The Observer in the Observed - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T14:09:50Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-observer-in-the-observed?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A3242&feed=yes&xn_auth=noOK, I'll just kinda summarize…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-10-10:5301756:Comment:311202011-10-10T07:24:22.111ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<p>OK, I'll just kinda summarize things that I've been thinking so as not to take up too much time that I never get back to it, as I think it's an important question theurj asked about the relation between mathematics, representation and reality, and in particular the differences Terry or I may have with the views of <i>Lakoff, Johnson and Nunez.</i> Now I can't speak about Johnson, because I haven't read him, nor can I speak for Terry, of course. But I did recently read Where Mathematics…</p>
<p>OK, I'll just kinda summarize things that I've been thinking so as not to take up too much time that I never get back to it, as I think it's an important question theurj asked about the relation between mathematics, representation and reality, and in particular the differences Terry or I may have with the views of <i>Lakoff, Johnson and Nunez.</i> Now I can't speak about Johnson, because I haven't read him, nor can I speak for Terry, of course. But I did recently read Where Mathematics Comes From (WMCF), and I can speak from my reception at this interface. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>In general my impression was simultaneously one of exhilaration at the possibilities of cross-fertilization with the information, and one of exasperation at the linearity of history. Mostly I just felt like the book was the missing body of empirical data needed for my more intuitive groping in my own experiential recesses. But the material presented seemed to call out for a deeper framework to make sense of things, and there was an occasional such issue here and there. But only a few centered on the issue of the relation between reality and mathematics. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the issue is mainly this. In my work I drill down to what appears to be some of the primitives of conceptual and mathematical thought. At this level they are one with the evolutionary roots in perceptual instinct or the primitives of sensory-mnemonic intelligence within the brain emergent from its recapitulation through embryogenesis. I also demonstrate that the conceptual evolution of mathematics is in itself a fractal, and that (now, here mostly in my second book, on Sorce Theory, which was to be part of SZII) it recapitulates some of the key forms of ontology and an emerging nondual meta/-physics. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But more importantly, and this I am just beginning to realize, thinking of the brain/mind (spirit, soul, ...) itself as fractal, as is becoming more clear by the hour...this realization of the Fractal Nature of the cosmos itself, this Fractal View of mind radically changes everything. This is because along with the fractal comes the recognition of self-similarity, and new dynamic concepts like reflections at boundary conditions, attractors, structural couplings, etc. And so, no longer do we have to say that mathematics holds some Platonic absolute form of reality or that it absolutely doesn't. It's recursive, similar and emergent novelty. We can understand the art aspects of mathematics, even the fractal itself, while still understanding the deep relation in the similarity in the recursion, and we can begin to see this duality itself as a bifurcation at boundary conditions, albeit of a more abstract sort, perhaps, but also likely with a very real counterpart in a dynamical process(s). So, simply put, with these ideas we finally have a modeling language complex enough for the task of deepening the analogies in understanding the evolutionary and embryological embodiment of some of these core 'mental' constructs/inventions/discoveries, like Mathematics.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So from this view, then, Representation, indeed Mathematics as well, is "a self-similar echo of reality itself." Indeed it is nothing other. It is also a structural coupling of subject/object and ontic/epistemic, and hence of Reality and Representation (in a local pocket) through the process of evolving intelligence and consciousness. A feedback loop, involution in evolution, as the edges of Mathematics finally reach into its foundations at the Fractal (and indeed there is a strange epistemic, laser-like resonance or autocatalysis that occurs at this stage, it seems). This is precisely the reason for the uncanny effectiveness of Mathematics in dealing with reality. The real empirical/perceptual traction at the heart of the proto-conceptual infrastructure of Mathematics and indeed relation itself. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>And in the sense that a child has a certain purity, so too is Mathematics founded on a similar purity at the heart of relation. There is a certain perfection and deep and real possibility at this level. And even more clearly, this core abstraction is the simple intuitive/instinctual understanding of dynamic boundary. It shows up as the primitive number itself, and recapitulates through a process of expansion (evolution) and contraction (involution) into the closure of a new set. Closure is this dynamic boundary (a recapitulation of the ego itself), this transcendent drive for comprehensive or exhaustive expansion or evolution of the forms of the dance of Operation and Number (the verb/noun, object-event/dynamic-boundary itself) contracting or involuting into a new unity or set. When you look for it, it's really a very fractal form of the exploration of the "boundary conditions" of boundary itself, or simply put, Mathematics is the conditions of boundary. And at the same time it is a strange inversion or mirror image (reflection and bifurcation) at and as these boundary conditions of boundary at the interface of the cogito itself, as it magnifies up into the collective as the ontic-epistemic interface, which is yet again another layer (noosphere) in the deepening self-similar holonion. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>And this brings us back to your question, theurj. You gave the following quote in contrast to my quote that "Representation ... is a self-similar echo of reality itself." </p>
“Varela, Thompson and Rosch argued that the standard division between pre-given, external features of the world and internal symbolic representations should be dropped, as it is unable to accommodate the feedback from embodied actions to cognition via the actions of a situated cognitive agent.” (Stanford encyclopedia)<br/>
<p> </p>
<p>...and I actually think these quotes are in agreement, though not explicitly so. I am indeed arguing that the standard division should be dropped, mainly because it is not informed from the Fractal View. It's an either/or proposition. Either Mathematics is fundamental or absolutely real, or it is fundamentally fantasy or art and only approaches reality in some respects or capacities. The Fractal View allows us to see the false dichotomy here, or at least their integration as the bifurcation at the boundary conditions of the new layer of abstraction which is the heart of embodied Mathematics. Mathematics is Art and Science of Pure Relation, is how I expressed it in SpinbitZ, which is the integration here of this bifurcation at the heart of Mathematics, in that it can explore new worlds in its capacity as "disembodied", emergent, or abstracted relation, and at the same time it is a new and deeper layer of this real relation. Mathematics is dealing with metaphysical principles, which are at once immanent to Representation itself, as they are founded in the primitive operational elements of consciousness itself, in its dynamic coupling with reality through evolutionary entrainment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well I know this is rambling, but I felt this question needed some clarity, and I deeply enjoy exploring here, as I had to take the time to do recently, and so I thought a quick summary of some of the points I'm touching could help make some sense of this complex relationship. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Joel</p>
Hi Joel, cool how you find…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-30:5301756:Comment:304182011-09-30T07:40:23.015Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Joel, cool how you find new ground. Look forward to your responses, when you find the time :)</p>
<p>I’ll pick up on a couple of issues above and Edwards points. If the nature of bodymind or embodied is considered, as an interpretation (or construct/open or closed/ or contradiction) that could be the difference between real and false reason.</p>
<p>Between body and mind , the functional separation is clear enough. As between the organism and representation/ conceptuality…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Joel, cool how you find new ground. Look forward to your responses, when you find the time :)</p>
<p>I’ll pick up on a couple of issues above and Edwards points. If the nature of bodymind or embodied is considered, as an interpretation (or construct/open or closed/ or contradiction) that could be the difference between real and false reason.</p>
<p>Between body and mind , the functional separation is clear enough. As between the organism and representation/ conceptuality /consciousness . What the self similarity of fractals (and quantum physics, fluid/reentry dynamics (?) etc) tells us is that these boundaries remain structurally open. The seamlessness here is what I meant – beyond the finite/infinite divide – openness implies not only between structures, but also between structure and emptiness/the unknown . It appears open <i>or</i> closed is contradictory, but open <i>and</i> closed is not, it moves beyond the prototype or constituents</p>
<p>Conceptuality as real reason gets closer to bodymind as an interpretation/contradiction. With embodied itself being true <i>and</i> false as a contradiction. False is false, and the livin is easy . but the trip is, open – true and false – false – and back (That’s sort of easy too, if I examined my head. Gol) then real reason <i>always</i> has to consider or be the contradiction, and false reason is not contradictory in itself (unless its abused !) amusement is written <i>in</i> the fabric of existence?</p>
<p> </p> Hi theurj and valli, I'd like…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-29:5301756:Comment:304142011-09-29T04:51:12.874ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
Hi theurj and valli, I'd like to get back to your questions, and I was beginning, but combined events have found me breaking into fluidity once more and finding new ground in the process, so it's taking much longer to finish or complete or reach closure than I had anticipated. But I thank you graciously for your stimulation here as it's helped me resolve some issues that were not clear. I'm hoping I can distill it to respond here, perhaps in a week. Thanks again. I wish I had the time like I…
Hi theurj and valli, I'd like to get back to your questions, and I was beginning, but combined events have found me breaking into fluidity once more and finding new ground in the process, so it's taking much longer to finish or complete or reach closure than I had anticipated. But I thank you graciously for your stimulation here as it's helped me resolve some issues that were not clear. I'm hoping I can distill it to respond here, perhaps in a week. Thanks again. I wish I had the time like I used to to participate steadily in this forum. So many great discussions going on here!
I know that Lakoff, Johnson…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-25:5301756:Comment:299042011-09-25T17:57:25.071Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p><i>I know that Lakoff, Johnson and Nunez do not see this connection, that “representation,” which is indeed grounded in basic image schemas and metaphors, is not akin to the</i> structure of reality <i>itself. Rather they assert that the representation paradigm is a non-embodied “false” reasoning</i></p>
<p><i><br></br></i></p>
<p>Let me turn the question around. Can reality <i>have</i> a structure, is there a gap? the reality we experience is it structural ? is the physical universe a…</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>I know that Lakoff, Johnson and Nunez do not see this connection, that “representation,” which is indeed grounded in basic image schemas and metaphors, is not akin to the</i> structure of reality <i>itself. Rather they assert that the representation paradigm is a non-embodied “false” reasoning</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<p>Let me turn the question around. Can reality <i>have</i> a structure, is there a gap? the reality we experience is it structural ? is the physical universe a structure or an experience? Is structure which is probably necessarily open interpreted as closed ? there you could have the meta contradiction - the fabric of structure. or, structure is <i>the</i> contradiction</p>
<p> </p>
<p>since finite and infinite are self similar, is polarity between open and closed, or you have experience which is an interpretation of open <i>as</i> closed. and I can feel that I have captured this intimately but it is eternally open. Then ultimate polarity is the collapse of polarity. whole is non, non is whole . From terry’s paper – <i>a great truth is a truth whose opposite is also a great truth –</i> Neils Bohr</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don’t know about fluid dynamics, should look it up – but the term fluid refers to reality in a more realistic way – I guess what in this case a <i>science</i> might authenticate</p>
<p> </p>
I get fuzzy, I can’t remember where I was ^..^<br/>
<p> </p> Rosch however, co-author with…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-25:5301756:Comment:299032011-09-25T17:13:42.725ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Rosch however, co-author with Varela and Thompson in <em>The Embodied Mind</em>, also maintains the ontological status of reality as such. We discussed her on p. 3 and following of the <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/essence-and-identity" target="_self">essence and identity</a> thread. For example this from p. 4, noting the results of a meditative beginner's mind: “They find not only what they themselves really are already but what the world actually is.” It…</p>
<p>Rosch however, co-author with Varela and Thompson in <em>The Embodied Mind</em>, also maintains the ontological status of reality as such. We discussed her on p. 3 and following of the <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/essence-and-identity" target="_self">essence and identity</a> thread. For example this from p. 4, noting the results of a meditative beginner's mind: “They find not only what they themselves really are already but what the world actually is.” It seems both Rosch and Varela were both students of the “shentong” tradition she describes so perhaps Varela also held this view, although as I said I'm not sure. But they both appear adamant that it is not through representational mind but through pure nonconceptual awareness wherein the “nondual” lies. It that way they seem more akin to Tom, as discovered in that thread.</p>
<p>Whereas for me I'm more in agreement with Joel in that the “nondual” resides in a conceptual “mind,” not in a pure nonconceptual realm (if I understand him correctly?). And yet my Lakoff et al. inspired version does not have this “mind” as representational, the latter being false reasoning. Lakoff and Rosch seem to agree on that point, though differ in terms of a pure nonconceptual awareness.</p> In the opening post of every…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-24:5301756:Comment:298042011-09-24T16:31:49.841ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the opening post of every page of this thread are excerpts of Terry's referenced paper. Therein she says: “<font color="#000000">P</font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">aradoxical dynamics [are] embedded in the very fabric of existence,” and that Varela asserts the “dynamics of re-entry articulate paradoxical foundations not only for logic and but also for the creation of all structure.”…</font></font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the opening post of every page of this thread are excerpts of Terry's referenced paper. Therein she says: “<font color="#000000">P</font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">aradoxical dynamics [are] embedded in the very fabric of existence,” and that Varela asserts the “dynamics of re-entry articulate paradoxical foundations not only for logic and but also for the creation of all structure.”</font></font></font> <font color="#000000">I am not an expert on Varela so not able to refute this, but this is f</font>rom the Stanford encyclopedia entry on <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/#MenRep">embodied cognition</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">“Varela, Thompson and Rosch argued that the standard division between pre-given, external features of the world and internal symbolic representations should be dropped, as it is unable to accommodate the feedback from embodied actions to cognition via the actions of a situated cognitive agent.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Joel says something similar to Terry when he said in this thread (p. 6): “Representation...is a self-similar echo of reality itself.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I know that Lakoff, Johnson and Nunez do not see this connection, that “representation,” which is indeed grounded in basic image schemas and metaphors, is not akin to the structure of reality itself. Rather they assert that the representation paradigm is a non-embodied “false” reasoning. And it would seem that Varela might agree, but as I said I'm not sure. We did a <a href="francisco-varela">thread on Varela</a> and from what I've seen therein there was no indication that he made this leap, even through the eyes of Bitbol. So perhaps both Terry and Joel can help me understand this leap they both appear to make? And how Lakoff et al. are mistaken?</p> The term axis could be substi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-24:5301756:Comment:300012011-09-24T12:44:09.784Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p><i>The term axis could be substituted for the words 'freedom', 'dimension', or 'infinity', and all of these are inherently open and polar, in nature.</i></p>
<p><i><br></br></i></p>
<p>Joel, that’s a common theme to my arguments across issues the difference between open and polar – Valera’s autopoesis Terry refers to, that contradiction (polar/paradox) is the underpinning that gives rise to form – and my view of open structures as potential to move past contradiction, what I think of as…</p>
<p><i>The term axis could be substituted for the words 'freedom', 'dimension', or 'infinity', and all of these are inherently open and polar, in nature.</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<p>Joel, that’s a common theme to my arguments across issues the difference between open and polar – Valera’s autopoesis Terry refers to, that contradiction (polar/paradox) is the underpinning that gives rise to form – and my view of open structures as potential to move past contradiction, what I think of as transrational. (if polar doesn’t mean a conflict between opposites but could be a coexistence – it in turn implies a shift to an integral mode)</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>in that it would be impossible for anything to exist if ever there were no relation between the finite and infinite, ontologically speaking.</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<p>Yes, that’s likely . in fact it's that they are too self similar. Quality markers or uniqueness could be event related and not existence specific (as itself for example) - contradiction being a constituent, and what arises is the movement beyond since there is essentially a simultaneity (not limited to any unit but across them) – the aperspectivism I refer to.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>OK, so I would say that this structural openness is inherent in the embryogenesis of the concept, in several ways</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<p>I ought to have said the <i>other</i> domain instead of emptiness, never liked emptiness. I’ll come back to this, let me resort to metaphors for a bit :) lets me revel in shades that waver in undercover options, to reframe things . but then frames are signifiers that can turn from flashy to conciliatory – in that sense they exhibit a sensibility that is inventive for a frame.</p> valli said:
Does the integrat…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-23:5301756:Comment:296102011-09-23T16:36:20.641ZJoel Morrisonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JoelMorrison
<cite>valli said:</cite><br></br>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-observer-in-the-observed?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A29609&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment29708"><div><p>Does the integrated /vision logic axes and self similarity of fractals relate to open ended structures ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The term axis could be substituted for the words 'freedom', 'dimension', or 'infinity', and all of these are inherently open and polar, in…</p>
<cite>valli said:</cite><br/>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-observer-in-the-observed?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A29609&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment29708"><div><p>Does the integrated /vision logic axes and self similarity of fractals relate to open ended structures ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The term axis could be substituted for the words 'freedom', 'dimension', or 'infinity', and all of these are inherently open and polar, in nature. I chose axis because I wanted it to not be confused with our everyday conception of dimensionality because in my view these core 'dimensions' or axes are the very core of both ontic and epistemic dimensionality. And so they are at the vision-logic level of understanding, rising up out of dimensionality and the common perspectives thereon by digging beneath it (transcendence through immanence, as per usual).</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>At this interface they are functionally closed and structurally open .</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, this is what is meant by an "aspect infinity", aspect being the finite component as revealing, like a lens or quality, the infinite or open directionality (in a sense) of the motion.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>but unless structurally open means a movement beyond the finite/infinite and conscious/unconscious divide there maybe a self inflicted reductivity in the dynamics of recursions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, (assuming I understand you here, which I very well may not) I think the argument could be inverted in that it would be impossible for anything to exist if ever there were no relation between the finite and infinite, ontologically speaking. But epistemically, I'd say that it all begins in nothingness, which as a self-similar echo is the very root of foundationalism, recapitulating that originary emergence from nothingness (tacit sensory-mnemonic primitives) into form (percept and concept). But, again, ontologically speaking, as we see in the conundrum of the substance and bundle views of substance in Philosophy, it's an absurdity to take this nothingness as an absolute formless substance, and that's actually a dualistic and pre-rational construct.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>Structurally open suggests flowing both ways into content and emptiness . speaking of going places</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, so I would say that this structural openness is inherent in the embryogenesis of the concept, in several ways. Firstly, it originates in "emptiness", but again not as an absolute formless substance, but as a tacit foundationless ground of existence, infinitely formed but just unconsciousness (enfolded consciousness) relatively to the emergent forms in the embryogenesis. So in this sense of unfolding, emptiness into form. Also, with every new layer there seems to be a return to the ground of immanence which facilitates the reconstruction of the old structures into the new layers. THis is common experience with meditation, art, and the like. There is always a flux between immanence and transcendence, emptiness and form in any openly and healthily evolving, integrating and transcending system.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In mathematics this is how closure is constantly "violated" to bring about the transcendence into new order (numbers and operations), and without both closure and its violation none of the embryogenesis could occur. And this is the very basis of conceptual thought, in generalized form, I argue, revealed simply through the generalization of the simplest conceptual objects and events, the numbers and operations. It is not the whole of it, but a key window into its heart.</p> Many of the same issues here-…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-23:5301756:Comment:296092011-09-23T15:14:08.815ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
Many of the same issues here--including recursive dynamics, hierarchical inclusion, boundaries, parts and wholes etc.--have been discussed in other threads, particularly <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/toe-and-tfa" target="_self">this one</a> on theories of everything and theories for anything. If one has the time and/or interest it might make for relevant background for this thread?
Many of the same issues here--including recursive dynamics, hierarchical inclusion, boundaries, parts and wholes etc.--have been discussed in other threads, particularly <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/toe-and-tfa" target="_self">this one</a> on theories of everything and theories for anything. If one has the time and/or interest it might make for relevant background for this thread?
Joel, Le t me consider math…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-23:5301756:Comment:297082011-09-23T14:12:02.730Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Joel, Le t me consider mathematics as the language of generalized realtion to structural openness beyond the finite/infinite divide. Does the integrated /vision logic axes and self similarity of fractals relate to open ended structures ?</p>
<p>The architecture of fractals as boundary keepers at the functional level is clear enough. Between mountains and rivers and coastlines. And chaotic forces like water, heat and the weather and space. At this interface they are functionally…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Joel, Le t me consider mathematics as the language of generalized realtion to structural openness beyond the finite/infinite divide. Does the integrated /vision logic axes and self similarity of fractals relate to open ended structures ?</p>
<p>The architecture of fractals as boundary keepers at the functional level is clear enough. Between mountains and rivers and coastlines. And chaotic forces like water, heat and the weather and space. At this interface they are functionally closed and structurally open . but unless structurally open means a movement beyond the finite/infinite and conscious/unconscious divide there maybe a self inflicted reductivity in the dynamics of recursions.</p>
<p>self similarity of fractals is a neat perspective of dimensional entry and how non linearity informs a domain. Structurally open suggests flowing both ways into content and emptiness . speaking of going places. rewires the location for apriori</p>
<p>Since open endedness naturally relates to all levels – organic, cosmic, embryogenetic, ecological (I guess its like what you say in math as aside from a focus on closure) - If higher math or cybernetics <i>represent</i> what is not cognitively available (at least to some extent if not more) to the organism , they should also address the gap between functional closure and functional revolution .</p>
<p>probably from experience to event , structure has dynamics. open also implies post structure, and beyond the identity of the self similar fractal . the idea of re-entry allows this view as well, authenticates the direction . mapping this fuzzy area may be a moot point, but if theres a path as a prelude to a jump – I could be led out there as infinity disappears to be discovered on reentry….</p>