THE LENS POLE
(More Specifically)
by John Cooper, and
Cyrus Horatio Pinkerton
cosmicflyswatter.com

I suggest that you read Pinkerton’s article on The EAP Theory, and our article The Lens Pole (A General Discussion) first, as a background. They are relatively short and give a frame of reference that should increase substantially your conceptual understanding of our theories.

If human perception is anything it is unique to each individual. This is not to say that we do not share perception, it is merely that for anything to be shared, the individual must first make choices that then structure and align his or her filters for this to occur. And some of the filters we see through are permanent and fixed, while others can be discarded.

A good example of a permanent filter would be a trauma experience occurring in early childhood. Though its affects on future interpersonal activity might possibly be mitigated through therapies, it is doubtful that its filtering of perception will ever disappear. In our model the information first installed in the human consciuosness is layered over and like source code in a computer remains as a base. In our book, there is a series of Lens Pole models depicting the possible shapes from birth to adulthood. One of them that models early childhood can be opened here.

It is our belief that the human being develops his perception and therefore his understanding only through the registering of events in time/space by processing those events with his or her brain. In this we are not so different than any other animal. But the human is a higher cognitive, he uses words to order knowledge in a more complex way using his brain. Of all the various mediums, the best is still the written word since it allows greater freedom from the clouding of potential objectivity that audio and visual perception produces in the emotions.

However knowledge is registered, the physical brain processes it. Yet it is our belief that the brain is not the mind itself. This topic is treated in our book and not treated here except to claim that thought cannot be physical, i.e. exclusively energy. The brain produces a tiny amount of energy that can be mapped but there is no evidence that this is thought itself. In fact it is relatively small and cannot account for the amount of information being processed. This energy is simply an indication of brain activity.

Thoughts are the products of the mind, which uses the physical interface and engine known as the brain. To reach any understanding of the concept of the Lens Pole it is necessary to explore the complex matrix of the human make-up. This cannot be approached without making choices about what the structure actually is. This area of study is metaphysical (beyond physics) and is apprehended by considering that the way things really are is not properly approached exclusively within the limited set of those principles contained in all of natural science. It can however be embraced by using the same logic applied to natural science. It must remain without the “proofs” of physical science since it is not measurable except by that logic. It is the study of the human soul and its only frame of reference must be philosophy and theology.

If one believes there is no such thing as a soul, then this article should have no relevance. But if there is such a thing which most humans accept, then the Lens Pole is a valid topic of discussion. At the very least, it presents a perspective on perspective itself within the frame of reference of western philosophy. And it is no accident that the thread of western philosophy produced all western natural science. Ex nihilo, nihilo fit (nothing comes from nothing.)

For our purposes, we define the human soul as a triune being that is two parts that are purely spiritual (non-physical) and one part that is inextricably linked in time/space to the body. The three parts are: the mind, the will, and the emotions. The mind is made up of the fruit of experiential and acquired knowledge. The will is the driving force of desire. The emotions are the interface of the will and the mind to the body producing what we know as feelings. And these feelings are categorized by the perceptions true or false of the experiences processed in the mind and the perceived successes and failures of the acts of the will.

There are correlatives for this structure in natural science. For instance if the human soul takes stock in its position and tries to evaluate that position, its perception of its momentum is obscured, much like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in particle physics. If a person stops and asks “How am I doing?” or how do I stack up, or even how am I going, he or she must choose a frame of reference. They will first ask in relation to what: to their goals, or to other people. Evaluating their position relative to their goals is not so hard as long as they have one, and that it is clear. Evaluating their position relative to others is pretty messy. Both efforts may cause dissatisfaction, and both will obscure, while they are under consideration in the mind, any clear observation of true momentum. We are Frames of Reference simply by existing as observers in time/space.

The logics of eastern philosophies provide some tonics for this condition and we will explore our inclinations towards western philosophy in the next two articles, titled: Body Soul and Spirit, East and West.

But to continue with the model of the Lens Pole….

First, imagine that all knowledge is particulate, like digital information, and that it is arrayed in an individual’s sphere of knowing (or observation). There is a positive end to the pole and a negative end just like the cosmic body of earth has a North Pole and South Pole. The bits of information are fluid and assigned to quadrants, planes or surface sections by the human’s choices and his or her will. The momentum concerning any mental efforts and their attendant shapes within the sphere is directed towards either the positive or negative hemispheres. A balanced observation would result in a globe within the globe that would reside in both hemispheres. And it seems only logical that the more clear an individual’s goal, the more ordered the shapes any data would take. Planar sections are a good representation of this.

Overall, the validity of these shapes is dependent upon the attitude of the axis towards the Truth, or the way things actually are. Since the knower exists in time/space, he or she is subject to its laws of physics simply by holding a unique position. It is therefore impossible for ones Lens Pole to apprehend complete reality. This is true no matter how much education and knowledge one acquires. Yet if one first imagines that there is an absolute reality, or the way things actually are, then there is the hope that by inclining ones axis or attitude towards that imagining that one may apprehend more clearly, the way things actually are.

This is no small task. It is possessed in the duration of a life. It is the momentum of that life. It is the only meaning for the life of the human, the little knower. It can be escaped only by subterfuges and the distractions of academic, psychological, and or biochemical remedies. And death may or may not provide relief.

The Lens Pole is an incipient concept sketched out as a visual aid to help understand the order of knowing what is real above and beyond the accidents of psychologies and experiential and acquired knowledge, which are the natural filter sets of all individuals. We are aware of many problems with this model, since the human mind does not process information digitally but in analogue, though there is evidence of digital-like brain functioning. The Lens Pole is a work in progress, and we welcome your relative observations.