Adam Blatner

JS continues his provocative interrogation: “Actually, I was interested to know how Zordak evolved  in the imaginary universe in which ‘he’ lives.  An aspect of science fiction that I like are the explanations of how and why things happen the way they do in the authors imaginary universe.
   It appears to me that Zordak still has limits.  It is amazing how many different aspects of nature have been used in evolution.  So far there is no evidence that any organism on earth has been able to use any paranormal aspect for survival advantage.  (Of course, it would no longer be paranormal if it were found to be real.) “

AB: Boy, now you want to know how Zordak evolved? First, I think you should thank me for stretching my mind to give you the other answer. Second, Zordak is actually giving the answer, channeling through my fingertips and the keyboard and the computer. Okay, sigh, how did Zordak evolve. He and I need to collaborate, because there are some aspects of Earth-Human knowledge that must be used in combination with transcendental inspiration.

It’s important to recognize that causation is complex! Words can be deceptive. One of the problems of thinking is that it gets trapped in language, and a word or term or concept seems to cover the bases when in fact it might involve unending complexity—such as the 2nd type of causation, form, which turns out for Earth-creatures to involve multi-leveled systems and quite a few of them operating at each level plus other systems that integrate different levels. And that’s just anatomy, microscopic anatomy (i.e., histology), and physiology, not even looking at the equally complex and invisible to material vision psycho-social systems. And that’s just for 3-Dimensional plus space "beings" such as animals and plants and such.

Add the extended time plus complexity dimensions of evolution… to explain how a house finch evolved might require many many volumes. (Have you read my website about the Great Story?)

I can say this, though: Zordak evolved as an interactive system between psyche at the individual level and spirit. It turns out that there are an infinity (to our feeble minds) of "spiritual beings," ranging from demons to angels, as well as ghosts, elves, extra-terrestrials, and critters that fill all legends and mythology books and that’s just for this tiny planet—add that sentient live on a billion other planets have not only their own equivalently complex diverse life systems, but also their own diverse mythic para-systems. Now you’re getting it.

AB (inspired by Zordak, but also in his own words about Zordak):  To evolve as an interactive system means that how we evolve consciously, what we learn to imagine, generates not only a prolific millions not only of different forms—types of cellphones, computers, systems, applications, etc., but also absolute numbers of each of these, and these in turn interact with how they are used, a million people coming up with yet new ways to co-create these, etc. Example:  the story of the Nativity is told through gmail,  Facebook, Twitter, and other social media: 

As for inter-subjectivity or the reality of relationship as an entity above and beyond the individuals who make up the relationship: Consider that there is John, there is Adam, and then there is a third entity, dynamically evolving: Our relationship. This in turn has many components. When we aren’t in touch it sleeps. When we are, we play, or not. Sometimes you think of something to write to me about, or something funny to send, or vice versa. The relationship is alive in a different way then.

So it might be said that our relationship can only be understood "inter-subjectively." The idea that some things or events are co-created by both parties has entered psychoanalysis around 20-30 years ago and has continued to make headway. It operates in many other fields as we learn to appreciate the complexity of feedback in systems, of encounter, of the "I-Thou" relationship.  Messages aren’t just sent—that’s one way; but they’re sent, received, commented on, replied to, interpreted, clarified, re-sent, questioned, re-phrased, re-iterated, and these are accompanied by non-verbal communications, voice tone, and affected by other states in either party, plus the influences of third and fourth parties.

Lest it seem that I’m overly complexifying things, please note that in every frontier of science one of the things that’s happening nowadays is that every frontier is becoming far more complex than we ever imagined fifty years ago.  So Zordak evolved in response in part to Spirit Moving and Evolving in the Cosmos, in response to how much people are open to or believe in him or his kind, etc. There is as yet no understanding of co-creation in many arenas of human endeavor, though in some other arenas it’s being recognized as the way lots of things work.

When I was a kid, things were more mechanical, one way. I entered a world of systems-theory, based on rapid feedback, adjustment, feedback, adjustment, and this is how the rocket ships became accurate. Mere aiming, calculating trajectories, were okay for primitive missiles, artillery—though actual aiming by the 2nd world war involved spotters and feedback and adjustments— but before that, the whole game was to learn to aim well. Those days are way past, and it applies for all kinds of other activities.

Finally, John, you dare call it the author’s imaginary universe, without even the dignity of an apostrophe: This in rhetoric is called begging the question. It carries the idea that Zordak is "my" imaginary character, instead of considering that I am Zordak’s vehicle. Of course I’m real and so are you, but I don’t know fully who and what I am—consciousness is puzzling that way. Zordak laughs and says the I’m his friend… but the whole concept of possession gets thrown into the foreground. Is your kid yours or are you his father? What does possession mean? I’m not trying to play games with language: Rather, I am challenging the idea that language is not a game in itself, and there are all kinds of problems about it. The weird part is that people pretend that language is not ambiguous in many ways, which relates to the illusion that people imagine they know what they are saying and that everyone understands them and that they really mean what they say and what they say should be taken on face value and all of these assumptions have been repeatedly shown to be faulty, along with the illusion that we are rational and in control.
       (I’ll be talking about illusion in mid-June for the Senior University.)     Enough for now. Warmly, Adam