The Tendency to Underestimate

This tendency can be followed by overreaction and disproportionate over reaction at that. One might point at Pearl Harbour, 9/11 and the recent Hamas attacks. There was underestimation prior in each case. If something catches people unawares it is an act of terrorism if “they”, do it, or an act of cunning if “we”, do it. Placing thousands of indiscriminate pager bombs in Lebanon to maim and kill Hezbollah was “clever” and in no way terrorism… “Terrorism” depends upon which side you are on. The “allies” firebombed Dresden, hardly an altruistic act.

People, countries, who are prone to arrogance tend to underestimate others. I’ll speculate that Trump has made a miscalculation concerning how people feel concerning the USA and his actions in particular. We shall see.

It is possible that people have underestimated me or that they have overestimated me or that they have judged me spot on. I have perceived that from time to time I have surprised people. I have done things which they did not see coming. I may be mistaken. If they had me sussed, they would have foreseen.

The problem with words like underestimate is that they are linked to competition, winning and even conflict. “Never underestimate your opponent”. The estimation is tied up in an oppositional scenario, there is a presupposition, a desire for victory.

When I was a younger man, I thought I knew a lot more than I actually did. I was full of bullshit and prone to evangelising about science, thermodynamics and veganism. I have hindsight now. But back in the thrall then, I was certain and dogmatic. People in the thrall lack a wider awareness. They do not know what is beyond their ken and may be arrogant and conceited about their self-diagnosed omniscience.

Not so long ago someone “told” me some things about Castaneda and that The Guardians do not exist. He was adamant. As usual I was direly in need of education. People have told me many things. I’ll estimate that in general I get told way more than I am asked. The assumption is perhaps that because I am not a soap-boxing gobshite, I know little or nothing. I do not feel the urge to show off.

I could say that I know no-thing but nobody would understand what I mean by that statement nor get the experience behind it. They would not think to ask what I mean. They might tell me.

People can be markedly unaware as to the extent of what is unknown for them and yet feel entitled to opine thereupon.

I have mentioned the blue books opus in this blog. There may be those that think it to be made up hippy shit. If the contents are real and even quasi-factual then it would be unwise to underestimate the so-called hierarchy, those others call The Guardians of the Race. The Tibetan suggests they differ markedly from Joe Bloggs buying a steak slice at Greggs and from those having a BYOB works event at 10 Downing Street.

People can pooh-pooh out of arrogance and that can be a miscalculation. There is a tendency to pooh-pooh as a knee jerk reaction which may stem from a sense of entitled complacency.

The Tibetan mentions masters as having taken the fifth initiation, this means that even after they become a nirvani there is work to do. If you have never met a putative awakened Buddha, it might be wise not to slag them off, if only on the off chance that they are real.  It might be good to spread your bets.

But of course, those who are fond of the sound of their own voices, when they find themselves in a bit of a hole, tend to keep on digging. They may be unaware because of their underestimation that they have indeed fallen into a hole, a trap of their own making. Even when someone hands them a spade or a shovel, they may not cotton on to the hole hypothesis. Dig baby dig.

This tendency to underestimate is widespread. It pertains a little to an arrogant sense of entitlement.

“Mr Ghandhi, India is British my good man…”

I have never met a “know-it-all” who actually does.

Perhaps one day if people keep telling me what I am, what I know, what I am thinking, what my motivations are and who I am, I will learn.

Then they will be right…

And I can finally sleep soundly…

Where Did the Singularity Come From?

Following on from this morning’s dream I have been reading around cosmogenesis from an exoteric scientific viewpoint including a few articles on quantum loop gravity. It seems to me there are some whopping great gaps. Many of the schema talk of an initial singularity so dense that space-time as we know it in a corporeal and planetary sense was yet to come into being. But a singularity does have a Cartesian dimension of 1, a point. I am not sure a point, a thing, can exist without a no-thing a void.

So, already at singularity you have thing and no-thing.

Where did that singularity stem from? Was if from multiple quantum fluctuations in the true void. Where creation and annihilation operators act on the vacuum to spark particles in and out of matter. There would have to be a lot of fluctuations to create a massive gravitational singularity.

What is the void?

Does it have edges where stuff begins?

Is the void infinite?

If there is no-thing then finite has no meaning, so yes it could be infinite. Inherent here is a trap of dimension. How does the void where there is no-thing go on for ever. Dimension in absence of thing does not exist. A dimensionless void? Is that simply a human conceptual problem where we cannot conceive scale without matter, without stuff?

Some of the articles suggest that space is greater than the current evolving universe and that the matter of the universe is still expanding into that vacuum. The scale is mooted beyond the manifest, even though there is no matter it has space.

How does one envisage an infinite void, where there is absolutely no-thing?

A singularity arising out of a previously manifest universe seems more probable, the crunch of a prior manifest universe(s) into an ultra-dense singularity.

How many universes have there been? Which was the first?

In Toltec “cosmology” the universal spirit, the Nagal, without form contemplated the utter nothingness of the void. Eternity passed even though there was not as yet time. The Nagal noted that for it the no-thing, the void, was very much the known. It noted that for it the thing was the unknown. The Nagal wanted to better understand the no-thing by comparing it to thing. It wanted to find out and set its intent on so doing. As an effect of this cause the void started to stir, it stirred and the first thing was created out of no-thing. Nascent matter was created. The act of manifesting an entire universe so as to contrast thing against no-thing had begun. The Nagal wanted to separate the known, no-thing, into the unknown, thing, in order to learn.

Such an abbreviated verbalisation is consistent with quantum fluctuations, it stirred.

But how do we as carnate beings contemplate the no-thing of void, how do we touch the void out of which creation be-came.

I have used UHV vacuum equipment and ultra-high vacuum is enclosed by stainless steel. That is easy to get your head around. A complete and truly profound vacuum has never been attained on earth. So, any experiment to test for vacuum behaviours tests the behaviour of space in which there is still some matter and which is constrained by the dimension of vessel. We cannot experimentally probe utter vacuum unconstrained by any boundary conditions.

There is no way we can experiment on an infinite void, because in our universe that no longer exits. We are speculating on physics in a complete absence of any matter or dimension, we may be barking up the wrong tree.

Hmmn…

Messes with your swede a little bit…