Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
The notion of some form of "paraconsistent logic" is necessary in order to create MOA-2 models (and to follow their implied convergence toward MOA-3 models). I have not read the Priest myself but I concur with Joseph that the function of being-the-same-as-different-things, i.e. the structural and generative dimension of nonduality mediating between gross items, shared qualities and differential-syntactical pattern requirements is already present roughly as the "is" and "metaphysical gap". The active threshold required by paraconsistent logic and "gluons" is not an alternative to an additional ontology but rather another way of stating the same principle.
Of course I must go on record as saying that "additional dimension" must be conceived non-spatially and that "emptiness" (since it must be empty of emptiness) are frequently misleading terms.
Redness unites red things. And a fractal equation (structural differential dynamic) unites all the varies attractors which forms components of its output. These are the "subtle" and "causal" ontologies which enable holonic integration of components. And they operate only where the "nondual" separator-connector blend permits. Trying to subsume these additional ontological factors under the notion of an "object" is probably limiting but represents an admirable attempt to raise the notion of object into integrative levels of pondering.
So I would agree about "material cause";
I would cite the causal patterning-differentials as the "formal cause";
I would note that subtle reality must be conceived conceptually as the simultaneity of morphology and dynamism. Shapes are qualitative flows. These are full shapes, forms in the common sense. The causal forms are not really shapes but non-dimensional syntactical implications.
And, as per above, the "emptiness" which redeems the IOU must be empty of itself, not conceived as an additional spaciousness, not behind, but empty of itself and located within the marvelously insufficient space of the other three. Should it be considered a "cause"? Hard to say -- but it must be considered as an active element of structure and not merely a diffuse mystical background.
The uber-gluon is is-ing the flavor of our All!
These "boundaries between sections", these "sideways" between ontologies and quadrants, etc... What are these things?
They are orthogonal spaces. The additional orthogonal dimension or space N is what resolves the paradox or contradiction at the N-1 dimension level. See the flatland example I gave in my previous posting where a 3D object intersects the flat-lander 2D plane.
So, how can nonlocality or both A and B be true at the same time? Through the intersection of a higher N dimensional object into the N-1 space. So in this sense, there is really no practical difference between resolving contradiction at a higher level or by using an additional dimension which can intersect the N-1 world anyplace and everyplace - at the boundaries, in-between, along-side etc..
Layman Pascal said:
Heya Joey ('y' added only for alphabetic consistency with heYa),
Presumably Wilbs (or at least MY Wilbs) would agree that the IOU is issued not only forward toward the necessity of successor holons in an emerging universe but also "sideways" between quadrants and between ontologies (the four states/bodies considered as necessary ontologies as in my online essay "Does Anybody Hear?"). The thresholds perform a consistently generative and supplementary task no matter which direction they involved in.
Now, if I put aside my well-known distaste for the term "Emptiness", I can join my Wilbs in affirming that the ubiquitous & bizarrely-satisfying indiscernibility-commonality that exceeds both finite and indefinite syntactical boundaries of all kinds must be invoked in order to logically and experientially secure the omnipresent generative "creative slip" operating both forward and sideways at all thresholds on any Great Map.
Whether we should mythologize that as an ultimate entity, a final arrival, which pays back the IOU is a matter of either colloquial playfulness or metaphysical malingering. I am a pious man and offer the benefit of the doubt. (Except to Oleg Linetsky -- Eastern devil! But of course the role of a unique fetish is to make sanity appear in the rest of the system...)
I whole-heartedly agree that these "active betwixts" can be articulated as higher-level resolutions or additional dimensions. My only caution is that dimensions (similar, but the not the same as "emptiness") are ambiguous. When this word is heard it ought to suggest a variable of mapping. There are an indefinite number of these -- ranging from length and width to duration, color, scent & foldedness. That is all fine and valid. However in practice this word contains a suggestive allure associated with "additional spaces". This is what makes it so seductive to popular science fiction (including the common contemporary phenomenon of "cheerfully imaginative science popularizing").
The notion of spacious-availability-to-location is intimately entangled with the inherited notion of "3D". When we try to conceive other spaces we locate nothing. When we ponder our reading of Abbott's flatland we discover that we did not actually detect any 4D. We are even using 3D to stand in for 2D and 1D (the marks on the page being normal spatial objects). So while we use the edge-of-conceivability to stimulate the growth of our comprehension of patterns which include an increased variety of mutually dependent structure-describing variables we must be alert to the non-existential and quasi-nihilistic odor that accompanies the widely popular habit of discussing additional "spaces".
This does not mean, obviously, to prohibit such words. It means only that it is wise to introduce cautions when they are employed. It is the same with "infinity" -- wherein we should be proactively teasing apart endless-temporal-unfolding from the impossibility of conceiving a realized infinite quantity.
So while I agree with you that a "higher N-dimensional object" inhering in higher N-dimensional space offers us workable language for objectifying certain aspects of subtle, causal and nondual involvement in the holonic identity of a group of components... I would say that the practical issue is simply the one of discouraging, rather than encouraging, the Unthinkable in the form of non-spatial spaces.
I agree that it's not that useful to use higher dimensions in an arm waving fashion. However, when used within specific models of representation, it can be useful for making certain kinds of distinctions, like the AQAL map is. You do know what I'm talking about, but I need to reserve further explanation until I finish my paper. :-)
My overall point, however, was that Priest's paraconsistent logic does not supplant Wilber's concept of the IOU.
Layman Pascal said:
I whole-heartedly agree that these "active betwixts" can be articulated as higher-level resolutions or additional dimensions. My only caution is
I agree -- as per my first response on this topic. Paraconsistency is definitely a kindred approach but it needs to understand itself a little more profoundly -- following its own tendencies into the multiple interacting ontologies that Wilber has typically referred to as the undergirding of "states". Looking forward to your paper.