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.