Dear All,

FYPI


Warmest

Alan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of 
'ethics'.


> Dear Ted,
>
> Your letter today has coincided with a lot of thinking I have been doing 
> in
> regard to the inability of people I have been in recent
> correspondence/discussion with, 'to see the point of the non-locality of
> space', that is, to get past the 'yin-yang', 'space-matter',
> 'landscape-river' reciprocal correspondence within a localized 'whole', to
> understanding the 'reciprocal flow in a dynamic relational 'hole' . 
> Indeed,
> once the 'whole' has been imposed, I think people find it difficult to
> appreciate how all possibility for dynamic relationship is stultified,
> because 'breathing' is prevented.
>
> All this difficulty also relates to our difficulty in communicating what 
> is
> so distinctive about inclusionality/transfigurality from 'conventional
> holism'. So long as people don't 'see the point', our communications to a
> wider world are going to be stifled by the very same attitude of mind that
> stifles by imposing closure. There just has to be a way of signalling what
> is so very fundamental about the departure we are making, within the space
> of a few words, and here the apprehension of 'space as openness' has
> strengthened in my mind as a readily communicable theme. Where this takes 
> us
> as far as communicating the significance of inclusional/transfigural
> geometry is concerned, I think it may be helpful to describe this as an 
> OPEN
> SPACE GEOMETRY, which is radically different from the CLOSED SPACE
> GEOMETRIES that we have all been brought up with, in being consistent with
> natural fluidity. I think this distinction between open space geometry and
> closed space geometries may provide an effective summary, in a few words, 
> of
> the paradigmatic transformation we are making. I have put this in the
> attached 'title page' for a possible book based on my ongoing compilation 
> of
> 'inclusional essays, 2007-2008'.
>
> Meanwhile, it struck me rather strongly how your description of
> 'powerboating' in the sense of the 'diminution of the non-local'
> corresponded with the description of the 'catalysmic splitting' of 10
> dimensional Universe into 4-dimensional with diminished 'companion' in the
> passage pasted below from Lere and my latest 'superchannel' paper.
>
> Love
>
> Alan
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Pooling Power: The Inclusional Source of Natural Creativity in
> More-than-Three-Dimensional Space
>
>
>
> Superspace, as just described, is a space that exceeds three dimensions. 
> So
> also, but in a different and more limited way, is the spacetime of
> relativity and what has been called 'hyperspace'. So what is hyperspace?
> Here is the answer provided by Michiu Kaku (in 'HyperSpace'):
>
>
>
> According to hyperspace, before the Big Bang, our cosmos was actually a
> perfect ten-dimensional universe, a world where interdimensional travel 
> was
> possible. However, this ten-dimensional universe "cracked" in two, 
> creating
> two separate universes: a four- and a six- dimensional universe. The
> universe in which we live was born in that cosmic cataclysm. Our
> four-dimensional universe expanded explosively, while our twin
> six-dimensional universe contracted violently, until it shrank to almost
> infinitesimal size. This would explain the origin of the Big Bang. If
> correct, this theory demonstrates that the rapid expansion of the universe
> was just a rather minor aftershock of a much greater cataclysmic event, 
> the
> cracking of space and time itself. The energy that drives the observed
> expansion of the universe is then found in the collapse of ten-dimensional
> space and time. According to this theory, the distant stars and galaxies 
> are
> receding from us at astronomical speeds because of the original collapse 
> of
> ten-dimensional space and time. This theory predicts that our universe 
> still
> has a dwarf twin, a companion universe that has curled up into a small
> six-dimensional ball that is too small to be observed.
>
>
>
> But maybe this cataclysmic cracking of space and time is more an artefact 
> of
> an unnaturally space-restricting cosmology bursting at the seams than a 
> real
> event in the natural evolutionary history of everywhere. Maybe it 
> symbolizes
> the 'fall from grace' arising from the imposition of closed space geometry
> that reduces infinity to nothing and follows from trying to get a 
> definitive
> answer to the following question:
>
>
>
> 'Where does power come from?'
>
>
>
> Let's personalize this question, as a way of recognizing how the
> rationalistic splitting of subject from object, observer from observed,
> produces paradox and an ultimate incompatibility between 'point-forces' 
> and
> 'point-entities'. Try asking:
>
>
>
> 'Where does the power that moves us come from?'
>
>
>
> A domineering mind will answer 'within us', so assigning sole 
> responsibility
> for 'action' to individual or group as an independent entity. A 
> subservient
> mind will answer 'outside us', so delegating responsibility for 'reaction'
> entirely to 'action' located elsewhere. Neither answer is realistic. Both
> answers assume an absolute division between 'inside' and 'outside' as
> objectively definable localities, such that the source of all power can be
> tracked down to a fixed point within or without, that is a 'point-force'
> that drives the 'point-mass' either from within itself or outside itself.
> Hence there is ambiguity regarding which 'point-force' to believe in as
> ultimate cause of the movement of the 'point-mass', with the two kinds of
> point irreconcilably differentiated. A bridge connecting the two may be
> sought so as to unify one with the other, as in supersymmetry, but so long
> as space is excluded from each point and substituted with only another 
> kind
> of point, all possibility of flow within and between them is precluded.
>
>
>
> No sooner, however, is space everywhere ('omni') recognised to span
> continuously between ('inter'), within ('intra') and throughout ('trans')
> each point, than bidirectional flow from and into each other as 
> simultaneous
> local-non-local sources and sinks in natural, dynamically balancing
> communion becomes not only possible, but inevitable - unless by some
> infinitely remote likelihood everywhere equilibrates at once and the 
> cosmos
> gridlocks into a giant standing wave. Now we have the transfigural, 
> dynamic
> flow-line symmetry of reciprocal, bidirectional flow, through which we can
> answer that what moves us cannot originate from somewhere specifically
> inside or outside our individual bodies, but from everywhere non-locally
> including and locally channelled through the receptive spatial pools of 
> our
> central identities or zeroids. Power derives not from some forceful, 
> pushing
> or pulling point located somewhere ineffable, but the inductive influence 
> of
> receptive (i.e. zeroidal) space everywhere. Power comes, via transspace,
> from all through all: into somewhere local, from everywhere around, 
> through
> its receptive interior and out again, in continual circulation.
>
>
>
> Now, we can at last understand our dynamic natural situation, which
> transcends the three-dimensional spatial limitations of hard-line symmetry
> and objective definition and satisfies the spiritual yearning that many 
> are
> aware of deep within us for 'higher dimensions'.  There is this deep 
> feeling
> of both including and being included in an invisible realm permeating
> within, without and throughout us and all Nature, without external or
> internal limit. In not being accessible to quantification in purely 
> material
> terms, and infinite at all scales, hence comprising a set of relative
> infinities, this realm may seem 'mysterious'. But it is mysterious only in
> so far that we try to exclude it from our consideration: what is truly
> mysterious - paradoxical - is how we could come to imagine that we can
> explain anything, let alone everything, without materially including it.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it is the 'concrete jungle' of urban life that most especially
> dispossesses our minds from being in tune with the infinite and reinforces
> the definitive imageries and excluded middle logic of static,
> space-excluding, Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. If you grew up in
> the Nigerian town where Lere was born - it is a big village really - you
> would have been confronted with the awareness of not being alone even when
> nobody is around everyday. You would have come back from school with 
> nothing
> to eat at home. You would have had to hop to the farm to pick some maize,
> alone. And then you would leave the house and walk into the tropical 
> jungle
> behind the house. Tropical forest instils fear because you are bombarded
> with all kinds of sounds from insects, the all-enveloping majestic 
> presence
> of eagles above your head, the chirruping and, is that a wild cat meowing
> there or what? You want to run but you don't. You have to stand your 
> ground
> alone in the wild. You are alone. No, you are not alone. You can feel 
> other
> presences, yes the warmth of others who are keeping vigil over you and 
> from
> whom your courage derives its fillip. It is always like that everywhere. 
> It
> is the same everywhere that when you are alone you don't feel alone. The
> thoughts of or about the Other flow into your world as you flow into their
> world. One is never alone. You are never alone.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "emile" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Inclusional Research" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of
> 'ethics'.
>
>
>>
>> a re-worked version of this essay is now at www.goodshare.org/balance.htm
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Inclusional Research" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [log in to unmask]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [log in to unmask]
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/inclusional-research?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>