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.

Something Elsewhere

I wrote the following for an online community of which I'm a member, but I wanted to post it here too as it has everything to do with what this blog is about. Now, I know it might not make total sense because the context has been removed, but it relates some of the ideas I hold about our reality, the ways in which in interpret it, and how to examine such a mode of interpretation. Without further ado, here is the post:

Hurm...maybe don't give up the goat so quickly? I mean, maybe you didn't get it all right, but sure as shit ya' didn't get it all wrong either, and where some critiques might be valid, I bet dollars to donuts none of the detractors, ultimately, have it all right either.

See here’s some of the thing—and fer sure this is simply from how I got it reckoned, and maybe some of it’s right, but I’d be struck dead by whatever force you (reader) happen to believe in if it should contain no error. So yeah, well there is undeniably a distinction drawn in QBL between RHP and LHP, this is, as has at least been hinted by some of the folks above, not exclusive to QBL by any means, nor is it merely a strictly Western way of creating categories of our experiences.

In fact, I’d hazard that in almost any tradition there is something within the interpretive structure that defines distinction between ‘right’ and ‘left’. ‘Cause really, right and left are a basic tool we use to orient ourselves in the physical world, and this, being based on the interpretation of physical space, is fairly entrenched in the psyche of an experiencing being. Humans, being so damn complicated, are bound to create meaning out of such fundamental distinction, and so, make connections with all sorts of other meaningful structures within both their personal and social “reality tunnel(s).” Again, this is at least a means to orient oneself not only physically, but mentally/spiritually what-have-you—it creates a space within which we can attempt to know ourselves in virtue of our interpretation of the information that occupies this space.

To put it all a little differently, without a sense of left and right, well, we’d be cut off from a whole dimension of experiencing. So yeah, the basic dichotomy of ‘right’ and ‘left’ seem very real, and to some people who believe in some particular interpretive structure, the meaningful associations made with these orientations are also real—they are used to create categories which aid in identification, a means to understand.

But that all said, it’s not only important to recognize and acknowledge the reality of dichotomies, it’s also equally important to understand their deconstruction and unity. Thus, your attempt in the original post to weave a synthesis of polarities, and relate your understanding of the unity and/or “falsehood” of the particular dichotomy you define seems to me a means to deeper understanding and wisdom—it doesn’t matter so much here that perhaps the facts may or may not be right, it’s more the understanding of the need to undertake such a venture.