Personal Metaprogrammatic Language:
An Example of Its Properties

Among all of the languages possessed by one's self some are used to control the metaprogrammatic level in Figure. 1. The self metaprogrammer exerts control through the personal metaprogrammatic language. This is the language which controls the computer itself, how it operates, and how it computes as an integral whole. Each human computer has a unique private control language in its unique stored programs, stored metaprograms, and stored self-metaprograms. This language is not all shared in the usual public domain of the language acquired in childhood.

In this particular instance one can visualize in Fig. 1 certain levels in and at which the experiments were done in detail. This control language and control of the biocomputer itself can be changed as new understanding of control allows new control. This language has aspects which are nonverbal' nonvocal and can be more emotional and/or mathematical than they are linguistic Here we are expressing some "linguistic" aspects and some of the 'mathematical" nonverbal experiences. We are limited in this public expression to the consensus non-private language.

The experiments were designed along the lines of finding solutions to certain personal problems within the biocomputer. These problems are the basic ones of the presence of antithetical and contradictory metaprograms. In Fig. 1 saome of these paradoxical and agonistic problems appear at the supra-self- metaprogram level and some at the metaprogram level. One such experiment was on a spontaneous occurrence of a phrase (during the LSD-25 state) which took on elements of humor and the aspect as if a great discovery. The private metaprogrammatic control instruction is: the key is no key.

In the external reality, stimulus for this statement was a number of keys which the subject had been carrying around for several years. He suddenly became aware that he had in his life many locks. Thus it was necessary for him to carry many keys. At times these keys were felt as a physica:1 and a mental burden which slowed the efficient operation of his life. These were aspects of the phrase key which were real k;eys, real locks on real doors to real rooms, real houses, real offices, etc. At that particular moment this seemed to be the epitome of modern civilization: to have doors, to have locks on those doors, and have privileged persons who possessed the keys co open those doors.

The subject next moved from the meanings in the external reallity metaprogram to another level in which he internalized this picture of the door, the room, the lock, the key. He visualized his own antithetical metaprograms ;as existing in rooms separated by doors which had locks on them. He was searching for the keys to open the doors.

As these inner rooms (categories, problems, antitheses) became embodied in the locked door imagined-projected metaphor the subject began to walk through metaprogrammatic storage looking for a key to open the next door into the further recesses of the rooms. As he moved he began to see that the doors were defined as doors by his own computer; locks were defined as locks; and that keys were defined as necessary to open the locks.

In a moment of insight, he saw that the defined boundaries (the doors, the walls, ceilings, the floors, and the locks themselves and their keys) were a convenient metaprojgram dividing up his knowledge and his control mechanisms into compartments in an artificial personal fashion.

He explored many rooms with many different kinds of knowledge in the rooms. The walls slowly began to dissolve, some of them melted and flowed away; other rooms were revealed as solid and the doors with secure locks rather numerous; some keys were missing.

Most of the hypothesized building inside his own mind, however, now became open spaces with information freely available without the former walls between arbitrary rooms of categories. Those rooms, locks, and keys that were left were quite basic to the development of this individual's self- metaprogram

Some of these rooms were created in childhood in response to situations over which the self-metaprogrammer had no control. These rooms housed ideas and systems of thinking which to this particular subject evoked intense fear or intense anger as he approached with the intent of opening the doors. The locks did not respond to frontal assaults. These rooms turned out to be very difficult to define out of existence in order to have their contents interact with the rest of the metaprogrammatic level.

The subject underwent a frantic and frightened search for the keys to the locks of these strongrooms. He became alternately fearful and angry. He made several assaults on walls, doors, ceilings and floors of these closed rooms without much success.

He went away from these rooms into other universes and other spaces and left the computer to work out solutions below his levels of awareness.

Later with higher motivational energy the subject returned to the problem of the lock, the doors and the rooms somewhat refreshed by the experiences in the other realms.

Mathematical transformations were next tried in the approach to the locked rooms. The concept of the key fitting into the lock and the necessity of finding the key were abandoned and the rooms were approached as topological puzzles. In the multi-dimensional cognitional and visual space the rooms were now manipulated without the necessity of the key in the lock.

Using the transitional concept that the lock is a hole in the door through which one can exert an effort for a topological transformation, one could tnJrn the room into another topological form other than a closed box. The room in effect was turned inside out through the hole, through the lock leaving the contents outside and the room now a collapsed balloon placed farther from the self-metaprogrammer. Room after room was thus defined as turned insiide out with the contents spewed forth for use by the self-metaprogrammer. Once this control key worked, it continued automatically to its own limits.

With this sort of an "intellectual crutch," as it were, entire new areas of basic beliefs were entered upon. Most of the rooms which before had appeared as strong rooms with big powerful walls, doors, and locks now ended up as empty balloons. The greatly defended contents of the rooms in many cases turned out to be relatively trivial programs and episodes from childhood which had been over-generalized and over-valued by this particular human computer. The devaluation of the general purpose properties of the human biocomputer was one such room. In childhood the many episodes which led to the self- metaprogrammer not remaining general purpose but becoming more and more limited and specialized were entered upon. Several layers of the supra-self-metaprograms laid down in childhood were opened up.

The mathematical operation which took place in the computer was the movement of energies and masses of data from the supraself-metaprogram down to the self-metaprogrammatic level and below. At the same time there was the knowledge that programmatic materials had been moved from the supra-self- position to the under-self-controlled position at the programmatic level. These operations were all filed in metaprogram storage under the title "The key is no key."

It was noticed that the necessity for locks and for keys in the real world had to be dealt with. There was an interval of time in which the subject was quite willing to throw all of his keys away and keep all of the real doors of his life unlocked. That was tried briefly and resulted in a theft. This immediately brought home the obvious fact that the external reality programs cannot be controlled by the self-metaprogram. There are other human biocomputers and a real external reality which has unpredictable properties not under the control of the self- metaprogrammer. Therefore there must remain in the supra-self- metaprogram certain rules for conduct of the human computer in the external reality. There must remain a certain modicum of real supra-self control and respect for the external reality's part of tlhe supraself-metaprogram.

As it was stated elsewhere (Lilly, 1956' Lilly and Shurley, 1960): the province of the mind is the only area of science in which what one believes to be true either is true or becomes true within limits to be determined experimentally. This particular subject saw that the key is no key is a private self- metaprogramming language phrase and should not be applied to the external reality metaprogram nor should it be applied to other human biocomputers (at least without careful consideration of their capabilities and their own supra-self-metaprograms). As it were similar topological transformations under control of the selfmetaprogrammer may not yet have developed within the given other person. The kinds of phenomena expressed by this unique private human computer (The key is no key) may be totally inapplicable to others.

Metatheoretically considered, however, the above operation can be re-expressed by a given individual and elaborated and differentiated along other coordinates. For those willing to try these experiments I wish to add a suggestion: It is necessary to explore all aspects of one's body image, one's childish emotional regions, one's real body in various states and with special stimuli in addition to those from the body itself. With such explorative training one can do topological transformations which can result in step-wise changes in metaprogramming and in metaprograms themselves. Bias, prejudice, preconception and intransigence in explicit areas are seen as supra-self-metaprograms which are inappropriate. Until there can be highly motivated mathematical transformations within the areas of control metaprograms, major changes are not made.

The above all-too-condensed summary of these experiments and their results illustrates the linguistic symbolization of mathematical operations; this operation offers a certain kind of shorthand to the human computer. Linguistic symbols can be used for storing symbols which represent whole areas of operations in the computer. The key is no key is a version of the actual operations which it symbolizes. The statement is in the language of the child as the young computer originally stored it. The actual operations taking place in the adult symbolized by the key is no key are a complex rendering of more advanced ideas, some of which are circuit-like, some of which are topological transformations and some of which are in multidimensional matrices.

A given human computer is limited in its operations by its own acquired mathematical conceptual machinery; this is part of its supra-self- metaprograms. Maximum control over the metaprogrammatic level by the self-metaprogram is achieved not by direct "one to one" orders and instructions from the one level to the other. The control is based upon exploration of n- dimensional spaces and finding key points for transformations, first in decisive small local regions which can result in large-scale transformations (This modeling reminds one of Ashby's Design for a Brain, 1954, in which a large "homeostat" stimulated in one small region makes large adjustments throughout itself in order to compensate for the small change.)

One key in the mind is to hunt for those discontinuities in the structure of the thinking which reveal a critical turn-over point at which one can exert emotional energy so as to cause a transformation in all of that region.

The analogy of the key in the lock is part of this subject's human computer as a child. The lock is now transformed into an e-dimensional choice-point at which one could exert the proper amount of energy in the proper dimensions and in proper directions in those dimensions and find a radical transformation of all the metaprograms in that region of the computer. In a three-dimensional geometrical model of such operations (in which one decreases the number of dimensions so that they can be visualized in visual space) one can think of oddly-shaped rubber surfaces connected on lines, on points and over large areas which are inflated to different amounts and differing pressures so as to fill a very large room. These membranes are of different colors and various regions are differently lighted and the whole is considered to be pulsing and changing shapes but not changing contact between surfaces, lines, or points. One can imagine one's self moving through these complex surfaces. There are various colors lighted from various directions. One hunts for that zone in which one can exert maximum amount of effect in terms of the redistribution of bond energies, over point, line, and surface areas of contact. One may also exert the maximum effect on the differential pressures in the spaces bounded by each of the surfaces where closed.

After aufficient study of this model one discovers that the points of contact between the membranes are not as fixed as when first seen. What one saw at first was a frozen instant of time extending over a long period of time as if the model were static. Suddenly one realizes that the points of contact are the sharing of portions of these surfaces along appropriate lines at given instants and that these boundaries are changing constantly. One suddenly also discovers that the colors are moving over the surfaces and passing the boundaries. This particular model is a small region in a larger universe filled with such surfaces and intersections and spaces between. One also discovers that the light sources are within certain of these sheets shining through to others and that the hue and intensity are varying according to some local rules.

One moves away from the model and sees that it is filling a universe; one moves back into the model and begins to look carefully at one thin membrane. As the structure of the membrane is revealed and the structure of the intersection between the membrane is seen, it turns out that there is microcircuitry within the membrane at a molecular and atomic level. There are energies moving in prescribed paths (sometimes in a noisy fashion) in multiple directions within the membrane. At the intersections collisions occur (electrons, mesons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc. are moving from one sheet to the other in both directions). Sheets that are immediately adjacent are seen to be doing local computations at very high speed. The intersections are now seen as micromolecular-atomic switch lines, switch surfaces, and switch points.

Thus one finds that the phrase The key is no key has grown into a new conception of a computer. This computer within itself ideally recognizes no locks, no forbidden transitions, no areas in which data cannot be freely moved from one zone to another. At the boundaries of the computer, however, there are still, as it were categorical imperatives. Now the problem becomes not the boundaries within the computer but the boundaries outside it. By outside I do not mean only the integumentary boundaries of the real body. I mean other sources of influence than through the bottom layer of the external chemical physical reality (Fig. 1). To symbolize this doubt, this skepticism, about the boundaries of the computer and the influences that can be brought to bear upon them other than those coming through the physical-chemical reality, a line is placed above metaprograms and is labeled unknown (Fig. 1)

In the mind of this subject the unknown must take precedence. It is placed above the supra-self-metaprogram because it contains some of the goals of this particular human Computer. This explaration of the inner reality presupposes that the inner reality contains large unknowns which are worth exploring. However, to explore them it is necessary (1) to recognize their existence and (2) to prepare one's computer for the exploration. If one is to explore the unknown one should take the minimum amount of baggage and not load one's self down with conceptual machinery which cannot be flexibly reoriented to accept and investigate the unknown. The next stage of development of those who have the courage and the necessary inner apparatus to do it, is exploration in depth of this vast inner unknown region. For this task we need the best kind of thinking of which man is capable. We dissolve and/or reprogram the doctrinaire and ideological approaches to these questions.

To remain skeptical of even this formalization of this particular human computer's approach to this region is desirable. One does not over-value this particular approach; one looks for alternative approaches for exploratory purposes. Freedom from the tyranny of the supra-self-metaprograms is sought but not to the point at which other human computers control this particular human computer. Deep and basic interlock between selected human computers is needed for this exploration. Conceptualization of the thinking machine itself is needed by the best minds available for this task. In a sense, we create the explorers in this area.