EIK - Session 3 Part 4
It is very sharp industrial all the tools that cannot be produced by one man. I want you to think then, I said all those heaps of artifacts are the ones that could be produced by one man, and this industrial one is in a sense a very new one. And when I have my definition of the industrial tool versus the craft tool, I come to a very interesting discovery, which is that the first industrial tool of man was the spoken word. It required communication between human beings. So instead of saying "In the beginning was the word," I said in the beginning of industrialization was the word." By virtue of this human beings could integrate their experiences. I'm sure this communication that was pre-sound words of men, there was no question about it. But he had to be able to communicate. Communication, then, is from one to another, where you compound your experience. This brings about this industrial tool.
O.K., now, I gave you then the industrial tool, and with the absolute clean cleavage between the two types, and it begins to give me great insights. Now you can understand why I find it very misinformative, belittling, to speak about industrialization only in terms of a corporation making money, where a relative few may own shares they gamble and put up some capital, and buy some equipment made by incredible numbers of human beings, and they find ways of turning the productivity of the many to the advantage of the few. And that this goes on must not in any way let us lose insight in the fundamentals. So the industrialization is absolutely fundamental to Universe and the technology absolutely fundamental. And it is, how do we use the information and all the integration of the information we are getting by virtue of those words that makes it possible, then, to and with the written word you could communication from generation to generation. SUDDENLY ABLE TO COMPOUND. So, I find industrialization is then the, in contradistinction to the craft the craft is inherently local, inherently limited. It is limited to that little individual the length of the time of his life. And different parts of our planet are very, very different, so he might be born for instance in the South Seas versus being born in Finland the conditions are very, very different. And this little individual only has little legs and he can only cover a certain sweepout of area in a total lifetime, and he doesn't have time to see how much room he can cover because so much of the time he is picking up food. And he notices some back that he stays pretty local. Human beings, then, the craft tools are inherently local and very limited. Limited to a lifetime. Industrial is inherently comprehensive, embracing all the information gained by all human beings that has ever been communicated, one to another, in all of the history of man. So the leverage advantage, what we can do industrially, versus what we can do in craft, is just incredible! Again, I shutter when I hear people talking about industrialization "we must go back right to craft.." You can't do it you'd have to give up words apparently, because the words are the most beautiful technology.
This is obviously, you are drifting into oblivion very rapidly. So I see this extraordinary designed accumulation of the most incredible information, an extraordinary capability has been developed for you and I to sit here in this room. It's night time, but there are lights all kinds of lights. And that we are making a recording of what you and I are thinking together here so that it can be communicated this can be sent around the world at 186,000 miles a second! Whatever way we are willing to be truthful and thoughtful, with the reality of our moment, realizing our reality world which we know very little about. We're just trying to be as absolutely truthful as we can. These are the things we have to go on. So I must be very sure that you understand my word, how I use that word. And that we are trying how we avoid the fear and ignorance of looking out for me, of looking out for my side that brought about the money making and the exploitation that brought about this negative viewpoint of society regarding its technology and the enormous coordinated contributions of all humans all before us to this moment, which we exist.
Our responsibility is very great. We have an incredible responsibility. Now, I say, the ignorant man can do things that are seemingly very offensive. The people who do what to me is rated by society as very offensive, I say they have to be very, very innocent to do it, otherwise they would be too embarrassed themselves. In other words, there has to be a lot of sensitivity has been shut off in one way or another. They have been starved of sensitivity, or whatever it may be that such things could go wrong.
Now, I'm going to veer away from what I've been giving you, which is really, it's very generalizable, what I'm talking about could really go on, on other planets, under other biological other biosphere conditions where there needed to be a local sensing organism. There could be somekind of local sensing organism that might be able to get on very well in extraordinary heat, that our organism couldn't get on at where we have been designed primarily, in this hydraulic designing. So maybe it would be some other kind of liquid, maybe mercury for blood, or something like that. There are ways in which designs can be accommodated for any part of the Universe where local sensing organisms could be operating, and might be then, have been given the same access to generalized principles, the capability to apprehend relationships between, that are not of. In other words, I think the monitoring that can go on would look very, very different in any other part of the Universe.
I'm now going to seem to change subjects fairly abruptly, but not really so. Because I would like to think about the human organism. The human as a design and see if we can find any other discrepancies where society is prone to make this explanation. It's an easy way to want to talk, and say, where the explanation is a little different. I mentioned earlier, human beings, then, having a proclivity to want to explain things monologically so they would like to find THE building block. And one reason why they probably, the Platonists and so forth, did not really realize that you could combine the tetrahedron and the octahedron to fill all space, and that the space filling was inherently complementary.
So I said, we only have complementarity come into physics in 1922. We don't have the knowledge of the complementaries are not mirror images of one another until the Nobel Prize was given in l956 a very, very recent event.
So, you and I know this, and so we can think quite differently when we look for these complementaries of one another. Now, human beings, long, long ago, evolved words for concepts, and there are certain concepts that I find are very, very important to reconsider very thoroughly. I have something I call a PATTERN INTEGRITY and I find that pattern integrity is something operative independent of the local phenomena that inform you and I of the presence of that pattern integrity. And here is the way we are going to find ourselves on an experimental basis, what I mean by pattern integrity.
I am going to take a manila rope of a given diameter and given number of strands, and taking a piece of nylon rope of the same diameter, same number of strands. I'm going to splice the nylon into the end of the manila rope, and then to the nylon rope I'm going to splice in a cotton rope of the same diameter and number of strands.
I'm now going to take a hold of the beginning end of the manila rope, not the spliced end, and I'm going to lead it, making a circle like this, make one circle one complete cycle. And then I'm going to make another cycle, still holding on to my rope, and I hold on to the circle I've already made, hold that in this hand, and I run my rope through, I make another circle in another plane. If I were to make a circle in one plane and then another plane, and then a circle in the same plane, it becomes what you call a "coil." But when I make one circle in one plane and then in another plane, with leading the end through it I have then what we call an interference, and that is the simplest known knot. I now have two ends of the rope with this interference of one circle with the other; and if I pull on it the knot tends to contract it gets to be a very interesting condition to Universe where we find there are the mass interattractivenesses of those spherical islands of the planets and so forth, so when the two are pulling one another, if one of these interferences occurs, then it makes things get tighter. So this is the thinking that goes into Einstein's thinking about energy as mass,
where the energy then gets tying back interfering with itself, and tying itself up in knots, in contradistinction to energy being released radiantly. How can it knot itself up? By interferences. As you look to tensegrity structures with me, they must be closed, they must come back to themselves. These are interferences it is interference patterns producing interstructural stabilities, interference patterns.
Now, I'm not going to that spliced set of ropes manila, nylon, cotton. I'm going to make the knot rather just loosely, I'm not going to pull on the two ends I've got it on the end of the manila rope, and now I'm using my hand and closing it around the rope I'm going to shove the knot along, keep massaging it along, so I must massage it until it gets to the end of the manila, and now it gets on to the nylon. I keep massaging it along and it goes off the end of the nylon, onto the cotton. I keep on massaging it and finally it goes off of the end of the cotton disappears. I can, now, the rope didn't do anything itself. My hand lead the rope and my hand did what my brain and my mind asked it to do. I had a pattern that I was familiar with and I wanted to explore that pattern. So I am responsible for the pattern. My mind is actually visualizing what I did in that patterning, not what my hand did, and not what the rope did. Now what I've learned here is, I've done what moved this knot along was that the knot could not be identified as being manila.