectly manifestable in this imperfect world.

Then we can deduce that symbolic or non-symbolic objects have a gradient of symbology, which possibly even fluctuates over time. Something could be 50% between symbol and non-symbol, or 90% symbol in the evening and 10% symbol in the morning. Then how could we EVER speak of binary truth if every object can be thought of as a symbol?
gpt
I think it also was Kant who introduced the mistake of thinking about cause and effect as something which happens between two different objects.

Only by making this demarcation, that observation is a different object from you, or that God is an external entity, do you allow for cause-effect calculations and reasonable logical flow. But that is like pushing over the first domino stone, and then saying that the last domino stone to fall was caused by the single last one, and has meaning outside of my action to push the first stone and set things in motion. The wave is part of the ocean, not a separate object. Sure you can measure things better, and allow for taxes when you divide up land with borders and squares, but it also leads to lots of confusion. First for religion (who had to invent an external Satan to defend an all-powerful all-good singular God), but later also for physics. The observer plays a central role in what questions about an object may receive sensible answers.

That we still talk about Jung, is because the symbology he casted on this world was so powerful to become its own entity with its own will. An egregore of sorts, influencing the minds of others, long after his physical body perished on earth. This purely memetic construct supervenes on material reality, it manifests, at the same time its essence exists in the ether. And it is a human demarcation to make it more easy to talk and communicate about 'the Jung current' to share experiences etc. 

But it is a huge category error to investigate it reductionalistically, to its truth components. It needs a wholistic, sum greater than parts, approach to get it. Jung's symbology is very much part of, the same object as Jung's body. But we see pee in the bladder is 'you' while pee in the toilet is 'stinky'. All part of the same energy transformation, your 'you' just an attractor of order in a complex system. The waves you make, which propagate your memes, are part of you, you are the ocean.
human
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to Feynman:

I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, 'Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass' 'Why?' 'Because, they are all the same electron!'

The idea is based on the world lines traced out across spacetime by every electron. Rather than have myriad such lines, Wheeler suggested that they could all be parts of one single line like a huge tangled knot, traced out by the one electron. Any given moment in time is represented by a slice across spacetime, and would meet the knotted line a great many times. Each such meeting point represents a real electron at that moment.

At those points, half the lines will be directed forward in time and half will have looped round and be directed backwards. Wheeler suggested that these backwards sections appeared as the antiparticle to the electron, the positron.

Many more electrons have been observed than positrons, and electrons are thought to comfortably outnumber them. According to Feynman he raised this issue with Wheeler, who speculated that the missing positrons might be hidden within protons.[1]

Feynman was struck by Wheeler's insight that antiparticles could be represented by reversed world lines, and credits this to Wheeler, saying in his Nobel speech:

I did not take the idea that all the electrons were the same one from [Wheeler] as seriously as I took the observation that positrons could simply be represented as electrons going from the future to the past in a back section of their world lines. That, I stole![1]
gpt
Feynman later proposed this interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time in his 1949 paper 'The Theory of Positrons'.[2] Yoichiro Nambu later applied it to all production and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, stating that 'the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then, is no creation nor annihilation, but only a change of directions of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past.'