The MetaMind

At first glance, it may seem ironic that as we create richer virtual worlds using the digital, the binary, model, so simultaneously do we find that that very same model continually fails to handle the new challenges that face what we're accustomed to call 'reality'. A little consideration reveals a deeper picture. Suppose, for instance, that we inhabit an incredibly rich virtual binary reality constructed by higher-dimensional entities: evolution, once a parameter 'programmed in' and regularly refined, becomes endemic. The virtual world created by these entities has taken on a life of its own, the beings have not only become self-aware, but have come to question their own nature, have deigned to explore beyond the confines of the program, indeed have begun to create their own sub-level of virtual reality. This is evolution writ large, not merely changes that maximise environmental success, but a complete paradigm-shift, accompanied by a filling-in of the lower level by a repeating process.

As we effectively become 'gods', so mere binary logic and its entrainment (cause-and-effect, either-or, true/false, right/wrong...) must fail. Already, signs of the new logic manifest, heralding the consciousness shift that's required to carry humanity through its current dire straits and into a higher, integral mode of existence that acknowledges all its previous modes and unites them in something new. The former Left and Right of Party Politics are seen to be meaningless; the rigidity of dogma on both sides of the religious/rationalist debate throws into the spotlight the paucity of the positions it attempts to justify; the supreme delusion of the separate and inviolable self withers under the threat of global meltdowns of all flavours.

A question demands an answer. But the form of the question shapes the answer. "Who was really behind 9/11?" assumes the answer to be a name, or a group of names. This in turn assumes the current widely held model of consensus reality. But if this 'reality' is only a tiny part of a more interconnected whole, with all kinds of cross-dimensional linkage, perhaps akin to quantum correlation, then the question may begin to appear meaningless from the higher-dimensional perspective, not unlike asking a dripping tap why it doesn't like these particular drops of water that it keeps rejecting.

Even the apparently simple question "Is the mean global temperature rising or falling?" cannot, it seems, be answered unequivocally. The scientific community is divided. Whilst undoubtedly the situation is complicated by spin, peer pressure, vested interests, personal beliefs etc., I suspect that there is genuine uncertainty due to the many possible methods used both to obtain data and define which data should be used. Further still and we're confronted by that ambiguous toolbox, statistics, the basis of so much of 'scientific fact' that it's genuinely scary. Many conflicting ideas may be solidly supported by well-chosen statistical studies, yet hitherto only those that suit the vested interests are officially taken up and paraded as 'truth'. Let's take a common 'folk' assertion and ask some questions:

Rats are vermin.
That's just a word, what exactly do you mean by it?
They spread disease.
And have you ever caught any diseases from a rat?
No, because I avoid them.
Have you ever caught any diseases from your fellow men?
Yes... but rats have been shown to carry [fill in with preferred dangerous bacterium/virus].
And have any other species been shown to harbour this?
I don't know...
And what is the likelihood of infection on exposure? And are there demographic differences?

And we could continue with the exchange ad nauseum. The point is that people will assert something as 'true' or 'fact' whilst in possession of only the flimsiest supporting evidence, effectively delegating responsibility to system-appointed 'experts', not one of whom could ever 'prove' their assertions, but simply fall back on a diverse web of self-supporting statistics, despite there existing a sufficiency of conflicting information. Like solid matter viewed ever more closely, our stock of facts take on a chimerical quality when thoroughly questioned. Selection is essentially based on inculcation, disguised as preference. Binary logic is a tool for the simplest levels only: it does not translate to our real-world macro level. Its application here is doctrinal illusion dressed up as truth by the Rational Materialists who fear the chaotic nature of the deeper reality. The new logic will handle chaos comfortably. Our mind-brain complex must also evolve to a new level, indeed maybe language as we know it will atrophy in favour of a psyche-based communication. After all, it's only logical ;P

Links:

Ternary logic
The Self, the Field, and the Logic of Uncertainty: A Talk with Roy Ascott
The Age of Uncertainty
OS 0 1 2 BASIC
Fuzzy logic
M a y b e L o g i c A c a d e m y
Dualistic Oppositions Generate Material Antagonisms