Course Outline

DOWNLOAD: Free ebook  (~750 pgs, illustrated, 15MB PDF)

NOTE FOR MAC USERS: Apple’s default “Preview” application does not render this PDF correctly, so you’ll need a good PDF reader, like Adobe’s Acrobat Reader, which you can download here.

Or get a print version of the book from lulu.com for the base price of ~$19.62.  I set the price nearly as low as possible, and only make 2 cents per copy.  Gotta get it back somehow … ;).

And here is a gallery of images from SpinbitZ I, for easy reference in discussions etc.

SZ1 cover image


SpinbitZ Volume I lays out the foundations of this project through an analysis of the embryological structure of pre-conceptual ontological and epistemological forms and deeply operational metaphorical primitives, such as the hidden forms and aspects of the infinite, tripping the common mind into paradox.  It does this partly through an analysis of fundamental mathematics, which can be seen as the most rarified and generalized form of ontological reasoning and intuition.  It takes the reader from a deep embodiment in the fine-structure of the Infinite—with a conceptual and perceptual resolution of the core paradoxes thereof—and guides him or her through the higher-level complexities of an evolutionary and integral Interface Epistemology.

The following is from the Author’s Note of SpinbitZ Volume II (forthcoming), and it will suffice for an intro for the concepts discussed in Volume I and likely to be discussed throughout this course :

By the time I began writing SpinbitZ, Volume I, I had collected about a thousand pages of notes. Half of that (approx., dispersed throughout) was used in the nucleus of the first volume, and I had planned on using the remaining notes for the second. The initial book was to be about ontology (“the territory”, reality, the nature of infinity, etc.) and the second one about epistemology (“the map”, theories of knowledge, etc.) and meta-paradigm science. But given my discovery of the deeply turbulent enfolded nature of the interface between the ontic and epistemic, that distinction, while largely still relevant, is also, oddly, true in the inverse.

While the first volume had an introduction to an Interface Epistemology near the end, it only touched on the ontology, which I had initially wanted to get to; though it did so at the deepest epistemic levels at the interface between them. And while this second volume has the word “Ontology” in the title, it is deeply empowered and enabled by the epistemological efforts of the first volume, and is a continuation of that effort. The turn inward to the roots of knowledge allows the deeper involution to and through its own roots. This is especially true when we get to the implications of what it means to be a fractal.  Simply put, ontological tools are fully epistemic, and epistemological tools are fully ontic. They are inextricable, because ontology has to be based on knowledge, and knowledge is based in reality. To do either ontology or epistemology effectively, one requires an embodied and functional understanding of the interaction and interface between them. In the end, we’re all just ontopistemologists.

And so digging through the roots and nature of knowledge (episteme) in SZI took us on a tour of the perceptual rudiments of conceptuality itself, which (by definition) underlies the very ground of possibility of all (resonant and understandable) human ontologies. My goal, of course, is to maintain as much contact with embodied conscious intelligence as possible. Connecting deeply to the qualitative aspect is absolutely critical to remaining grounded in an evolutionary capacity for the mind to comprehend the reality, especially in the looming fore-shadow of the dreaded and long wished for “Singularity.” And I have seen first-hand that the loss of this connection to evolutionary understanding (e.g. qualia, intuition, causality, understanding, etc.) is fully a failure of the imagination, generally under the weight and eclipse of simpler, and inadequate culturally driven metaphors and instincts (e.g. the “solid bias” underlying classical causation eclipsed—due to its own inadequacy at deeper and wider levels in the material spectrum—by the mathematical and probabilistic physical theories of the quantum, as we’ll explore later).

9 thoughts on “Spin·bitZ

  1. I definitely look forward to this metaphysical exploration – grounding an understanding of the nature of reality into the experiential realm is vital IMO for ‘us’ to imagine a future which, based in such knowledge, can be like nothing to have manifested in this universe before!

    For the deep connection with that which gives rise to all that is and all that it can be to penetrate into the minds and hearts of those in a position to strategically influence human affairs, or conversely, for those capable of embodying such wisdom to be logically in the position of most influence, is the dream of human contribution to the evolution of universal manifestation worthy of our potential.

    But I will just study on and hope – I just wanted to share the song in my heart.

  2. Oh yes, I think it’s just a lack of imagination, but in my forthcoming research I’m finding that the Complexity View (integration of prior forms) shatters the notion that there will be an eclipse in understanding and prediction, and that we are moving radically into immanence and involution to source, and into a laser-like resonance between the ontic and epistemic, which is a new form of epistemic validation much stronger than any hitherto known. It was a VERY exciting discovery for me, and I have yet to fully embody it, but incorporating those notes into the body of SZII will help with that.

  3. Well, hopefully together we can make some headway through the jungle, because at the peak it’s all pretty simple. I just enjoyed exploring the details along the way and tracing out the map.

  4. In terms of the “Singularity” – I think there is a real predicament we as humans are facing – the choice between becoming trans-human cyborgs through the magnification of the rational mind via instrumental engineering of the human condition, and the possibility of a trans-human (supra-mental) being. In terms of the language we have been using in the JB track, the former would result in a condition where technology is enfolded “onto-genetically” inside the cognitive occasion — which means it would pre-constitute our reality, versus, technology remaining in the realm of ontological freedom. The boundary may have already been crossed, however, considering conditions such as morgellons disease and its possible relationship to bio-engineering.

  5. Yes indeed, Bonnitta. I believe it has been crossed. And this is yet more reason to plumb the limits and possibilities of the Rational, Empirical and Technological.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s