I posted this on a different blog, but knew I'd eventually re-post it here.
Any given duality is fourfold:
1. It is two things in mutual exclusion: left or right, night or day, male or female, on or off, for some examples.
2. It is a single thing which forms a space for manifestation between empty polarities: left/right, night/day, male/female, on/off, for some examples.
3. It is three things when counting the polarities plus their (essential) relationship to One and Other: {left, right, and}, {night, day, and}, {male, female, and}, {on, off, and}, for some examples.
4. It is nothing without relation to some other duality.
Dualities are squares and crosses.
And of course these more specific claims need to be fleshed out. The above model of duality is merely the skeleton.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Notes
New category of entries called "Notes," intended to capture rough sketches of scattered thoughts for possible later reference. Difference from (Re)Search posts will be the obvious lack of links to outside sources: simply pouring out some contents from my mind.
So I find myself circling around relationships in terms of the number one and the number eleven. 1 & 11. One is, obviously, the thing of itself, and eleven being two thing in themselves standing together in a relationship. Could be a human to a tree, or a fish to the sea, or a collection of bikes to a set of roads. Basically anything collected as 1 unit in relation to another collection becomes 11.
* 11 as the tarot card Justice.
* 1 as the tarot card The Magician.
Thinking within the tarot, I also bring in 2, which is what 1 + 1 come together to form, and get reference to The High Priestess.
Here I arrive at a model of duality: two things together become one thing, this one thing defined by the set of relationships between the two things—the ‘&’ in One and Other. Note that One as singularity, Other as singularity, with reference to the idea that a singularity is empty, yields that the whole of the manifestation is in the ‘&’, and that One all by itself is equal to nothing, or 1 = 0.
So we can bring in The Fool to this little tarot oriented structure, an interpretation of duality.
At the singularity that is formed at the meeting point of the empty polarities, there is a ‘balanced’ or ‘just’ relation: it is when the singularities are non-empty—already being influenced by the tugs of Other polarities—that the ‘just’ relationship between One and Other can become ‘unjust’ or ‘unbalanced’.
* Just & Unjust form a duality, as do Balanced & Unbalanced.
In the Rider-Waite deck of the tarot:
* The High Priestess holds The Law half concealed: 1 / 2; 1 whole, 2 parts; 1 in relation to 2; 2 = 1 + 1; 1 / 1 + 1; 1 and 1 and 1.
* There are the 2 pillars, One white and the Other black.
* A fourfold relationship between the pillars, the Priestess, and the Law.
* Connection between Law and Justice.
Note that ‘numerology’, as displayed throughout this post, seems as a three-fold mental tool, kind of like acrobatics, sleight of hand, and a filing system for the mind. The meaningful relations it creates are both illusory and real (much like any other meaning created by any other means), and, like all interpretation, are ultimately in the ‘I’ of the beholder.
* I as singularity is empty, I as Jungian Self is empty.
* I = 1 = 0.
* I = Interpretation.
* Interpretation dependent upon One and Other.
* O & O = I.
I need to reformulate some of my expressions. It seems better to express Martin’s “M = D + P” as M <=> D & P, and the same would hold for my “E = I + O.” This would make more sense out of Energy = Input + Output, mentioned in a previous post, which I now realize doesn’t quite hold with the notion of the Law of Conservation of Energy, as written about in said post—will have to amend that.
* I & O can also be thought about in terms of One & Other.
* Other is not-self (not One); i.e., O & ~O is equivalent to One & Other.
* O & ~O <=> M, where M = E.
For potential readers:
* <=> is parsed as 'if and only if'.
* ~ is parsed as 'not'.
So I find myself circling around relationships in terms of the number one and the number eleven. 1 & 11. One is, obviously, the thing of itself, and eleven being two thing in themselves standing together in a relationship. Could be a human to a tree, or a fish to the sea, or a collection of bikes to a set of roads. Basically anything collected as 1 unit in relation to another collection becomes 11.
* 11 as the tarot card Justice.
* 1 as the tarot card The Magician.
Thinking within the tarot, I also bring in 2, which is what 1 + 1 come together to form, and get reference to The High Priestess.
Here I arrive at a model of duality: two things together become one thing, this one thing defined by the set of relationships between the two things—the ‘&’ in One and Other. Note that One as singularity, Other as singularity, with reference to the idea that a singularity is empty, yields that the whole of the manifestation is in the ‘&’, and that One all by itself is equal to nothing, or 1 = 0.
So we can bring in The Fool to this little tarot oriented structure, an interpretation of duality.
At the singularity that is formed at the meeting point of the empty polarities, there is a ‘balanced’ or ‘just’ relation: it is when the singularities are non-empty—already being influenced by the tugs of Other polarities—that the ‘just’ relationship between One and Other can become ‘unjust’ or ‘unbalanced’.
* Just & Unjust form a duality, as do Balanced & Unbalanced.
In the Rider-Waite deck of the tarot:
* The High Priestess holds The Law half concealed: 1 / 2; 1 whole, 2 parts; 1 in relation to 2; 2 = 1 + 1; 1 / 1 + 1; 1 and 1 and 1.
* There are the 2 pillars, One white and the Other black.
* A fourfold relationship between the pillars, the Priestess, and the Law.
* Connection between Law and Justice.
Note that ‘numerology’, as displayed throughout this post, seems as a three-fold mental tool, kind of like acrobatics, sleight of hand, and a filing system for the mind. The meaningful relations it creates are both illusory and real (much like any other meaning created by any other means), and, like all interpretation, are ultimately in the ‘I’ of the beholder.
* I as singularity is empty, I as Jungian Self is empty.
* I = 1 = 0.
* I = Interpretation.
* Interpretation dependent upon One and Other.
* O & O = I.
I need to reformulate some of my expressions. It seems better to express Martin’s “M = D + P” as M <=> D & P, and the same would hold for my “E = I + O.” This would make more sense out of Energy = Input + Output, mentioned in a previous post, which I now realize doesn’t quite hold with the notion of the Law of Conservation of Energy, as written about in said post—will have to amend that.
* I & O can also be thought about in terms of One & Other.
* Other is not-self (not One); i.e., O & ~O is equivalent to One & Other.
* O & ~O <=> M, where M = E.
For potential readers:
* <=> is parsed as 'if and only if'.
* ~ is parsed as 'not'.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Time and Energy
I was chatting earlier and got into a discussion about physics, the description of reality, and energy. The person I was chatting with appeared to take the position that physics can account for everything—all phenomena can be described in terms of energy. I mentioned that we’re not even sure what energy is, but he claimed that energy is a signal is information. But, I protested, this is mere tautology: it tells us nothing more about what energy is than the fact that maybe we have more than one word for it.
So I look up energy, and the Wikipedia entry has a great quote of Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”
So, energy, as understood by physics, is ultimately without any properties other than a corresponding number. However, it also has many different appearances, and it is transition from one form to another that appears as motion or activity, and has more to do with the word’s etymology as “active,” “operation,” and “working.” Thus, there is a seeming paradox when it comes to energy: relative to a defined frame of reference, the activity of energy in a given space over time creates the phenomena that manifests within that space; however, the energy of the system remains identical to itself—it does not change. So what we find about energy appears to be that it changes in space over time, but it doesn’t change at all.
I also chatted with this person about how we don’t really understand what time is. Hir position was that we did, and that it could be understood as steps of progress in mutations, which seems to have intuitive merit; however, this merit, it seems to me, is based upon our perceptions of experiences as embedded within time, and not an understanding of time itself. Given that ‘space-time’ has no properties, but instead defines the dimensions of the system or structure in which energy exists, and that energy is merely some unchanging number, I’m not sure how we come to an understanding of what time is beyond a product of our own perceptions of something that, ultimately, does not change.
In other words, time makes no damn sense at all. And yet, this absurdity seems to be our reality.
So I look up energy, and the Wikipedia entry has a great quote of Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”
So, energy, as understood by physics, is ultimately without any properties other than a corresponding number. However, it also has many different appearances, and it is transition from one form to another that appears as motion or activity, and has more to do with the word’s etymology as “active,” “operation,” and “working.” Thus, there is a seeming paradox when it comes to energy: relative to a defined frame of reference, the activity of energy in a given space over time creates the phenomena that manifests within that space; however, the energy of the system remains identical to itself—it does not change. So what we find about energy appears to be that it changes in space over time, but it doesn’t change at all.
I also chatted with this person about how we don’t really understand what time is. Hir position was that we did, and that it could be understood as steps of progress in mutations, which seems to have intuitive merit; however, this merit, it seems to me, is based upon our perceptions of experiences as embedded within time, and not an understanding of time itself. Given that ‘space-time’ has no properties, but instead defines the dimensions of the system or structure in which energy exists, and that energy is merely some unchanging number, I’m not sure how we come to an understanding of what time is beyond a product of our own perceptions of something that, ultimately, does not change.
In other words, time makes no damn sense at all. And yet, this absurdity seems to be our reality.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Notes on EIO
A few months ago when I started this blog, I picked the picture of the fractal in the sidebar and titled it E = I + O. This represents a formula I was toying with in my mind, a metaphor of manifestation to guide some of my thoughts. I’ve been meaning to write about it, and it is some of what I hinted at in a previous post about going on vacation. This statement, “E = I + O,” kinda’ served as a beacon of sorts of the Re: Awakening.
As a sort of grounding, there is the already written The Fractal Structure of a Dispositional Universe, which explores the relationship between Dr. CB Martin’s dispositional theory and the properties of a fractal structure. The main import for this entry is that Martin formulates that “M = D + P,” where:
M = Manifestation
D = Disposition
P = mutual disposition Partner
I argue in the essay that such a formulation creates a fractal structure to manifestation, i.e., that reality exists in a fractal dimension—not quite here or there (in a way)—if we assume Martin’s dispositional theory as a model of existence.
So in terms of this metaphor, M = D + P is a facet of E = I + O. Now this is where it gets a little less rigourous (if it ever was in the first place), and becomes more loose, and, in a way, more free.
The simplest way for me to present this is as follows:
E = {Energy, Everyone, Everything, Eternal, Experience, Element, Expression, Encounter}
I = {Individual, Interpretation, I, Interdependent, Infinite, Information, Input}
O = {Other, Object, Opening, One, Output}
These are sets of words—each word obviously beginning with the letter name of the set—which I’ve loosely associated with the formula.1. Some particular groupings are more meaningful (seemingly) than others, and serve more to capture some of the intended meaning of the statement.
For example, since energy can neither be created or destroyed, “Energy = Input + Output” makes sense in terms where the energy present in a moment is identical to the energy that created it in the past and the energy that it will become in the future.2. In turn, a collection of energies creates the manifestation of the moment in a similar (metaphorical) way that a collection of points creates a fractal pattern.
Some of the words are meant to have slippery senses which point their reference to one of the other sets. This in order to give a feel for the self-referencing that is existence: a sense of the paradox that gives rise to manifestation.
For example, “I” can point to One, as I am the One that I know, for instance.
Or, O can been seen as 0 (‘zero’), and points to the notion that a singularity is nothing, 1 = 0, or that the self is empty (I = O)
Or, we can pun on I as ‘eye’ and bring in sensory data, or pun on I as ‘aye,’ affirmation, and make nodding reference to Derrida’s “Oui, Oui”.
Yeah, there’s a lot of sloppy metaphor in this E = I + O, and I hope that maybe this entry captures a little bit of what I mean here. However, ultimately, the formula is intended to create enough semantic play that boundaries collapse, and E = I = O, which, in turn, creates a space to catch a glimpse of a unspeakable ontological reality.
1. Please note the sets are not meant to be exhaustive, merely a sample of things that could be assocaited with each letter.
2. ETA on 9/18/08: Since writing this post this substitution has bothered me because in a standard interpretation qua physics E = I + O, where E is energy, I is input (of energy), and O is output (of energy) the formula is pretty much wrong. However, the idea expressed here, that energy remains constant over time, is true in terms of the law of conservation of energy. I suppose if we instead examined Energy, E, = the energy of the individual, I, + the energy of all Other individuals, O, then this would make more sense in terms of the actual physical law.
As a sort of grounding, there is the already written The Fractal Structure of a Dispositional Universe, which explores the relationship between Dr. CB Martin’s dispositional theory and the properties of a fractal structure. The main import for this entry is that Martin formulates that “M = D + P,” where:
M = Manifestation
D = Disposition
P = mutual disposition Partner
I argue in the essay that such a formulation creates a fractal structure to manifestation, i.e., that reality exists in a fractal dimension—not quite here or there (in a way)—if we assume Martin’s dispositional theory as a model of existence.
So in terms of this metaphor, M = D + P is a facet of E = I + O. Now this is where it gets a little less rigourous (if it ever was in the first place), and becomes more loose, and, in a way, more free.
The simplest way for me to present this is as follows:
E = {Energy, Everyone, Everything, Eternal, Experience, Element, Expression, Encounter}
I = {Individual, Interpretation, I, Interdependent, Infinite, Information, Input}
O = {Other, Object, Opening, One, Output}
These are sets of words—each word obviously beginning with the letter name of the set—which I’ve loosely associated with the formula.1. Some particular groupings are more meaningful (seemingly) than others, and serve more to capture some of the intended meaning of the statement.
For example, since energy can neither be created or destroyed, “Energy = Input + Output” makes sense in terms where the energy present in a moment is identical to the energy that created it in the past and the energy that it will become in the future.2. In turn, a collection of energies creates the manifestation of the moment in a similar (metaphorical) way that a collection of points creates a fractal pattern.
Some of the words are meant to have slippery senses which point their reference to one of the other sets. This in order to give a feel for the self-referencing that is existence: a sense of the paradox that gives rise to manifestation.
For example, “I” can point to One, as I am the One that I know, for instance.
Or, O can been seen as 0 (‘zero’), and points to the notion that a singularity is nothing, 1 = 0, or that the self is empty (I = O)
Or, we can pun on I as ‘eye’ and bring in sensory data, or pun on I as ‘aye,’ affirmation, and make nodding reference to Derrida’s “Oui, Oui”.
Yeah, there’s a lot of sloppy metaphor in this E = I + O, and I hope that maybe this entry captures a little bit of what I mean here. However, ultimately, the formula is intended to create enough semantic play that boundaries collapse, and E = I = O, which, in turn, creates a space to catch a glimpse of a unspeakable ontological reality.
1. Please note the sets are not meant to be exhaustive, merely a sample of things that could be assocaited with each letter.
2. ETA on 9/18/08: Since writing this post this substitution has bothered me because in a standard interpretation qua physics E = I + O, where E is energy, I is input (of energy), and O is output (of energy) the formula is pretty much wrong. However, the idea expressed here, that energy remains constant over time, is true in terms of the law of conservation of energy. I suppose if we instead examined Energy, E, = the energy of the individual, I, + the energy of all Other individuals, O, then this would make more sense in terms of the actual physical law.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
(Re)Search
I think I'm gonna' start a new category of posts titled "(Re)Search," which will be mostly a collection of links and maybe some commentary on the content or inspiration for posting said links. These will likely be related--perhaps sometimes very abstractly--to ideas explored in this blog.
Tonight I found myself thinking about figure/ground ordering in perception, as well as its connection to Gestalt psychology.
I also discovered that Gestalt therapy is somewhat different from, and not entirely connected to, Gestalt psychology.
'Gestalt' being defined as: a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
There are dualities involved in the creation of the whole from its parts (aside from "whole & parts," see also : mereology): figure/ground being one aspect, in this case, of perception.
Also noted in some of the above links is the duality of Self and Other. I particularly liked the following from Gestalt therapy:
"...self...is a comparison with 'other'. Without other there is no self, and how I experience other is inseparable from how I experience self,"
which also makes think of Jung. Indeed, part of what led me on this search was the duality that can be perceived between the consciousness and the collective unconsciousness--as a form of the figure/ground relationship--with respect to interpretation of experiences.
As an aside, this applet of a stereoscopic animated hypercube is a fascinating interplay of figure/ground in 3d! But the viewer requires those blue/red 3d glasses for full effect.
Tonight I found myself thinking about figure/ground ordering in perception, as well as its connection to Gestalt psychology.
I also discovered that Gestalt therapy is somewhat different from, and not entirely connected to, Gestalt psychology.
'Gestalt' being defined as: a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
There are dualities involved in the creation of the whole from its parts (aside from "whole & parts," see also : mereology): figure/ground being one aspect, in this case, of perception.
Also noted in some of the above links is the duality of Self and Other. I particularly liked the following from Gestalt therapy:
"...self...is a comparison with 'other'. Without other there is no self, and how I experience other is inseparable from how I experience self,"
which also makes think of Jung. Indeed, part of what led me on this search was the duality that can be perceived between the consciousness and the collective unconsciousness--as a form of the figure/ground relationship--with respect to interpretation of experiences.
As an aside, this applet of a stereoscopic animated hypercube is a fascinating interplay of figure/ground in 3d! But the viewer requires those blue/red 3d glasses for full effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
