the timboucher experience

I was just reading Bret’s response to the article I wrote about archetypes and complexes and stuff. Delighted to hear that he liked it. For some reason, I really wasn’t at all sure that people would get or like where I was going with that article. Anyway, my fears were unfounded of course.

At one point in his notes, Bretty-boy says:

You seem to be cornering archetypes into myths and stories. Now I don’t know as much as you do about them but I feel like you are on to something bigger with your archetype theories and to put them into such a small box (even if you theorize that stories are life) paints you into a corner. I can feel you onto something but your focus maybe a little too narrow by using these examples. Can you possibly think bigger?

This is me thinking big. This is what I think is the structure of the human mind, and consequently the universe. I believe that archetypes are expressed through all forms in the universe, even like planets and rocks and stars. But to me, its hard to write about, because I don’t know what its like to be a planet or a rock, so I write about the slice of the pie that I’m handed. Something I wanted to point out though, and will come back to in some follow-up article, is that look at ancient sciences, which are now considered just hokey antiquities.

Take astrology, for example. It’s astronomy, but its clothed in the garb of stories and talks about gods and stuff. Why? I think they are attempting to apply archetypal reasoning to the workings of the universe at large. And thats pretty neat. Plus, I think the tarot is a really important system to look at, if you want to see how this way of thinking pervades all pre-modern thought. Its basically a pictorial guided to psychology, and is meant to help you interpret how these things are constellated in you, what forces are being brought to bear invisibly, etc. I’ll come back to it more.

I do like the idea of Bret’s to suggest that possibly this thinking could be applied in other fields. Before he read it, Bret paid me a very high compliment and said something about how he could see me working on some “really important” field, like autonomous computing. I thought this was a pretty funny coincidental thing to say without having read the article, because I feel like this stuff is directly relevant to autonomous computing and the creation of self-governing intelligent systems.

One of my goals in writing all this stuff, in fact, is to use what I have learned about how to think from computers, and try to advance an understanding of how else we could think using them in the future. I don’t know that I always come out and say thats a factor of what I’m doing, but its consistently running in the background of my mind. One reason I may not come out and say it all the time, is that I want to gain perspective on computer-influenced-thinking, so that you can come back to it at some point, and be like, “oh wait, he was talking about computers this whole time?” And then be all like “Damn.” But again, it’s not ONLY what I am talking about, but its definitely an influencing and guiding factor.

Anyway, yeah, also Bret, I don’t know if this is what you mean by “thinking bigger” or not. But to me, this is actually thinking smaller, cause its applying a general approach that I’m building into a specific area. Although I do think its supremely interesting. To me though, the idea that you could show people how their mind works, and by doing that, help them liberate themselves and others from being under the control constantly of hidden forces, or from other groups in society who worked out these ideas long ago, and developed them into systems of group control. Anyway, totally blabbering here. Peace out

• I call it “Liberated Computerism”
• A quote on archetypal possession
• Parasitic Computing
• PLAN: Resurrect Ancient Pagan Gods As Cloud Computing Applications
• “Then it gets interesting” #UBICOMP everyware