Notes on Transcendental Vectors (v): Science and Technology

Science is the means of trying to apply accurate concepts to the vector field. The concept should not be mistaken for the  vector field. However unlike the standard Korzybski map is not the territory, Narp epistemology must always accept the possibility that the map interacts with the territory literally. This is the ‘magick’ obtains arm of the agnostic disjunction: magick obtains/does not obtain. Under this option whilst it is totally accepted that the general behaviour of existence is that the map and territory should not be confused, what also must be taken into account is the way in which once a kind of being (like a Narp) comes into existence and starts making complicated systems to understand the vector field, the concepts and the names it uses for the vector field regions actually start to affect the vector fields themselves.

Natural objects and Narp made objects operate in slightly different ways in relation to vectors though both fit the vector model. Science (in a broad sweep) is the closest description we can forge of the restraints of the vector field and ways in which it shows itself as categorisable. Technology (Narp made objects) is objects made out the existing vector field that may already be conceptually attached at a science level that facilitates the doing of something. The likelihood that a vector field region is not already conceptually attached is slim but possible e.g. if somehow we don’t have a generalised ‘stone’ concept and go straight to calling it ‘hammer’ (a technology).

The scientific unfolding of the vector field into greater detail sometimes creates linguistic confusions i.e. if we had two metals indistinguishable phenomenologically (as a vector they both take the same concept), then at an atomic level we are able to distinguish them, we say one really is this metal and the other one that was maybe mined in this region, is not. Historically was it always not that metal? No, it was that metal, the choice was arbitrary as to which one was the real one, the phenomenological criteria that grammatically grounded the conceptual attachment to the larger vector are not wrong, they are just the limits of the time. The deeper description of the vector is not a correction, it looks like a correction because we choose to say that one metal is the real one . This does not mean we cannot look upon some vector descriptions as historically erroneous. Using the concept phlogiston to describe some of the vector region was fruitful up to a point but ultimately the vector field did not behave as the phlogiston  concept wanted it to. One might be able to generate some synchronistic effects by trying to apply the phlogiston concept (concept interference) but generally the vector field will resist the application.

Technology is always substrate independent, unless the substrate is part of the description e.g. a titanium hammer requires that that the vector field behave both in accordance with the titanium concept and the hammer concept. Technology, whether it’s spanners, tables, phone, cars, often suggests a certain appearance either in one culture or across cultural zones. This is the accreted archetype. Its existence is formed by the reflection of usage item into common type. This accreted form often creates a confusing appearance that the form of the concept is this. However this is incorrect. Technology is substrate independent: a gravity manipulator hammer is still a hammer.

‘This is my great grandfather’s special pen’ describes the vector field in a certain way. Only one region of it is actually described by this concept. But the accretion of it is separable from the vector field as well as being attached to a region of it (even if that region has temporally passed). If the actual vector region has been replaced by a counterfeit and I do not know, the accretion of  then pen continues to be attached to the vector. This then becomes a curious hybrid magick object unintentionally. To me I still retain the pen and imbue the vector with the accretion of the story of the pen. In this way it actually becomes infected with the concept of the original pen and might produce interference to that effect.

Pneuminous threads weave strangely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s