Re: [ET2] art

Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
>
>
> I am much better at the art thing, but I've run into something: I can
> work at details, but to do strong art it is necessary to hold the
> whole work in the mind at once, and when I do that with something
> complex, my circuits burn out immediately...
>
> I've always had problems with complexity. If I have to think of many
> things at once, I get completely confused.
>
> Yours, Eolake
>

How weird! Just a couple of days ago I posted a diatribe about complexity to the PS group.

I shall cross the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and re-post this.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PS] Complexity ...
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:05:14 +0100
From: SFX
Reply-To: ProjectSanctuary_at_yahoogroups.com
To: ProjectSanctuary_at_yahoogroups.com

Hmm ...

One of the greatest breakthrough understandings I've ever had as one of
those mini-enlightenments was to understand that in a moment of
confusion, it is the correct thing to do to INCREASE THE COMPLEXITY,
rather than to try and reduce it.

It's funny how counter-intuitive that seems when you first try it; but
it's not counter-intuitive, but basic brainwashing from human societies
who think they can figure out the Universe by reducing the variables to
a human-manageable (consciously manageable) size.

Increasing the complexity might sound technical, but it's natural and
very easy to do. It is also interesting to note that a whole lot of
things, if you widen the receivers out, immediately make sense when with
reduced complexity they never can, and never will.

Like there is a bloke and his behaviour seems nonsenical - until you
take his family into consideration. All of a sudden, this already
immensely complicated system that is the bloke and his problems clicks
into perspective and it all makes sense, simply because you're taking
the alcoholic father, the beaten mother and the fact he's the first born
into consideration.

Put the family in context (by increasing complexity to the society they
live in) and now that makes perfect sense in a cause-and-effect
directness that is stunning.

This works for maths equations, for running away from a lion, and for
most things in between and sideways on, as well.

It's just a question of remembering this, because of that old
entrainment that less complexity = more control. Which is complete
rubbish even in the short term.

So my Sanctuary group of friends has been steadily growing over the years.

First it was one, then two, now we're in the dozens.

New ones come and the old ones don't seem to want to leave or dissolve
themselves into nothingness, so there's more and more and the complexity
is rising as they all interact with each other.

Another guy turned up over the weekend and I'm getting nervous now.

What did I do?

Look for some Sanctuary pals to sack to "keep the numbers down".

The screaming of blue murder, however, was so intense that I had to stop
and think, and I remembered the deal that you should move TOWARDS more
complexity, and not away from.

So I took a deep breath and simply added the guy to the crew, even
thought that caused a lot of weirdness all around.

But even as the dust hasn't settled yet, to increase the complexity even
by just a little, another ONE, there's already a pattern I can see.

I finally understood that all those soldiers are like a body guard for
me personally, they are protection.

It's insane with hindsight that I never got that, especially considering
how they are dressing very much alike, a uniform of sorts.

I guess every queen needs her own Black Wing of bodyguards or something.

Now I wouldn't have noticed that if it wasn't for the fact that the new
guy wasn't a soldier.

This is a very, very fascinating principle of mapping reality.

You can't map reality on a singular occurrence, not if you want to find
out about patterns over ideosyncratic events.

And if all your men are soldiers, you don't think that's very strange
until one turns up who isn't - and thereby illuminates the cohesion of
the group, showing you that you're not just dealing with separate trees,
but indeed, with an entire forest.

The amazing thing is of course that in Sanctuary, I can spend time
separately with all of them SIMULTANEOUSLY, so there is no fear of
overwhelm.

I was just thinking way too human entrained, woman entrained, societal
entrained.

And I forgot that if you want the real good stuff about universal
patterns, you MUST increase the complexity or else it won't work - both
sequentially, and simultanously, of events and unfoldments.

I was going to close there but one more thing, if only for the record.

This also works for an individual. We tend to cut our life lines up into
segments - baby, child, pre-adolescent, adolescent, pre-op, post-op,
single, married, divorced, grandma, before and after I moved to Canada
and all the rest. Working and retired.

Yet the fact is that our lives actually don't make any sense until and
unless you widen it all out and stop staring at the isolated big events
that have become unanimous with "change" (before and after the war, as
it were) and instead take all the evidence across time - to find the
real big patterns, what has ALWAYS remained the same, because that is YOU.

Increasing the complexity doesn't mean anything is made more
complicated. It means that the intake of evidence becomes greater, that
more facts are being taken into consideration, rather than fewer.

It's a good move and I recommend it highly.

Thanks for listening, folks :-)

SFX

========================================

           
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 05:44:58 BST