Aristo Tacoma [[[ESSAY as at norskesites.org/fic3inf3/essay20111007.txt Written talk. Yoga4d.org/cfdl.txt redist license. Consult published works as at yoga6d.org/cgi-bin/news/f3w which are containing key concepts connected to what this writer calls 'neopopperian science' and also 'supermodel theory', which involve also perceptive processes -- concepts effortlessly drawn upon here.]]] AN EXPLORATION INTO WAVES -- Also optic (=neo-coptic, revised coptic) religious aspects [[[Please also get the 2 pictures as found at norskesites.org/fic3inf3/essay20111007-a.jpg norskesites.org/fic3inf3/essay20111007-b.jpg to view as mentioned within.]]] We have already, in these workshops, gone far far beyond merely material studies of reality. Let us go more into the meditative and the religious this time. Shall we? Waves are both rhythmic and arrythmic fluctuations -- both smooth and abrupt -- possibly together on a great medium, possibly seen, or as experienced by any sensory channel -- but just as possibly being a vital part of -- or aspect of -- what we mean by the phrase "presence of mind". In other words, mind-like means wave-like. To "gather yourself" -- in other words, to come out of a frustrated or fragmented state and into wholeness -- means also to some extent to find a quiet inner ocean of reverberance of the many small good waves, acting together to give that rush of feeling it is to be alive and also, sometimes, having great joys. For you are not merely a thing. You are not merely your name, not merely your body -- certainly not, in the view of reincarnation! -- nor can you define yourself in terms of your material possessions, your your social status facts. You are, far more deeply than that, an experiencer of the world and that fact of being an experiencer is itself not static. Some might poetically say that it is best to drop the word 'experiencer' and merely speak of attention, flowing awareness, choiceless awareness. But when we are cognisant on the subtle nature of these words, and not fooling ourselves into too-static images, then many words are more insight-generating than a repetition of the very same words as a formula. So the word "experiencer" is important, also: and what you are as experiencer you experience, for you notice that the very same song of birds, the very same radiant sunlit patch of grass, can be part of joy one day and part of nothing very much happy at all another day -- such as when somebody, for good or bad reason, has a hangover, or has just gone through a type of quarrel which left a lot to be desired. And so you gather yourself, perhaps, by experiencing the rhythm of music, the rhythms of waves lapping at a beach, or the rush of water around a water sculpture, the playfulness of light reflections on the surface; and also the waves of children's playful screams and shouts as they explore the world they are growing up in. As you gather this wholeness, this energy of attention, this coherence of mind, you attain for a moment to a godlike state of holding the world outside you within the fullness of mind. It is felt as YOUR mind, although this intense familiarity is at the same time perhaps surprising, as it is not the ordinary sense of what is "yours" or "mostly your own", when in a more frustrated or exhausted state of mind. Yet when that fullness of the meditative mind is there, there is no mistake about it: this is a god-intoxicating and muse-intoxicating drink of the fullness of existence which makes what before was merely "nice" so intensely beautiful that it is unbearingly good. And more moments of this pr week is more enlightenment. In giving a meaning of going from a humanity that is unelightened to one that is enlightened, and then one that is still more enlightened, and so on, ad infinitum, we are talking not a qualitative change as much as a quantitative change: the extent and the duration and the quantity and the depth of such peaks of holism in experience increase -- say, in quantity each weak -- for all humanity, collectively, as a result of indepenent and responsible work by all individuals. And at present it is so little in humanity of this that it makes sense -- at this time when this essay is written -- to estimate, presciently as it were, that it takes about a giant time unit, the TM (thousand millenia) for the very FIRST step of the INITIAL enlightenment to come. Then this real, actualised enlightenment will increase in such quantity as mentioned, about each TM after this, ad infinitum. All this I have discussed much elsewhere, also in the scifi-intro for the Anaiis Blondin BAB's, as a fruitful and intuitively correct blending of some features of coptic christianity with a neopopperian revised version of reincarnation understanding: and this eclectic but intuitively well-researched blend can make use of a new name. By dropping the letter "c" in front of "coptic" we get "optic", and combine with the sentiments in my Dedicating Oneself to Beauty booklet as at yoga4d.org/ talks, with an understanding that God is love and beauty and such, we can confidently speak of a kind of "optic religiosity". Note that I am not saying that you can count on explicit mechanical boolean logic in deducing such a view from the supermodel theory, but I am saying that these are compatible, and that they should be understood together with (an also somewhat revised) understanding of bishop George Berkeley's view of the world (as created by a kind of day-dreaming by God). It is then important to go beyond the notion of bodily death to have a proper time-perspective on what humanity is doing, in its experiencing-world. Nothing very much can be achieved by any one mortal human body but humanity collectively, over such a more proper time unit as a TM, has this fantastic necessity of enlightenment. This I submit in a neopopperian spirit. I urge your own powers of intuition to be stimulated, finely tuned, as your brain waves also are fine-tuned, and with that as background, take each particular proposition as just mentioned, and ask yourself: is it not so? Is such and such correct? For there is, I propose, no other grand perspective that is correct on humanity. And then also, gently and without trying to make yourself into a guru, explore the reality of the muse-world, connecting God and humanity. The greatness of the time unit TM is such that, by reminding yourself of it often, you let go of greed to try to hold on to the great wave-experience of the world as one undivided flowing whole. Such greed makes no sense at all, but it does make sense to playfully entertain intentions to recreate this experience. In these informal workshops where I am so lucky that I can give these little informal talks, I try to connect the explorative propositions with a bit of formal work to illustrate a couple of the usually many more features of what we say: so also this time. I have in mind to produce a little program -- and, as always with these essays, as long as it is not a point in itself to vary the background of bright green, we allow the standard GJ-COLORS to be our standard frame of graphical expression -- black on bright green. A programmer exploring this for herself can do experimentation on such as the sometimes tantalising effects of switching foreground and background, or do more complicated navigations with green tonations. Your mind is alive to making the richness of all the world's colors by watching a well-known range of green tones between black and bright green, for we do not spoil the mind by overdoing these computer works. My idea is as follows: let us sketch, or have the program to sketch, a variety of three independent wave-like lines, any one of them picked at random, repeatedly in rather horisontal lines, and with some clearing of screen -- the word CLS clears screen -- followed by redoing of same -- so as to have some sense of living waves such as water waves in the sun. It will be abstract and be a form of contextual art in that it will require our discussion around it to really make full sense, for we will only illustrate a bit of all the richness that waves in nature can be about. I suppose we will use a matrix, governed -- as you can see from an earlier essay -- by words such as RAM-PM (set aside RAM, or computer random access memory -- computer memory, in short, for Putting into a Matrix) and GM and PM, used for Getting from Matrix and Putting into Matrix, respectively. These can be used together with the matrix symbol # which repeats that which is on top of the variable stack, fed recently by a & and emptied by a &&. All this has already been used in a recent workshop, as described in a recent essay also. When we know exactly how much looping we are going to do, it is often good to do it by (COUNT .. COUNTUP), which use N1 and N2 to hold present counter and max counter limit, respectively. The other, more flexible way to do looping, -- for instance, when we want to get going with something until the keyboard is clicked, or until the mouse is clicked, we can use such as GOLABEL1 .. GOUP1 or, in the other direction, if need be, GOFORWARD1 .. GOLABEL1. There are four such available: GOLABEL1, GOLABEL2, GOLABEL3, and GOLABEL4, and for each label, one and only one GOUP should be used. The GOUP can be exchanged with GOFORWARD, but we want only one use of each such label, -- this is in Lisa GJ2 Fic3, the world's best programming language ever and ever don't you know, one of the elegant absolutistic design aspects. By affirming such bold god-chosen design decisions, we avoid clumsy over-complicated functions. But avoiding such as GOLABEL altogether would make the functions complicated when simple loops of certain types are required. When we check for whether a key is pressed, KEYTOUCH tells us whether one is available to be read by such as KEYNUM or KEY. It should then be read, and if the retrieved information piece is not to be used, it should be at once removed by the word RM. (Otherwise it may be passed on, this unparsed keyclick, to the next program after this program.) To check for mouse-click, we have MOUSECLICK and for right-click, MOUSECLICKR. Any use of mouse must usually go together with some use of a pause function, like GOODPAUSE, since we want to read ("parse") one human-like click on a key, which usually takes a dozen milliseconds, or some dozens of milliseconds, as just one click, rather than as many clicks. And so you put in a number of 1/1000s of a second's pause to GOODPAUSE, in any loop of a usual kind which refers to MOUSECLICK or MOUSEXY, which reads the X and Y, or horisontal and vertical position of the mouse on the screen. Inside Dosbox, the mouse pointer is sometimes "captured" by first clicking into the Dosbox part of the screen, when Dosbox is not full-screen (the ALT-key and the ENTER-key clicked in the normal combination switches between the two). So when Dosbox is part of the screen, any use of the mouse inside that happens AFTER a single click, and to get it OUT of Dosbox again, CTR-F10 should do the trick. This might be slightly confusing unless you remind yourself regularly on these simple key-clicks. It also means that you allow any use of CTR together with the function keys F1..F12 be used by Dosbox outside of your program, although in principle your program, when run directly, can make use of just this (indeed, the B9 editor when first made had a little-used pair of functions, namely convert to uppercase and convert to lowercase, connected to a combination of CTR and a pair of the function keys, and perhaps some more such). The idea for the program is roughly as follows: by moving the mouse high up on the screen, or not so high up, or in the middle, or a little under the middle, or a lot under the middle, a wave-line in progress will follow it doggedly. Then another such wave-line is shaped by your mouse motions. Then another such wave-line, three in all. Having finished that, the screen clears, by CLS, and a loop makes a group of repetitions, quickly replaced, where any one of these three wave-lines which you have yourself contributed to, by your mouse-interactions (and which hence will be new each program-performance) will be picked at random and shown. Sometimes the same line will be shown twice. It should sometimes give a sense of the wave-like motions as on water. By the way, as usual I have experimented a bit with the numbers in order to make it look meaningful -- and by spending time with the program, in light of earlier comments on programming, and in light of earlier, simpler programs, it shouldn't provide any exceedingly deep inscrutable challenges ;). Note that there is a very quick way of writing the more elaborate (MATCH .. MATCHED), used such as in combination with MOUSECLICK, and that is simply = and ===. You will see this = .. === used in combination with a GOUP4 near completion of the program, which you can start in the normal way, by clipping from the essay and starting -- repeatedly -- with :FILENAME IN after you have typed F3 in a properly expanded Dosbox. This one is called WAVEEXP1.TXT, for Wave Experiment number 1. Each time you move the mouse in the startup-phase of the program, you will make it show something altogether new!!! Here are two examples, and then the program. Good luck on the formal optic meditation! ;) Ah, let me also add that, compared to most or all functions in previous informal mini-seminars in this series, the ARITHMETIC-ON-ANGLE do also output something stuff on the stack, not merely take something in. And this we informally typically indicate by two arrows right after one another, like => =>. So you see these two arrows on a line inside that function. Its input goes to N1, as you see from the >N1 right in the beginning, in its header, in fact. So it takes as input the Y -- vertical coordinate, you know, you see the Y has a vertical line in it -- of the mouse, where you hold the mouse. It is a number 1..768 (usually, although it makes more stable programs not to assume that these ranges are always respected, which is one good reason often to use SET-RANGE to enforce a minimum and maximum value). The mouse vertical position has to be converted somehow to an angle so that when its in the middle of the screen, angle is about basis (zero), while higher up gives a positive angle, and underneath it a negative angle -- or else an angle very near 3600 degrees, which is 360 times 10, all around the circle of angles if you draw it up neatly with 900 or 90 times 10 marked off four places around a circle. The value outputted from ARITHMETIC-ON-ANGLE, as we define it, is supposed to go straight into TURN-LEFT, which, together with PEN-DRAW, is all we need of active stuff inside the loop to make each wave-line. The PEN-ORIGO and PEN-STRAIGHT-UP which follow GJ-ON in the beginning of the main function at the completion of the program text are merely the standard stuff to say that we want graphics (GJ-ON), with use of PEN-DRAW stuff (PEN-ORIGO and PEN-STRAIGHT-UP then clarifies the use of this). After PEN-STRAIGHT-UP in each wave-draw place in the program, we should push pen to point rightwise, and so a call like three times 900 equals 2700 to PEN-LEFT can do. The PEN-LEFT is such that a value just less than 3600 moves the pen angle rightwise. The value 1800 turns it completely. So, 2700 turns it a corner to the right. Good luck again!!! [[[Look at ../fic3inf3/essay20111007-a.jpg here & now]]] [[[Look at ../fic3inf3/essay20111007-b.jpg here & now]]] }* WAVEEXP1.TXT WRITTEN BY A.T. with L.A.H., }* }* Yoga4d.org/cfdl.txt copyright -- redist. }* }* For essay20111007 in fic3inf3. }* ((DATA WAVE-MATRIX 20 ; 3 => RAM-PM WAVE-MATRIX <N1 )) (( (( 384 ; N1 => SUB ; 3 => DIV => >N10 )) (( N10 => ISPRO => NOT (MATCHED (( 3600 ; N10 => ADD => >N10 )) MATCHED) )) (( N10 => => )) )) OK) (LET MAKE-3-WAVES BE (( )) (( (( WAVE-MATRIX >>> => & )) (( }MAKE OUT!!! ACTIVATE YR MOUSE TO SHAPE DANCE.} ; 10 ; 10 => B9-POP )) (( 1200 => GOODPAUSE )) (( 3 (COUNT (( }..AND, YES, n o w SHAPE WAVE TYPE >>>>> } ; N1 => CONCAT ; 10 ; 50 => B9-POP )) (( 250 PEN-X < PEN-LEFT )) (( 20 (COUNT (( 600 => GOODPAUSE )) (( MOUSEXY => >N11 ; >N10 )) (( N11 ; 1 ; 768 => SET-RANGE => >N11 )) (( N11 ; N1 ; N3 ; # => PM )) (( N11 => ARITHMETIC-ON-ANGLE => PEN-LEFT )) (( 15 => PEN-DRAW )) COUNTUP) )) (( CLS )) COUNTUP) )) (( && )) )) OK) (( LOOKSTK )) (LET REPEAT-SHOW-3-WAVES BE (( )) (( (( WAVE-MATRIX >>> => & )) (( CLS )) (( }HERE!!! PLS CLICK MOUSE WHEN DONE.} ; 10 ; 10 => B9-POP )) (( 900 => GOODPAUSE )) (( GOLABEL4: )) (( 10 (COUNT (( 250 PEN-X < MUL ; 300 => ADD PEN-Y < PEN-LEFT )) (( ^3 FR GETV => >N4 )) (( 20 (COUNT (( N1 ; N6 ; # => GM => >N8 )) (( N8 => ARITHMETIC-ON-ANGLE => PEN-LEFT )) (( 15 => PEN-DRAW )) COUNTUP) )) COUNTUP) )) (( 100 => GOODPAUSE )) (( CLS )) (( MOUSECLICK => NOT = GOUP4 === )) (( && )) )) OK) (LET WAVEEXP1 BE (( )) (( (( GJ-ON )) (( PEN-ORIGO )) (( PEN-STRAIGHT-UP )) (( MAKE-3-WAVES )) (( REPEAT-SHOW-3-WAVES )) (( GJ-DONE )) )) OK) (( LOOKSTK )) (LET AUTOSTART WAVEEXP1 OK)