# Cassandra Fable – Sine Wave

Cassandra was finishing up her class on Differential Equations at the University of Texas at Arlington.

The students were getting their things together and a Christian asked an Atheist.

“So, you really don’t believe in God? Do you believe you have a soul?”

Cassandra stopped. Gestured for them to look at the board.

She wrote the phrase “THIS IS A BULLSHIT TAUTOLOGY” across the top of the chalk board.

Beneath it she drew an X axis, a Y axis and a sine wave starting at zero.

In the positive “Y” half of the graph she wrote “Being.”

In the negative “Y” half of the graph she wrote “Not Being.”

She labeled the X-Axis “Time.”

She turned and looked at them. Then she returned to the board and wrote.

“The average of the sine wave is 0 across infinity.”

She looked at them. Turned and wrote again.

“The starting POINT is (0.0).”

She turned and looked at them again. This time with attitude and wrote two more lines.

“A point is that which has no part.” – Euclid

“Soul’s do not exist, therefore a soul is also that which has no part,” – Cassandra

“Therefore Point = Soul.

She turned and looked at them for a full ten seconds pointing at her quote, then she laughed out loud as she erased the board. She then walked out of the room, her heels clicking down the hall with a tone of joyful clarity.

The boy checked out her ass as she left and made a wish to God himself.

He finally figured out what she was really saying in his forties. It was the memory of Cassy’s ass that brought it all back to him.

He was deep like that.

The girl got a degree in engineering and became a minister’s wife.

## 48 thoughts on “Cassandra Fable – Sine Wave”

1. I can imagine a beautiful ass THANK GOD!!!
I just sent you a graphic of beingness on mail, cause I couldn´t copy it to this blog, but the curve will not show if you look at it on line, you have to unload it as zip and then open it. It is an asymptote who tends to infinite creativity at zero beingness and in the other axis tends to infinite beingness at zero creativity

• “I can imagine a beautiful ass THANK GOD!!!”

Yes and a Mandelbrot Set and another million beautiful natural things! And I like very much your curve. It is elegant and simple. I imagine it representing the full spectrum of life with each end continuing on and with what we think of as conscious life taking up a small bit of this bandwidth. Plus I imagine it representing an impossibly small and comparatively dead little slice similar to the way one looks at dead tissue under a microscope. What we see for a moment can be a poor representation of the roiling and seething activity that is life. If I understand anything about Heisenberg, I think this was his uncertainty. The uncertainty of measuring really small, really large, and really fast things in a universe that is flicking by so quickly that no human perception can contain it save for the mind, and then not even that. And we are a part of this flicking, flicking and flicking. And I like Nietzsche and Phil (KG) who embraced both our wondrous ability to grasp, to understand, and at the same time the utter mathematical impossibility of transcendence. This is my understanding from Vinaire’s suggestion to study The Teachings of Mahamudra (simple sample text). I found many good advices, and one in particular which applies to my thoughts about this curve is “immanence without hope.” While I love understanding, I am beginning to believe that our Greater Purpose may be to embrace the Satyr Play that is life regardless of any understanding. Rather than aspire to a personal breakthrough epiphany, I’ve turned my attention to the Great Ones who have seemed to have “nailed it.” What is it that they have nailed? For me, it seems to be an embracing of every single thing. It is becoming for me the new meditation that I love.

• Great post! Thanks for the link to the Buddhist text. I really enjoyed it.

• You sure are welcome KG. Yeah, Vinay turned me onto the Mahamudra. Compared to some Hindu and Buddhist that I’ve taken a crack at, the Mahamudra seems elementary, easy to read, easy to understand.

I’m really enjoying the fulcrum your blog has been providing. It is fresh. The current discussion of Nietzche with Vinay is beneficial to me as one more look at someone who (borrowing from the Army) “Be All That You Can Be” seems to have a limit, doesn’t it? There seem to me many mental giants who were published which statistically means to me that there were many more mental giants who were never published. But simply picking and comparing the metaphors of each to one another to me is fruitful. And in context of the latest posts between you and Vinay, is reinforcing in my my own more long term model as life of species rather than as life of individual. I’ve pondered both immanence and transcendence and no longer subscribe to a strict dichotomy but rather see them as degrees of God on the short term and conversely on the long term. Like a slow moving hour hand, we cannot see its progress at a glance. Immanence for me is the greatest illumination that we can hope for within a lifetime, while transcendence may not be observable for many generations if that. As the universe and as consciousness increases, then transcendence might occur but only observable with regard to one generation over another. Anyway, if mathematical sets change in scope, the so might consciousness. Written another way, the Übermensch may appear but not in a lifetime.

• “Immanence for me is the greatest illumination that we can hope for within a lifetime, while transcendence may not be observable for many generations if that.”

Yes.

Thank you for that. Very, very helpful.

• “. . . while transcendence may not be observable for many generations if that.”

And maybe they aren’t the same thing to be compared at all. Maybe today’s immanence, if it has grown, transcends yesterday’s immanence and maybe that’s all there is to that. Or as you said in “going down” maybe today’s immanence is diminished from yesterday’s immanence.

Then there are concepts like Higg’s Field. Is the Higg’s Field immanent but extending only to the edge of the physical universe, or does the HF transcend the physical universe, providing a more universal backdrop on which that reaction can take place?

There’s only so much we can do with metaphors! hahaha

• .” What is it that they have nailed? For me, it seems to be an embracing of every single thing. It is becoming for me the new meditation that I love.”

Oh yes. That is the new meditation that I love, yes Sir.
For moments, I get the feeling of being part of an infinitely beautiful Universe, which I
can´t even begin to understand.

Just one little detail wasn´t clear for me, brother. And I must confess that I´m a bit worried about it: Are you really comparing a beautiful ass with a Mandelbrot set ? Does your wife knows?

I´m going to study now about immanence without hope, but I sure as hell hope it has nothing to do with beautiful asses, No Sir.

• “Are you really comparing a beautiful ass with a Mandelbrot set ? Does your wife knows?”

Have you looked at the curves on that Mandelbrot Set? Whew! It is my surreptitious and secret infinite porn within a porn stash! (shhh, tell no one!)

• I´m going to study now about immanence without hope, but I sure as hell hope it has nothing to do with beautiful asses, No Sir.

It doesn’t! (I hope)

• “I´m going to study now about immanence without hope . . . ”

I love ” . . . immanence without hope.” For me, it is the poetic expression of Godel’s (mathematical) Incompletness Theorems. It tells me (in my own words) that all is All (immanence) and not to hope for transcendence for that is a speculation which cannot be attained from the subset of the superset. For me, it is like a permission to stop grinding away at the irrationality (again mathematical ir-ratio), permission to stop, look, listen and absorb or permeate the frame of reference in which I find myself. I just can’t say little enough about it! and I keep blabbing on anyway. “Immanence without hope” is not an apathy at all but a permission to fully enjoy a beautiful ass! (for others, this is a reference to Rafael’s and my joking conversation). Permission to enjoy a moment without additional expectations.

• Great post Chris, I enjoyed A LOT The Teachings of Mahamudra they are The Real Thing to me, Thanks a lot !

• You sure are welcome brother! Vinay turned me onto that poem a couple months ago and I really like it too.

• “Have you looked at the curves on that Mandelbrot Set? Whew! It is my surreptitious and secret infinite porn within a porn stash! (shhh, tell no one!)”

OK, I won´t tell. Just try not to fall in love with a Mandelbrot Set, please. A heartbreak within a heartbreak is not something easy to transcend.

“It doesn’t! (I hope)”
Thank God! (I hope!!) 🙂

• “I like big MandelBROTS and I cannot lie…”

• “I like big MandelBROTS and I cannot lie…”

You…..PERVERT !!!

2. KG, How do you understand the following from ZARATHUSTRA’S PROLOGUE (4)?

“What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER–GOING and a DOWN–GOING.”

I do not understand the terms OVER–GOING and DOWN–GOING. Does it mean that, as a bridge, man goes over the abyss? And then progress occurs as movement down that bridge? Can you explain? Thanks.

• That bugged me a lot at first actually. That “bridge to the superman” sounds familiar no?

Yeah, I think that Scientology’s Hubbard stole from Nietzsche and dissed him in his own writings. Best. Villain. Ever.

Zarathustra uses the terms “over going and down going” in an individual and collective sense in multiple places. I think in the first chapter he also says “Thus began Zarathustra’s down going” when he began his trek toward town.

In that usage it appears that he has transitioned into that phase of life (in hist thirties) where the body begins to age downward. Just like how chess masters peak in their thirties and begin to get worse rather than better.

So …

1. Overgoing/Down-Going for Man. He posits we will eventually evolve out of this version of the human race and become extinct. Hence, an overdoing (evolving upward) and a down going (extinction).

2. The Ubermench will also go through an over-going and a down-going.

3. Each of us, individually, has an over-going and down-going.

To Zarathustra, WE are the bridge to the Superman like Australopithicus was a bridge to us. We get to create Superman but not BE Superman. We get to have iPhones and blog communities to enhance our understanding in amazing and humbling ways, but Lucy does not.

So if Lucy (Australopithicus) can be HAPPY we get to have a blogosphere, and love her own down going GOOD FOR HER! Cuz she knows that …

Even the Godlike Homo Sapien, who can create space ships and pink duct tape, has a down going.

And THAT courage makes all life equal and noble in its own way. Even the ugly parts.

And if a Vinaire happened ONCE he can happen again.

So, when Zarathustra discusses his own “down going” it is an expected and embraced and loved thing.

So our over-going and down-going is lovable. And nobody will get that understanding like the Superman – yet we all CAN benefit from it because of HIS down going.

Or as he says over and over in every stanza of Zarathustra’s poem “The Seven Seals” (Chapter 60) ( This is probably also an indirect admission to Nietzsche being gay):

“Oh, how could I not be ardent for Eternity, and for the marriage-ring of rings—the ring of the return?
Never yet have I found the woman by whom I should like to have children, unless it be this woman whom I love: for I love thee, O Eternity!
For I love thee, O Eternity!”

• “Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man. Thus began Zarathustra’s down-going.”

Down-going seems to be a movement from Übermensch to man. In that case Over-going would be movement from animal to Übermensch over the abyss that is man. Haha!

• Down-going could also mean an effort by Übermensch of ineteracting with man to pull him toward Übermensch.

• Nietzsche is purposely vague and open to many interpretations.

“A Book for All and None.”

I see “Zarathustra once more becoming a man” to be that of a hermit leaving his hermitage and entering society.

But Zarathustra did speak differently to his disciples than he did to himself.

• “But Zarathustra did speak differently to his disciples than he did to himself.”

So did Hubbard and maybe Jesus. Yet Jesus embraced the cross as the story goes, while Hubbard embraced life on the lam.

• Ah, right. And something else to keep in mind when reading Nietzsche is he lived and wrote in the middle to late 19th century, dying decades before Hubble and explicit (not implicit) genome research and discoveries. We have transcended the scientific knowledge of the 19th century.

• EXACTLY. Another reason people don’t understand him. They view him through a modern lens. He said a lot of things in his writings that he probably wouldn’t say if he was alive today.

Regarding Jesus, I strongly suspect Jesus was a cult leader like Hubbard. When I read the gospels, I see all the tricks being used by him on his peeps. It would NOT be hard for a cult leader to get a disciple to get bloodied up in disguise and then die in his place “for God’s glory.”

• And then fake his resurrection as easily as his death.

3. KG: “His best work is “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” I suggest reading a chapter a day. HE IS EASY TO MISUNDERSTAND.”

I think I am finally getting the hang of what Nietsche is saying. I am being assisted in this by the application of mindfulness, in addition to help from you. My primary observation is,

To Nietzsche, Übermensch was a state in which man was congruent with his natural self. A resolution of the social, cultural, and moral contexts was necessary to evolve man toward Übermensch.

“Down-going” seems to be a movement down into abyss that is man.

“Over-going” would be movement from animal to Übermensch, over the abyss of man.

“Earthly” would be seeing things as they are without the distortions caused by assumptions, expectations, speculations, etc.

“Superearthly” would be believing in things as viewed through the filter of assumptions, expectations, speculations, etc.

Man is an in-between phase. It is something to experience fully (down-going), and to be overcome (over-going).

Those who are able to experience themselves fully as man (down-going) are the one who will be able to overcome the state of man (over-going) and move beyond it.

.

4. “Those who are able to experience themselves fully as man (down-going) are the one who will be able to overcome the state of man (over-going) and move beyond it.”

I agree with that mostly.

But regarding your definitions, I see them differently – AND THIS IS BY DESIGN.

He wants us to argue. He’s trying hard to be a third party to a fight.

And because he lies and is unclear in his grandiose notions, he forces us to come up with a wide range of interpretations.

It’s a “Book for All and None.”

He could care less if we understand what Zarathustra really says to himself. And if we do, it leaves us right where we started – stuck with questions for answers.

I think the point Nietzsche aims for is that he wants his readers to struggle like he did. He wants to offend their stuffy notions and make them rile. This was a frail, sickly, gay man in the 1800s where his notions and sexuality (We aren’t sure if he was gay, but he seems to lean that way) carried jail time in his world.

I find it liberating that he chose statelessness.

He legally separated himself from any government. As much as his sickly body allowed, he at least tried to be Zarathustra.

According to the book “What Nietzsche Really Said,” he was full of pity in his personal life. This is why Zarathustra hates it so. Zarathustra’s vilification of pity is Nietzsche’s griping about his own vice. In many ways, he was a sissy boy who would cry at hurt puppies and not go outside and play ball with those mean boys.

The point of it all for me? To UNDERSTAND Nietzsche and his point of view. Not believe in it necessarily, but understand, at least intuitively, what Zarathustra only told himself.

• KG, It doesn’t really matter if you see the “defnitions” differently as long as they make us understand the text. Nietzsche wants us to understand what he is saying. Ultimately, that is what which matters.

If he is unclear in his notions, that it means that he had some idea when he was writing hs book, but he himself was not very clear about what the muse was telling him. So, it is up to us to make it clear to ourselves.

If we interpreting him correctely or not, it doesn’t really matter as long as we advance ourselves to be more congruent with our natural self.

I don’t want to think of Nietzsche of anything other than an inspiration to me. He is a guy who has something to tell me that is very dear to him. I intend listen to him very carefully.

The goal for me is to be fully congruent with myself.

________________________________

• “The goal for me is to be fully congruent with myself.”

This may be a slippery slope, being an self-centric goal. Though it may be in agreement with Frankl’s, MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING, in which he asserts that mental health is not about attaining equilibrium, or contentment, or a painless state. Rather, it’s about living out a meaningful struggle to become what one can possibly be and to live out life’s fundamental tensions in a meaningful way. Possibly, “living meaningfully” amounts to the Overman, rather than a future superior being.

Regardless, I think KG is right when he says that Nietzsche writes to make us think. Or maybe he is really just fucking with us mean bullies.

• One cannot become congruent with oneself from a self-centric viewpoint. One can see what is ailing self only from a “reality-centric” viewpoint.

• “One cannot become congruent with oneself from a self-centric viewpoint. One can see what is ailing self only from a “reality-centric” viewpoint.”

Yes, that is what I wrote to what you wrote.

• Let me repeat.

One cannot become congruent with oneself from a self-centric viewpoint. One can see what is ailing self only from a “reality-centric” viewpoint.

“The goal for me is to be fully congruent with myself.” is not a self-centric goal according to what I have written above.

It agrees with my viewpoint. It contradicts what you wrote. Why are you arguing?

• What I am arguing is the follwoin statement that you made.

VIN: “The goal for me is to be fully congruent with myself.”

CHRIS: This may be a slippery slope, being an self-centric goal.

To me “The goal for me is to be fully congruent with myself” is a “reality-centric” goal that applies to self.

It is not a “self-centric” goal that focuses on maintaing status quo of self.

Do you get the difference?

• “Do you get the difference?”

If you are saying that you mis-wrote, yes. If you are telling me I cannot understand what you write, no. Can you see how what you wrote can be understood in the way I understand it?

We have spent time and words coming to the understanding that self is a subset of larger reality. Therefore, what is congruent with self might not be congruent with reality. Bringing the self into congruence with reality would be the larger, over-going goal.

• Ultimately, what is the difference between Reality and Self when all differentiation is gone?

• “Ultimately, what is the difference between Reality and Self when all differentiation is gone?”

Not sure what you are asking.

• OK. Let’s take a step back and look at the whole thing.

(1) Take a look at the A Model of the Mind

(2) Take a look at a single whirlpool that represents the mind.

(3) Take a look at the tip at the bottom of the whirlpool that represents the SELF.

(4) Actually, the whole whirlpool (MIND + SELF) represents the ‘I’.

(5) Now do this thought experiment. What happens to the MIND, SELF or ‘I” when the whirlpool dissolves?

.

• “The goal for me is to be fully congruent with myself.”

I think the goal of reading or discussing any author is to achieve a congruence with that author or discussion? For me, there is two steps:
1. Locate as closely as one can the frame of reference, context.
2. Harmonize with the discussion or with the author.

When that is achieved, a third step could then be to acknowledge and discuss inconsistencies within the appropriate frame of reference. My overarching point is that arguing would likely be a subset of discussion.

• That is Scientology think.

• “That is Scientology think.”

I thought it was a good approach to critical thinking and discussion. First understand, then if needed, debate. Is that what you mean?

• Let’s address this after we handled the issue of SELF. 🙂

5. That is Scientology think.

6. Cancel the duplicate response immediately above.

7. Here are some interesting definitions to look at.

AWARENESS: A disturbance that arises from non-awareness. It is the fundamental essence.

FORM: The fundamental form is that of a wave. It has a frequency, wavelength and period.

EXTENT: The fundamental extent of a form is determined by its wavelength.

DURATION: The fundamental duration of a form is determined by its period..

DIMENSION: (root meaning “to measure”) It is the measure of what is there.

SPACE: Space is the dimension that measures the extent of a form.

TIME: Time is a dimension that measures the period of a form.

BEINGNESS: Beingness is made of essence and form. The fundamental essence is awareness. The fundamental form is light (electromagnetic wave).

SPIRIT: Spirit comes from a condensation of awareness.

BODY: Comes from a condensation of light.

SELF: Self is made of spirit and body.

I am open to discussions on these definitions.

.

8. “KG, It doesn’t really matter if you see the “defnitions” differently as long as they make us understand the text. Nietzsche wants us to understand what he is saying. Ultimately, that is what which matters.”

I think it is interesting to consider whether Nietzsche is fucking with us. Though not a buff of Nietzsche, I still see similarities to James Joyce’s writing where I am pretty goddam sure he is fucking with us! I think KG’s assertion that Nietzsche wants to shock us into thinking for ourselves is plausible and has merit. Or maybe Nietzsche’s brain cancer/syphilis manifested in non sequiturs? Either way, more than a hundred years later, we’re combing over his work, searching for meaning. I am more than goddam sure no one will be doing that to anything that I write!