Jump to content
The Corroboree


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

1 Follower

About Micromegas

  • Rank
    Shaman's Apprentice

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Country

Previous Fields

  • Climate or location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,752 profile views
  1. Micromegas

    Trip sitting search terms

    Looks good Wile E, i'm over at ANU myself. I'm interested to see what you come up with here, and what sort of theoretical grounding you are using. I assume some sort of paper will result? Mostly I'm curious how "trip sitting" as represented on forums, which are largely individualistic and ad hoc, are defined and understood in comparison to closely sanctioned cultural techniques for mediating altered states that may have developed over centuries or much longer - there is a decidedly blurry line between them. Psychologically, this is a perplexing problem and the differential outcomes of participants, of interest, particularly when we start talking about intentional initiation of a "spiritual" states or use to resolve psychological issues. Good luck. Also, those tersheckiis are sweet!
  2. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Hey HD. Maybe i'm confused. There were two plants from the same garden, roseii #1, roseii #2, that are not like the usual roseiis as far as I can tell. I'm going to say I was probably more correct in 2016 than I am now, and so it must be roseii #2. Same as one in the photo above, yes, that is the tip that broke off the auctioned one. Doesn't flower much, if at all, I can't remember it flowering, now you mention it. Halcyon Beast is awesome, super fat, and that is one of the more unusual cactus-modelling photos I've seen!
  3. Micromegas

    Trip sitting search terms

    good suggestions above. variations on "facilitate" are pretty popular. statements with the word "journey". sounds interesting. what type of organisation is the study connected with?
  4. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Hey HD you're talking about the one I sent you a few years back, was it for a forum auction? That one the owner called Roseii #1. Maybe they are grown from Field's seed. Anyway that plant is a stunner, it's the better of the two roseiis from that SA garden, i've come to appreciate it more and more. It doesn't have the flower-bud-to-pup trait. Good to hear yours has some columns. Mine grows pretty slow so not much to prop. Here's the tip I planted after it fell down. Took a while to get going but now looks luminescent in the shade.
  5. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Trichos will start to do this when older, but it is not common for the popular aust clones in my experience until quite advanced (with a few exceptions), they tend to get progressively broader by pupping low off of outside branches, forming a densely packed mass like halycon says. I grew a bunch of seeds from around chavin, Peru, these show mid-column pupping as a trait at an early age, it was surprising. In your case, however, I suspect the plant is seeking light, the lower areoles are too shaded and crowded to produce the hormones for pupping (my guess). If you grow dense bushes at the base of trichos, they will pup higher up, same with any plant really. Shade has big impact on overall plant form, often positive. I have some plants with very interesting shapes because of this, where they pupped 6ft off the ground (PC). When the bushes are removed, the plant starts pupping from the bottom again. In very dense trichos, the lower branches can shade the interior of the plant, so the main columns in the centre, with time will pup higher up. Nice healthy plants. Edit: I have some plants, a Roseii 2 so-called by its owner, that often aborts flower buds and turns them into branches right at the top. it's a consistent trait. I have to cut the buggers off as it's not a stable situation to have branches that high.
  6. Micromegas

    Help with i.d

    aeonium arboreum. probably grown in lots of shade, so does not have the compact rosette typical of these plants. There's a chance it's the red variety but I suspect just from shade.
  7. Fuck man that's awesome. I respect your ability to articulate these things. I pretty much agree with everything you've said there. You're right about this and I agree it's really something. Mind you I never factored punk into the equation. I was enjoying punk back in my ayahuasca days! That's very perceptive and again I think you're right. Personally nature is somewhat my "god" as well. But philosophically I think certain sets of presuppositions have already gone into this that are, as you say, anthropocentric. For me, subjectively, nature may be "god" but objectively I am certain the system of nature (for humans) is always constructed. If it were not, there would be no explanation for the different "natures" of myth and science, than to select one as objective (more true) and the other subjective (less true) (also there is the question of how animals experience nature). Another way of looking at it is if you express nature as a biological system or based on elementary particle physics, it ends up getting "constructed" quite differently. I am not doubting there is an an "independent", "world of nature", only that human cognition cannot perceive it. As such, I do maintain nature is a human construct or mediation. But as for validity of that statement? Well obviously I think its demonstrable from a philosophical point of view, but opinions differ and I appreciate you picked up on the difference. Yes, I do think you know how it goes generally. People misuse quantum physics all the time to make irrational claims about macroscopic reality, when as you correctly say, quantum mechanics is concerned with the microcosmos. But the passage I quoted was not one of those. The main problem of quantum mechanics for philosophy is that it definitely problematises causality and, in the complementarity principle (Neils Bohr), suggests we are unable to visualize both the necessary properties of a thing simultaneously (the wave-particle duality problem). This upsets science's original mechanical model of nature (Newton) as well as philosophy's concept of causality as an a priori facet of knowledge (idealist philosophy) or a permanent attribute of the cosmos (realist philosophy). Einstein himself had a very hard time with this, and he'd already made some significant "philosophical" changes to time and space in the relativity theory. The destruction of the rule of causality and the wave-particle problem has some major implications, even if it only occurs microscopically. Quantum mechanics suggests to me the exact type of cognitive "structuring" I am suggesting for nature. Mankind must always "translate" the unknown, absolute properties of X into a "classical" system of nature where rules can be obeyed and things perceived as definite objects. But at the very basis of things (microcosmos) there may not be any "rules" as such, but largely uncoordinated, unstructured matter (Chaos in the Greek sense). Yes, interesting. I would suggest it is not so much what is smaller or larger in the universe that is important. I agree the actual answer to this question is "irrelevant". It is our ability to speak of such things where speaking is an act of production and objectification. The indeterminacy of the largest and smallest is about the mode of observation being used to operate the world. Cosmology, quantum mechanics, mythology, all end up in the same place, an inability, or rather a productive attempt, to penetrate to the "thing-in-itself", which reflects these well-expressed truisms: ^^ awesome line this one. Absolutely, and as you say this is how we can "do" science. The danger being that some of this positions we think up become dogmatic and dangerous. And this: Is really awesome man. I spend a lot of time on the "culture from nature" problem myself, it is at the heart of all great mythological systems this fundamental transition. I don't think you can find the single point where the transition occurred. But it is necessary to think that it occurred. The homo hybrids is a very interesting take on this. So true. The reason I spend so much time on science is actually to improve what I am able to say about myth. For me myth and science are both systems of symbolic construction (of nature especially) that link back to a certain structure of human knowledge that can never really penetrate directly to things-in-themselves or get properly outside of itself. If we knock one of these forms down as false, all the others are also in trouble (although we can find the parts of each which are false). As Ernst Cassirer has said, if we consider all the forms of knowledge (science, myth, religion etc.) "from the point of view of a system of cultural forms [and] if these forms as a whole really do constitute a systematic unity, the fate of any one of them is closely bound up with that of all the others". Personally, I am convinced myth and science are systematically related, both in their structure (but not content) and perhaps more importantly in their historical emergence. It is important to note here I mean more precisely New World myth. The mythology of the Old World already went through some structuring processes by being committed to writing over multiple generations (Hesiod, Ovid, etc.). But in sum I think you really nailed it, so to speak: This is the crux of it. Very good. I think of this problem as a "transcendental loop". The conditions of thinking the world always return back to themselves. Anthropocentrism is indeed the "big obstacle" but it is also the thing that makes the world knowable to mankind. We are back again to culture-from-nature. We may be doomed to inhabit anthropocentrism until such a time as we really, if ever, "break through". Very clear and perceptive thoughts Sagi.
  8. Micromegas

    What did you do in your sacred garden today?

    jo I wouldn't cut that freaky plant. it's awesome. if you cut it, it may start to grow differently/revert to growing more normally. it's looks so happy and not like it's about to fall over, give some time i reckon and see what it does.
  9. All good sagi. For what it's worth, I think your insights are very perceptive and valuable. The problem occurs when we try to expand on reductions or aphorisms into a system of thinking as such. I agree about the point being something like working out the relations of "objectivity in a sea of subjectivity" as a reduction of complex fields of relations; therefore the requirement for the definition of such relations, such that a philosophical system becomes sensible. I have a particular project which is my "work" that relates to the relation of myth (as that mode of expression belonging to pre-colonial and pre-literate people; i.e. the archaic not the modern "myth") to science through a specific philosophical framework that favours pluralism in the content of objective phenomenological experience. This is based on my categorical belief that pre-scientific experience was actual. This has required a collection of a certain number of rules for experience that define what is objective and which allow veridical judgments on the constitution of objects/events. I took these rules broadly from the "transcendental idealism" of Immanual Kant and the manner of their modification by "Neo-Kantians" to allow for plurality of objectively valid standpoints (viz. not only science is objectively valid) and thus to explain certain components of varying systems of experience (re: altered states, e.g. the "mythical" systems of experience, also but less so the monotheistic "religious" experience), and also where these systems have gone beyond the bounds of sensibility and claimed truth where no "proof" as such can exist (i.e the "breakdown" of objective conditions, in ideas such as God or the soul, or for science the concept of systemicity, taken either in the sense of positive or negative proof, these are indemonstrable but necessary regulative ideas of reason). Now it has become apparent to me that the myth-science dichotomy is necessary as a referential frame in order to ground my own philosophical judgments about experience; more so if I want to pursue the historicization of myth (which is my aim) through the temporal measurement of time performed by science on events it supposes to have determined as accurate representations of the past. A certain groundwork here must be done even to understand the general expanse of measurable linear time; or what experience would be like if time were not measured but remained immanent, viz. "seasonal", as it remains in the mythical conception; and onward to the variable production of knowledge, such as mathematical equations or, in myth, anthropomorphism or magical affect, to determine the content of any phenomenal event against a set of regular "transformations" or laws. All of this requires very specific philosophical problems about objectivity (and subjectivity). Indeed, I thought I had this worked out to some satisfactory degree until I started to really look into the philosophical implications of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and if you are interested there is paragraph below that demonstrates the sort of problems i am thinking on and what philosophy can look like. One might reduce the problem to the question: how do I (we) have (or produce) knowledge of nature? The rebound from that reduction is of course quite as complex and related to your own reduction about objectivity and subjectivity. Now, of course, everyone speculates "philosophically" in the broadest sense. Most people will drop it at some point due to the ever increasing spirals of complexity, especially the layers of problems and their annoying sets of terminologies, counter-examples, counterarguments. etc., and just the burden of the thought process and the extent of the available material. I get disheartened and often want to quit. But like I said I chose it for "work" and in general my enthusiasm usually comes around again after working through some type of stubborn problem - and what actual else would I be doing with my time? But in general we need to be happy with a basic reduction that stops our inferences and allows attention to be drawn after nature as if it subsisted in itself; just, as they say, to exist; here in the purely empirical sense of a being in time and space. I am aware, therefore, that after the structural philosophical problems other issues grade off in the realms of morality and ideology, then what we need, and what we want. But this is where pluralism resurfaces again and where we may have trouble if the system is not predicated on sound principles or lacks notable parameters, as myth in its original preliterate form, or science, contain with respect to "truth". Here the mind wanders at its most vulnerable. For reductions (memes) that capture uncritical dogmatisms as aphorisms (such as relate to race, gender, nationhood etc. as supposed components of nature), build up to become productive ideologies in state systems but are removed from any veridical basis. Here myth and science become "weaponised" against their original intent and indeed against their substantive values. Free of balanced and systematic epistemologies we have a tendency to be corrupted by ideology dreamed up only from instinct and power. I suspect this may be a case for the insightful to be somewhat offensive to make a point, to get beyond dogmatism through free and critical thinking, and what was indeed your original point! And I would say, well achieved at that.
  10. Micromegas

    What It Means To Be Poor

    No, it's fully capitalist and extremely colonial, the problem is we are so blinded by hubris most will not even see the problem and take it as a positive lesson instead. But actually what is hidden in this parable is a justification of the continuity of "more of the same". Here we have a privileged boy - a boy with everything - pining over the fact that he is the poor one! What a joke. His conceited affectation simultaneously justifies the oppression of the actual poor, who in no cases live under the conditions described. This parable operates as a screening mechanism for the privileged, essentially designed to offset guilt felt by colonial oppressors and allow the system to continue to take more than it needs. Thus, it's okay that in our privileged lives we have and take everything for ourselves without regard for the other, because truthfully, we are "in poverty" during this operation while "the poor" continue to live some out idealised version of themselves. It's not them - we're the ones suffering. I don't know how to make it any clearer. There is a colonial/capitalist "inversion" hidden in this story that justifies the dominance of the few over the many. If I am more frank this parable is complete horseshit. It tacitly supports the self-righteous re-appropriation for ourselves of what has been unjustly removed from others.
  11. Micromegas

    What It Means To Be Poor

    I know you mean well, and I know you didn't write it, but I think it's important to consider... this parable is colonial and capitalist propaganda. There is a lesson in this story but it isn't at all what you think.
  12. Micromegas

    Any Bible scholars around?

    Detours Only by taking detours can we exist. If everyone took the shortest route only one person would arrive. There are an infinite number of detours from point of departure to destination, but only one shortest way. Culture consists in detours - finding and cultivating them, describing and recommending them, revaluing and bestowing them. Culture therefore seems inadequately rational, because strictly speaking only the shortest route receives reason's seal of approval. Everything right and left along the way is superfluous and can justify its existence only with difficulty. It is, however, the detours that give culture the function of humanizing life. In the strictness of its exclusions, the supposed "art of life" that takes the shortest routes is barbarism. The full use of the world is only a side benefit of the culture of detours. Indeed, it does not suffice that an act of creation could have produced the world; only then would it contain more than is necessary for merely maintaining being. If the world displays the superfluous, then the world's meaning corresponds to taking the paths of the superfluous: detouring all the way through it. If detours are taken, not everyone experiences everything. But in exchange, everyone doesn't experience the same thing, as would be the case when taking the shortest route. The other way around: if letting everyone take detours succeeds, everything has the prospect of being experienced. The world gains meaning through the detour of culture in it. Or, expressed somewhat more reverently, the world receives confirmation of its meaning in the same way that the many receive confirmation that they are not just a few or, worse still, only one. It is detours that lend intersubjectivity its significance beyond the constitution of theoretical objectivity. In principle, everyone has something in pectore [in the breast] for everyone else, which only he can give away and which allows him to lay claim to what the other person, for his part, has taken ad notam [notice of] along the way. For what other reason, beyond all theoretical objectifications, are only the unique aspects of individuals worth knowing for us? In addition to memoirs and biographies, even the invented lives in epic literature are, from a topographical perspective, utilizations of factually unutilized or as such undescribed detours. In this system for mitigating barbarism called culture, there are naturally also disadvantages. They consist in every path as a detour being the result of an "opinion" or of an affinity to such an opinion. The irreconcilability of the pluralism of worldviews is a risk, but a sufficiently reasonable one. Hans Blumeneberg, Care crosses the river, "Detours"
  13. Micromegas

    Mosiac virus (TMV) Awareness, solutions.

    Do you have some pictures of infected plants and maybe a description of what type of damage it causes. I've seen it from time to time on a very small number of plants, but it has always disappeared without causing any damage. Also I googled mosaic virus to see if I was thinking of the right thing. Of course SAB has one of the first hits with some great info:
  14. Micromegas

    Sydney Subs Still Standing

    This might interest you Freako:
  15. Micromegas

    Any Bible scholars around?

    Yes interesting about the trinity, but as I understand it all three parts represent one consubstantial thing, god and his place as the sole omnipotent being in the universe, whereas binaries belong to those of use who have suffered the fall and must deal with them in praxis, woe is us, god save us. Yes, look, I know very little about this but I would like to know more. I suspect there are some very important historical and contingent factors around the spread of monotheistic or Abrahamic religions, then the spectacular rise of Christianity, then some of its various branches (and of course its horrific effects as a colonial device). Something about the timing must have been right, the rise of farming was way back but certainly moving from hunting/gathering to cultivation must have been massive (as the genesis myth states - you must now tend to the land), Greeks had already transformed mythology into a historical and philosophical system so some abstract reasoning required to form representational statements was in place, Rome was expanding, Jesus may have been a very gifted historical personage. Once initiated in the form of monotheism, the idea of a supreme being is entirely enticing, you could almost not avoid having it as (in Kant's terms) a regulative ideal. Before the rise of science the mind would I suspect have been drawn naturally toward it.