When I woke up this morning, my dream ended with Rebecca Patricia Roybal seeing my post about that from the other day and commenting.
In the comment was something like, “yes, but according to ‘0 is inertia and means you gave up trying’ by Vishvakarma Markendaya, by not leaning towards belief or disbelief during the process of truth discovery, not only have you given up trying, but you are actively hindering those on the search path by not providing any partial confirmation or partial challenge, leading to a cascade effect of apathy. Instead, an activist stance of some kind, subject to change of belief when encountering relevant and irrelevant evidence in an active truth pursuit, you continually defeat “apathy by inertia” for even if you disbelieve when you should believe or disbelieve when you should believe, at least you are a changeable part of the global neural network of people discussing critical issues. Disbelief is belief of belief and belief is disbelief of disbelief!”
I replied “woah!”, clicked Like, woke up, made a cup of coffee. Not long after I wrote this message which I’m concluding now.
It was one of the more realistic dream endings I’ve had – and yes it WAS that wordy and no, there’s no author or book by those names. But brains like solving connundrums during dreams sometimes and this seems to be one mine settled on and told me a story.
All true (in my belief) yet interestingly, my very dream was a very post-modern construction partially based upon a post-modernist author, Borges.
When I have interesting dreams, I like to try to remember as much as I can and then trace the metaphors within to various experiences in the prior waking period or the one prior to that.
In this case, I concluded, the “book that doesn’t exist but seems like it could” was from Borges’ chinese “compendium of knowledge” encyclopedia with categories of animals that are impossible.
The mention of apathy is from a conversation I was witnessing and participated briefly in with Jera Wolfe where I mentioned Pathos, Ethos and Logos from the Roman interpretation/distillation of ancient Greek Rhetoric.
Rhetoric is the “power of convincing”, which is what Rebecca in the dream was doing.
and I had been reading the other day about neural networks and one author’s attempt to bridge Bayesian distaste of 0 with a “tri-valued logic” that removes the binary problem of having strictly TRUE/FALSE or BELIEF/DISBELIEF.
The dream stitching it together in such a way was interesting because it was probably one of the _easiest_ I’ve had to decode and not only that, it seems it was spot on, although I have yet to check the “punch line” that I woke up with, ” Disbelief is belief of belief and belief is disbelief of disbelief!”
But it sure sounded good, enough for me to take the time to write it down and work with it.
I keep feeding and refeeding my brain with new stuff which it’s forced to process nightly which might help. I read stuff that is WAY over my head and hope it stitches itself together in the background so I get some kind of “Oh! that’s what that was about!’ later on.
Or it could be coffee’s fault. Or eating a bit of protein before sleep.
No idea But I like to “sleep on problems” and I try to listen to the brain chatter before I open my eyes. There’s not always something there but sometimes there is. Getting out down before it fades away is hard sometimes though.
I do. I participate in FB conversations and/or read something heavy and technical with lots of terms or symbols I don’t fully understand.
Like right now, the dream’s totally gone. But I was able to hang onto it by remember Rebecca’s name, the -1, 0, 1 thing, and the name of the imaginary book she posted a link to in the comment.
I got to my computer at some point later and by hanging on t those few bits of information, once I started writing, it all poured out.
Its a race against time and distraction. A few words about today’s events with someone “pops the bubble” completely. Dreams are definitely a fragile structure for me, easily gone.