"When we perceive things in a continuous manner, we
gain circumspection. Space is not an absence of presence, but rather a presence
of absence (Rayner, 2010; pers comm.). Space is filled with 'the evanescent
tendrils of yearning that every particle of matter has for all others' (Suzuki
with McConnell, 2002). When we perceive continuity, space is where we search for
the secrets, the energy that connects us all. Indeed, opening our minds to the
continuity and the value of space has led to one of the greatest and most
important discoveries of all time - gravity. The gravitational laws put forward
by Newton may refer to objects but they, in effect, describe the power of
capsules of receptive space interacting with other capsules of receptive space
within receptive space.
When we open our mind to continuity, we observe
space as a transporter and receptor of energy. Space is not what isolates us,
but what pools us together. When we bring space into our perceptions, we bring
infinity into our understanding (Rayner 2010; pers. comm.). "
As I read this I felt both delight in the depth,
clarity and insight of the student's expression, and discomfort in the
'tendacity' of holistic 'tendrils of connectivity' to be confused with the
continuity given by the omnipresence of space. I suggested that instead of
writing ' Space is filled with 'the evanescent tendrils', it
might be more apt to write 'Space includes and is energetically included in...'
I have had the same feelings reading many other
essays, especially and ironically the most scholarly of them, which draw
extensively upon the writings of holistic authors. The identification of
'continuity' with 'connectedness' is difficult to shake, notwithstanding my
efforts to speak about continuity as a quality of space, not form alone (all
one).
This leads me to try to spell out the difference
between rationalistic and natural inclusional/transfigural understandings of
continuity as follows:
1. In rationalistic thought, 'continuity' is
equated with 'connectedness' because 'space' is regarded as 'void', a source of
discontinuity or disruptive 'gap' between and around 'things' as 'discrete
objects'. Hence the only way of deriving 'continuity' in this 'whole way of
thinking', is either by totally excluding space and boundaries from form as a
continuous line or network of widthless 'threads', or by totally conflating
space with form in a 'seamless [boundary-less] whole'. Such exclusion or
conflation - which is characteristic of 'holism' [which seeks by so doing to
counter the fragmentation resulting from abstract reductionism], is neither
consistent with evidence/experience nor does it make consistent sense. In a way,
it is a product of intuitive 'wishful thinking' that seeks to eliminate rather
than reconcile the occurence of natural distinctions, because these are
seen as a source of disharmony. It is a reaction to the 'over-definition' of
boundaries characteristic of analytical thought, which seeks to replace the
latter with its antithesis instead of seeking the dynamic synthesis and
balance that natural inclusionality/transfigurality provide.
2. In natural inclusional and transfigural thought,
space is a continuous omnipresence that cannot be cut, confined or excluded, and
form is dynamically continuous through its 'energetic inclusion of
space in figure and figure in space'. Distinction and difference are hence
accommodated in a natural fluid continuum, without contradiction. Local identity
is recognised as a dynamic inclusion of non-local space in which all forms
are pooled together (but not absolutely merged) in natural communion as
flow-forms.
3. Hence natural inclusionality/transfigurality
treats continuity in a very different way from abstract rationality. The
treatment of continuity by abstract rationality as the same as 'connectedness',
as exemplified in conventional calculus, is an idealized construct that is
physically impossible.
I hope this might be helpful.
Warmest
Alan