Dear All,
Continuation of discussion, fypi.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Rayner (BU)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of
'ethics'.
Dear Ted,
Yes, I think we are on the same flow-length here, although I prefer the
description 'limitless space' to 'unbounded space', in view of my interest
in 'dynamic boundaries' as 'dynamic distinctions' (but not definitions) in
the 'folding' or 'dynamic configuration' of space (meaning openness) as
dynamic relational flow-form. I might also prefer 'inflowing' ('inspiring'/
'in-forming') and 'outflowing' ('expiring'/ 'ex-forming') to 'created' and
'destroyed' in processes of reconfiguration. The point we actually make
about the hyperspace description and associated mathematics of the Big Bang
is indeed that it is an artefact of closed space geometry and so doesn't
relate to natural experience or natural geometry.
Meanwhile, I think the 'silhouette' you refer to corresponds with the
'zeroid' of transfigural mathematics....
Pasted below is a section from Lere's and my 'Superchannel 2' paper, which
is about to appear in our 'inclusional journal'.
In 'Superchannel 3' and 'Superchannel 4', to follow [the hyperspace quote
was from 'Superchannel 3'], which anticipate the outcome of the Large Hadron
Collider experiment, we go so far as to question the existence, in a
conventional sense, of 'matter', 'mass' and 'force' as artefacts of closed
space geometry.
Warmest
Alan
-----------------------------------
Any geometric figure as a bodily inclusion of space – and thereby any thing
in this world as a flowform, implies that transfigural geometry is inside
the primordial womb of zeroids. In the folds of a zero spiral that
constitute the superchannel, the zeroids which do not show up as local
bodies inside the superchannel are nonetheless implicit because they are
what space itself comprises as receptive centres everywhere, without
definitive location. And so, to get some picture of how the flowform folds
of a zero spiral arise through the dynamic interplay of inseparable
receptive-permissive spatial context and responsive-resistive informational
content, let us begin with a simple circular informational figure as an
inclusion of receptive space comprising zeroids as centres everywhere, as
depicted below.
In conventional Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries, the boundary
outlining this figure would cut its inside off from its outside, whereupon
all analytical attention would focus solely on what is contained by the
figure as a whole, much as we might focus on a tennis ball or apple as a
single, discrete entity, all one in itself, with space co-extensive with its
structure. In the transfigural case, however, the informational boundary
both outlines the inside and inlines the outside of the figure as a dynamic
relational hole without cutting either off from the other, but interfacing
both as a relatively resistive transition zone that itself includes zeroidal
space. Correspondingly, above we have a circle which originates not by
objective imposition onto space from a fixed point, like a circle drawn with
a set of compasses, but more like a bubble dynamically balancing between the
responsiveness and receptivity of its interior and exterior space. That is,
the circle forms inductively, rather than forcefully, as a fluid co-creation
from the living space whose identity is rooted in the invisible zeroids that
reside in the core of every dynamic form. In the superchannel, the zeroids
are not shown but wherever there is a fold, as we shall show very soon, such
that every form is both itself and an inclusion of others and space, they
are intrinsic. There are no zeroids outside the folds of the superchannel
because these are all-inclusive as a flow-line of continuous breathing
points.
In other words, wherever a circle or any geometric figure arises
inductively, as a dynamic, receptive-responsive inclusion of zeroidal space,
it is capable both of flowing into and flowing out from the heart of itself.
What flows in this dynamic situation is the fold of a zerospiral, because
every geometric figure is a potential flowform that dynamically embodies
receptive space as a fold.
Now, let’s what see how as a dynamic configuration – not a discrete
definition – of space, a circle can transfigurally open out as a flow that
responds receptively to include what in conventional Euclidean and
non-Euclidean geometries would lie irretrievably outside of itself. This
corresponds with the empathic and loving feeling for what conventionally
would be described as an independent other that we can describe as a sense
of ‘our heart going out to them’. What we have in one direction is:
which is the alpha fold of the flow of a zerospiral as the point and also
the line of transfigural geometry of transfigural mathematics. When the
circle transfigures to take in what lies beyond it in four directions, at
right-angles, what emerges is a single-fold breathing point or ‘point-line’
as a continuous line that dynamically includes all, and all that dynamically
includes one:
Since any such breathing point is a dynamic inclusion of all space, and
hence not solely local, any change at one point anywhere influences all
points everywhere, and vice versa. All are encompassed by a continuously
fluid line, so that like children clambering over a ‘bouncy castle’ or
‘air-bed’, any movement of one simultaneously changes the topography of
‘hills, valleys and mountains’ in the ‘fluidscape’ for all, themselves
included.
-----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "emile" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Inclusional Research" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Two different concepts of 'balance' in the foundations of
'ethics'.
dear alan,
yes, the ‘open space geometry’ relative to the ‘closed space geometry’
‘speaks to me’, but then, i know where you are going with it,
already.
i do see it as a valuable distinction. in my mind, i take ‘open
space’ to mean ‘unbounded space’ and then my mind goes to the fact
that
space is self-enfolding so that one’s mind is not even ‘attracted’ to
the boundaries of space (‘how far out’ space goes etc.). i think of
plate tectonics and the rocks diving in towards the interior of the
earth and erupting/emerging at the surface in a continual recycling,
so that the ‘sphere’ that we impute to the earth, which we normally
think of as a spherical mass or spherical material body, is instead
the ‘silhouette’ of this continual self-enfolding that seems to
character the full universe. the implication is that this spherical
material body we call the planet earth is just the ‘envelope’ to this
self-enfolding. it is not (the sphere is not) a material object in
its own right, but a ‘place’ where matter is being continually
recycled so that this ‘matter’ has no persisting existence in
itself. so the spherical shape we see is a ‘place’ that is made
manifest by the dynamics going on there. the rocky sphere we have
been calling a material body; i.e. ‘the planet earth’, is merely
‘appearances’ (schaumkommen) as schroedinger described matter at the
lowest particulate level; i.e. ‘resonances’, ‘standing wave
silhouettes’ that the material is continually passing through, as in a
standing wave that pokes up in a rapidly moving mountain stream and
stays in the same place or almost (it shifts about a bit according to
variations in the flow). this is similar to heraclitus comparisons
where a candle flame is compared to a material object; i.e. the flame
is nothing other than a ‘place’ where there is persisting
transformation.
this way of looking at ‘material bodies’, as ‘places’ seems to me to
be not far off aristotle’s comments in ‘the physics of place’. who
knows what he was thinking of, but i could imagine that the plate
tectonics sort of thing could be a fit with whatever he was thinking
of;
"Now these are regions or kinds of place --- up and down and the rest
of the six directions. Nor do such distinctions (up and down and right
and left, etc.) hold only in relation to us. To us they are not always
the same but change with the direction in which we are turned that is
why the same thing may be right and left, up and down, before and
behind. But in nature, each is distinct, taken apart from itself. It
is not every chance direction which is 'up' but where fire and what is
light are carried; similarly, too, 'down' is not any chance direction
but where what has weight and what is made of earth are carried ---
the implication being that these places do not differ merely in
relative position, but also as possessing distinct potencies, . . .
These considerations would lead us to suppose that place is something
distinct from bodies, and that every sensible body is in place. ...
the potency of place must be a marvelous thing, and take precedence of
all other things. For that without nothing else can exist, while it
can exist without the others, must needs be first; for place does not
pass out of existence when the things in it are annihilated." ---
Aristotle, ‘The Physics of Place’
that is, the ‘sphere of the earth’ is a ‘place’ where things are
continually passing out of, and at the same time coming into,
existence. if we had a video of the universe over the past 10
billion years, we could look at the place where the earth was ‘going
to be’ and see some spherical dynamical form appear about half way
through the video, a spherical form that would persist for the four
plus billion years up until the present; i.e. the spherical place
“does not pass out of existence when the things in it are
annihilated.”, ... but how can we claim that this spherical earth is a
material body when we openly acknowledge that it is just the
silhouette of continuing birth and death of matter?
the six directions are what are used in the native american medicine
wheel also and continuing renewal emerges from the center at the
meeting of sky above and earth below, as connects with the flows
coming in from ‘the four directions’. the medicine wheel ceremony is
very ‘inclusional’ in that this same flow as is symbolized by the
medicine wheel, we are understood to be ‘made of’.
but the big trick in the medicine wheel ceremony is to come to think
of one’s self in these same terms of being continually renewed
(destroyed and created) by the continuously synthesizing flows, so
that we humans, our visible aspect, like the earth, becomes a
silhouette or ‘place’, rather than a ‘material structure’. sure, the
body cells look like they persist, but are they not, just like the
earth and schroedinger’s particle, ‘silhouetted places’ where matter
is being continually destroyed and renewed in the flow?
now, in the sailboating metaphor, what makes the sail ‘billow out’
like that and have a persisting bulbous shape? the sail is simply
silhouetting the continual passing through of the wind; i.e. the power
is coming from neither the inside nor the outside in a closed space
geometry sense. the power derives from nature but then so does the
dynamical flow-form that makes use of it; i.e. as in the example of
the hurricane in the atmosphere (its power neither comes from within
or from without and this only appears paradoxical because by speaking
of ‘it’, we axiomatically affirm ‘its local existence’ when it is in
fact not local but a feature in the nonlocal fluid-dynamical continuum
of nature.
as far as the mathematics of ‘the big bang’ go, and ten and six-
dimensional universes, ... i have trouble personally with notions such
'the big bang' since i can’t begin to relate them to my experience.
i have just started to read eckhart tolle’s ‘A New Earth’ and i can
relate what he says about the leap in consciousness that is required
to go beyond the veil of maya. e.g. making the leap from 'things'
such as 'the third rock out from the sun’) to ‘places’ (the spherical
silhouette of continual creation/destruction) and to your shift from
‘closed space geometry’ to ‘open space geometry’, and his point is
that you cannot ‘try to understand’ such things, but you must ‘find
the understanding that is already within you’. this corresponds also
to the distinction made in the amerindian tradition between ’hawk
learning’ (something you DO 'try to do' and succeed in doing) and
‘eagle learning’ (something that you discover within you).
if one tries too hard - ’ e.g. ‘what the hell is six dimensional
space?’, ... unless one lives and breathes such mathematics, one is
never going to allow the understanding to emerge.
so, the trick, to me, would seem to be that the person who goes from
‘closed space geometry’ to ‘open space geometry’ has to find the
understanding within themselves, unlike understanding ‘closed space
geometry’ (i.e. one must take one's mind out of gear so that 'maya',
the veil that occludes the needed understanding, gets out of the way).
love,
ted
On 27 Aug, 12:19, "Alan Rayner \(BU\)" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> 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 atwww.goodshare.org/balance.htm
>
>
>
> Where Does Power Really Come From.doc
> 33KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
