🎶🎶 I suppose it might be because I spent a lot of time watching Mr. Roger's Neighborhood with my young daughters. Or maybe the excessive time spent prepping my 1990 book Taming the Wild Tube: A Family's Guide to Television and Video - but I have always been a bit more comfortable in The Neighborhood of Make-Believe than in the "real" neighborhood outside my door.
It's not that I do not enjoy and appreciate the wonders of the world in which I live. I do. I am constantly staggered by the beauty of this world. But I am occasionally chagrined by the necessity to distinguish between a fiction and non-fiction view of the world.
My recent post on Harmonic Entanglement -
defines one of my favorite spaces in my personal Neighborhood of Make-Believe so I thought I would share a bit of a ramble through the issues that "harmonic entanglement theorists" would have to confront once that became an established technology and academic discipline. Like all sciences, these theorists would be guided by things they "wondered about." So I'll go that way.
Remember to be “Harmonically Entangled” (HET) means that the string-based chords of two entities are sympathetically linked, a close personal relationship.
I wonder if: Folks who are physically related as evidenced by shared DNA, like siblings cousins, etc., are more prone to be harmonically entangled than entities with no such physical relationship.
The argument of "nature versus nurture" would follow us into the world of Harmonic Entanglement Theory. Does the intense weight of shared DNA enhance the possibility of Harmonic Entanglement [HET]? At the moment I'm inclined to believe that shared DNA increases the possibility of HET. So I'd say probably. If we consider that our DNA permeates the vast majority of our cells, and our "blood kin" share varying degrees of that DNA it is logical that those shared DNA structures would vibrate harmonically in those related entities increasing the possibility of entanglement. Which might shed some light on the "special relationship" that often seems to be the case with twins.
However, it is important to realize that physically related entities often share a close common "growing up" environment - where that "nurturing" element occurs - which can result in competition and conflict which might actually reduce the inclination toward entanglement.
I wonder if: Familiarity breeds harmony? Or, do periods of extended proximity. enhance the possibility of HET? Again I am inclined to think so, assuming that the folks in "extended proximity" are there because they want to be. For example, college roommates who started out strangers, but eventually decide to move off campus to a shared apartment - not a romantic relationship, but "close friends" who have become HET. Similarly, folks who work together for extended periods of time - particularly if they work together to solve mutual tasks. The potential downside of this possibility for HET is competition. If the co-workers are in competition for advancement or rewards then the odds for HET decline.
I wonder if: HET can exist with other "lifeforms." Again, I think so. Our pets are the best examples. I'm a dog person. And dogs are often cited for their ability to provide unconditional love, which could be seen as code for HET. Contrarily, I am not a cat person - and cats are often cited for their "independent nature." Maybe code for not inclined to HET with me. Although, I am sure cat people would strongly object to my assessment. But their inclination to reverse the perception re cats and dogs, would not argue against the possibility of HET with other lifeforms. I'm sure there are folks out there who would speak up for hamsters and ferrets.
I would, however, point out that HET with non-human life forms is a two way street, which, I assert, should rule out exploring HET relationships with non-domesticated creatures. There are sad, and terminal, examples of those who sincerely believed they were harmoniously entangled with wild carnivores only to belatedly discover that they were - when push came to shove - dinner.
I wonder if: HET can exist with non-sentient entities. This is where things can get rather strange. First, I would define non-sentient entities as entities without biology - which conveniently avoids some of the fascinating communication that occurs between plants, insects, etc. I, tentatively, would further divide non-sentient entities into entities created with communicative intent - aka the arts. And pragmatic entities - entities intended to serve our pragmatic needs - shelter, clothing, etc., Maslow's physiological and safety needs.
First, those entities created with communicative intent. Here is a good place to remind ourselves that Harmonic Entanglement occurs at the string level, when the strings that create and define one entity are harmonic - play a symphony that is in tune with - the strings of another entity. So here we are considering the relationship between us - our dominant chord - and the strings, the dominant chord - of a creative/created artifact - paint, stone, clay, etc. My, delightfully data-free personal inclination, is to assert that such a harmonic relationship - an HET - can exist between a work of art and an individual. And possibly an indirect HET between artist and observer facilitated by the art work.
The "evidence" for me is in my reaction to art forms that literally move me - either internally or physically. Music that calms me, helps me sleep - or gets me up to clean the kitchen or down to the treadmill to do my "steps." For me the paintings from the Hudson River School are the visual equivalent of nocturnes - they calm me. My own art - which makes me chuckle or sigh.. . . I could go on, but we are in the realm of the purely subjective here and you need to supply your own examples.
Second, those pragmatic entities - "things" created to serve our physiological and safety needs. It will probably not surprise you, but I am going to assert that HET relationships are possible with these entities. Perhaps it is because I look for them, that I think I see them. My daughter's relationship to her lost stuffed bunny, my stuffed panda that holds my head at the perfect angle to read my iPad in bed, a family member's affection for an aging car, rarely driven but cherished, my wife's affection for her extensive collection of cookbooks, my red sweatshirt with its perfect pockets and familiar hood.
These are all manufactured entities - but that does not mean they are not, in every element of their construction made up of [at the tiniest most fundamental level] strings - those minuscule vibrating elements that manifest a chord that may, somehow, strike a responsive chord with us.
I wonder how: We can become harmonically entangled with those pragmatic, non-sentient entities. I'm saving this for last because it is probably the strangest. I think the best analogy is RFID tags - radio frequency identification tags. I'm going to steal a couple definitions from the FDA website. In RFID -
- Every tag contains a microchip (integrated circuit) to store data and an antenna to send and receive radio signals.
- Communication: An RFID Reader emits radio waves, which trigger the tag to transmit its stored information back to the receiver.
Here is my thinking as to how to translate that into my notion of how we become harmonically entangle with pragmatic entities:
All entities - bees, bears, and boards and beer - have within them a "chord" by virtue of the vibrations of the strings that underly every atom of their make up. Those quiescent chords are the "tags."
We are the "readers" that, as we touch, hold, observe, interact with the quiescent pragmatic entities, triggering the tags, awakening the chord of the pragmatic entity and make the HET possible - hence we become entangled with bunny, our MG, a red sweatshirt.
And that, were I an Harmonic Entanglement Theorist when such things were possible, would be my story, and I'd be sticking to it!
TTFN.
No comments:
Post a Comment