Tom on "Quantum Enlightenment"

[Balder]

For anyone interested --

Tom, a former member of IPS, has posted an interesting -- and lengthy! -- blog on Integral Life.

 

Quantum Enlightenment 

[Nicole]

Hi Tely, you do know you can just click "Follow" right? Anyway, nice to see you!

[Balder]

Ed has been contributing some related posts over on the "Observer in the Observed" thread, so I wanted to place a link to it here.

 

Terry, fyi, a student in one of my classes was inspired by your book and recently did an insightful class presentation on self-similar dynamics in family systems, using a genogram and family narratives to begin to identify the fractal patterning.

[Terry Marks-Tarlow, Ph.D.]

Thanks for alerting me to the other thread. I don't think I would have realized it was active again. I hope I will be alerted regarding other responses the way I am on this thread. Meanwhile, I am thrilled to hear of your student's application to family systems. This is such a fruitful area, as there are such interesting multigenerational self-similar patterns. Perhaps your student should write something up about it. I don't believe a paper like this has been published before, but it certainly should be! 

Balder said:

Ed has been contributing some related posts over on the "Observer in the Observed" thread, so I wanted to place a link to it here.

 

Terry, fyi, a student in one of my classes was inspired by your book and recently did an insightful class presentation on self-similar dynamics in family systems, using a genogram and family narratives to begin to identify the fractal patterning.

[Joel Morrison]

This is such a great thread, I'm hoping to find some time to get back to it and answer some of the points and spin into some of the beautiful tangents brought up.

 

Meanwhile, I just finished an email to Rob Oldershaw of Self-Similar Cosmology fame, and found this passage might be interesting to discuss.

 

------

 

I get really amazed by this self-similar cosmological view, and I think your empirical relation is key.  

At this point, it's clear that complexity science is the post-quantum causal metaphor, which will link the micro and macro regions of the physical sciences.  Makes far too much sense not to be....and is just so beautiful.  What Sorce Theory fleshes out is this post-quantum causation which modern physics failed to find. 

But what blows my mind here, and to which I am constantly drawn, is the catalysis between the three main cosmologies on the cusp: Self-Similar Cosmology(SSC), Electric Universe (EU) and Sorce Theory (ST).  It's no real coincidence that ST's model of the atom is so similar to that of the plasma focus Electric Star model in EU, nor a coincidence that they are self-similar across such a vast range on the axis of scale, nor that the electric force is apparently indefinitely scalable, and in itself fundamentally fractal, with its ergodic "fine structure" (e.g. Saturn's rings) and being closer to the root of the force spectrum, built as it is from the infinite depth of the fractal core of infinite relation (Deleuzian/Spinozan difference) itself.  

Sorce Theory presents essentially a self-similar mass-free superfluid cymatics, and I show the ramifications of the self-similar aspect which must accompany any post-quantum and Complexity level causal understanding.  It fleshes out the causation recursively and thus cosmically, and demonstrates why and how different forces and properties oscillate on the axis of scale to emerge into the patterns of root matter-unit periodicities or "atomic" fine structure (patterns of quanta) which your empirical relation shows extends up and down through the cosmos.  

I demonstrate also how this necessitates a fundamental re-thinking of what a "fundamental" anything is.  What is fundamental in infinite recursivity other than a morphological attractor?  And this is what forces and particles are.  Forces are morphological attractors on the continuity end, and particles are those on the discontinuity end.  I flesh this out as the causal principle of complementarity and show how it manifests cosmologically through the empirical, mathematical and theoretical lens of SSC-informed Complexity Science.  I the process I introduce the beginnings of new model of fluid-dynamics, expanding the old atomic and flat "ideal gas" model into a holonic, self-similar version, with layers of levels of fluid/substrate relations, and laws for their emergence and interactions, which explains the mysteries of superfluidity, superconductivity, etc, at the same time it explains the oscillations in your empirical relation.  In fact these recursions are the visible or particulate manifestations of these fluid layers as their emergent "super-fluid" properties allow the cymatic formation of the root-unit levels, and vice versa.   

Scale as fundamental (foundationalism) has been thrown out the window, but long ago in philosophy.  Pattern integrity remains.  Fundamental in the post-quantum era is probabilistic form, Spinoza's infinite modes.  Root forms, attractors, morphic resonances...  

But on the topic of Spinoza and self-similar cosmology, come to think of it, Bruno may have been a big spark for Spinoza here.  The general SSC view just seems so powerfully obvious, and necessary, the more you look.  I think lots of people resonate with it intuitively and naturally.  Worlds within worlds.  Seems a very common motif, even today, with the more abstract versions in MWT. 

This looks cool.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ilf04oFn6bQC&printsec=frontcov...

[valli]

 

Thanks for alerting me to the other thread. I don't think I would have realized it was active again

 

Terry the main link above will list  the newest posts. And of course the forum link will take you to all the discussions :)

 

At the outset let me say I  love the direction of semiotic seams and the fact that semiotics  and propositions (like quaternions (?) and fuzzy greys) are engaged at all though I think it tends to appropriate domains it has not yet addressed .

 

- When trying to convey a description of a new domain we often construct an apparent antinomy to induce the listener’s cognition in a way such as to compel his imagination towards thec onstruction of a larger domain where the apparent opposites can exist in unity. (A moral example: once you lose everything, you have everything

 

What I would like to get at is In the construction of a larger domain (or the deconstruction to access a larger domain, theres already a paradox in this move) there are apparent opposites and endgame opposites like thing and no thing, absolute and relative ( I prefer the former) . given the nature of larger domains, it allows a view of qualitative and quantitative , beyond apparent distinctions to deeper realities. For instance there is an interiority to perspectives - the doman of consciousness - why consciousness itself is not interior but has interiros, where observation has access . I would like to examine several instances of why subjectivity and infinite possibility are quantitative, and quality is of another order. With instances from semiotic seams of course.

 

I’ll start with a general view that infinity is especially limited – that there are an infinite number of outcomes or options are possible is quantitative – qualitative is in the quality of the each outcome – which cannot be measured – like love/ intelligence or higher dimensional thought to use a contentious term, or integrity to use an interesting term.  And infinite recursions and complexity are not indices of quality in themselves. I would say quality is in the nature of a particular recursion. For instance if it is transrational, and that would be a shift, post recursion. Again in general terms the inevitability of something unconditional.

 

To reframe this primal confusion in terms of fractal separatrices between mind and body, conscious and unconscious elements of experience, provides a new reading of Douglas Hofstadter’s (1979) seminal book,Gödel, Bach and Escher. Within his proposed tangled hierarchy, the “software tangle” of symbols as supported by the brain’s “hardware tangle” is easily re-conceptualized in terms of fractal separatrices.

 

there is  the difference between event and experience.  one has to account for the possibility that these deep orders are structures of consciousness and  not necessarily  new,  if at all. I think  aperspectivalism needs to be considered possibly to radically review it, and recursively subject  everything to the integrity of observation, including the subconscious, otherwise it’s all merely experience.

 

By allowing us to see deeper into the unconscious bases of our own experience, fractals point the way to the invisible, interconnected ground of all being, giving rise to observer and observed, mind and body, inside and outside, subjective and objective experience alike. Here we glimpse the fabric of the infinite whole as it is sewn into each finite part.

 

Again the difference between experience and event, maybe be fundemantal . I appreciate this -Semiotically, the ubiquitous presence of fractals and self-similar dynamics in mind, body, and nature as revealed by modern computing, offer exciting possibilities for new metaphors of unity between mind, machine and nature. – and the fuzzy greys - By adding reentry as a third term, Varela opened up an infinitely deep, Pandora’s box of middle ground filled with fuzzy grays, lost identity, and unfathomable complexity. Here not only can something be true and false simultaneously, but even more, Varela actually believed that the existence of autonomy in nature depends upon this contradictory state of affairs – pointers to apesrpectivalism what is to me an initial move to that two step thingy

 

By asserting reentry as a third value in its own right, Varela agreed with Spencer-Brown that self-referential dynamics establish the presence of time. But he went even further, to assert that paradox becomes embodied at the most basic level, in the very form itself. Whether in organic or inorganic forms, autonomous systems appear supported by inherently contradictory underpinnings.

 

True, fascinating perspective. And to go further – to operate outside time is to operate outside contradiction. The other dimension – unconditional, aperspectival. Since we have to take into account all form ( universe et al) is/are a construct given the absurdity of a location or a cosmic address.

 

On one of my favorite things   - ncr -   Physicist and psychologist Arnold Mindell (2000) believes that all mathematics is a code for linking observers with the observed. Mindell upholds imaginary numbers to represent qualitative, subjective aspects of experience, or what he calls“nonconsensual reality”

However I have to say that qualitative is more than subjective aspects of experience as is nonconsensual reality . Obersver and observed is accounted for not just in terms of scale. That the size of the scale involves  a shift to the qualitative is interesting, and potentially turns information non-linear. But the very existence of any scale is subject to observation. And that fractals introduce scale invariance is pretty cool, but the prototype lingers.

Iam trying to find, with my approach here, how  fractals addresses the other domain - you had said - self world and other are seperate realms, seperated by fractal boundaries. I guess that would be functionally closed and structurally open

 

 

 

 

 

[Lol]

Synchronicity, interconnectedness, interrelated themes. While catching up on this roller-coaster of a thread I received news by email that a vajra sister, the Dutch artist Marianne Zwollo, passed away yesterday. Included in the email was this piece of her work

 

 

I was powerfully moved by this piece, so followed this link to her website to find a reveiw of her work, written in 1996:

 

Dutch artist Marianne Zwollo is a dreamer of dreams pursued by subjects that step out of the realm of myth and legend, acquire energy and adjust themselves to the pictorial space. Nothing is predetermined in Zwollo's work. In each creation, the artist embarks on a voyage of discovery, and glimses into a world beyond the world where no formal plan of order exist. "The evolution of a work of art", Zwollo notes "begins with the perception of outlines that will evolve new forms and new structures. Like the beginning of the cosmos".

Overflowing with energy fueled by a multiplicity of forms, rhythms and colors, Zwollo's compositions are invaded by the powerful images that dominate her dreams. Risking unexpected solutions, the artist breaks the barriers of time and space, and recaptures the reality of a mysterious past that demands expression through the language of art. That is why, Zwollo explained "a painting is never finished; it can be changed all the time. The painting comes alive; the subjects refuse to be ignored, and ask me to add or remove something".

         Rita de Melo, The News 1996

 

Marianne had been working on a long-term Art Film project with the title: 'Dying is like Flying' with the artist Riemer Kingma, who is the film-animator and composer of the soundscape. Their short film 'Dreaming is like Dying' (in two parts below) is the first try-out for the project.

 

http://youtu.be/ueS6oB6FtWs

 

http://youtu.be/qHTdbbfs6xw

[Terry Marks-Tarlow, Ph.D.]

Hi All,

I don't have time to go back into each of the replies to this thread, but they are all so interesting! What a wonderful community of people who love to think so deeply and connect different multicultural threads.

 

So there are two things I'm going to respond to that stick out to me among comments written. The first is the idea that qualitative is only a property of subjectivity or interiority and quantitative is a property of an outside world. I remember that someone mentioned the quantum dimension of wavelike uncertainty as a qualitative property. This is cool to consider. When I mentioned that fractals unite qualitative and quantitative aspects of number, I'd like to explain this a bit more.  Fractals describe shapes in nature, and
the quantity of fractional dimension itself includes a qualitative aspect. So it might describe the "ruggedness" of a mountain chain, the "fluffiness" or "whispiness" of a group of clouds, the "roughness" of tree bark, the "snakiness" of a riverway. It's as if fractal dimension captures the nature's textures, her degree of irregularity, smoothness, etc. And these qualities are built right into the number.

 

The second thing I'd like to address is the bid to shift the word "self-similarity" to "self-sameness." Here's the problem: in order to simplify I talked about this property in only one way--in terms of how the pattern of the whole is distributed in the pattern of the parts. This might sound as if the pattern is identical from one scale to another, but in actuality, it doesn't have to be. When the self-similarity is exact, then we have a linear fractal. But in nature, more often, the pattern from scale to scale is not exact. Instead, it is statistically similar, i.e., it shares aggregate or group statistical properties that are not predictable at the level of the individual. Take the stock market as an example (and here, the fractal exists as a pattern over time, rather than one in space): while the overall pattern of fluctuations is fractal (i.e., self-similar regardless of time scale, e.g., one minute, one hour, one day, one week), we still can't predict individual constituents. So the patterns here are truly self-similar and not self-same. If they were self-same, then we could all be millionaires.

 

Thanks again for such enthusiastic, insightful and even poetic responses to ideas expressed in these two papers!!  
valli said:

 

Thanks for alerting me to the other thread. I don't think I would have realized it was active again

 

Terry the main link above will list  the newest posts. And of course the forum link will take you to all the discussions :)

 

At the outset let me say I  love the direction of semiotic seams and the fact that semiotics  and propositions (like quaternions (?) and fuzzy greys) are engaged at all though I think it tends to appropriate domains it has not yet addressed .

 

- When trying to convey a description of a new domain we often construct an apparent antinomy to induce the listener’s cognition in a way such as to compel his imagination towards thec onstruction of a larger domain where the apparent opposites can exist in unity. (A moral example: once you lose everything, you have everything

 

What I would like to get at is In the construction of a larger domain (or the deconstruction to access a larger domain, theres already a paradox in this move) there are apparent opposites and endgame opposites like thing and no thing, absolute and relative ( I prefer the former) . given the nature of larger domains, it allows a view of qualitative and quantitative , beyond apparent distinctions to deeper realities. For instance there is an interiority to perspectives - the doman of consciousness - why consciousness itself is not interior but has interiros, where observation has access . I would like to examine several instances of why subjectivity and infinite possibility are quantitative, and quality is of another order. With instances from semiotic seams of course.

 

I’ll start with a general view that infinity is especially limited – that there are an infinite number of outcomes or options are possible is quantitative – qualitative is in the quality of the each outcome – which cannot be measured – like love/ intelligence or higher dimensional thought to use a contentious term, or integrity to use an interesting term.  And infinite recursions and complexity are not indices of quality in themselves. I would say quality is in the nature of a particular recursion. For instance if it is transrational, and that would be a shift, post recursion. Again in general terms the inevitability of something unconditional.

 

To reframe this primal confusion in terms of fractal separatrices between mind and body, conscious and unconscious elements of experience, provides a new reading of Douglas Hofstadter’s (1979) seminal book,Gödel, Bach and Escher. Within his proposed tangled hierarchy, the “software tangle” of symbols as supported by the brain’s “hardware tangle” is easily re-conceptualized in terms of fractal separatrices.

 

there is  the difference between event and experience.  one has to account for the possibility that these deep orders are structures of consciousness and  not necessarily  new,  if at all. I think  aperspectivalism needs to be considered possibly to radically review it, and recursively subject  everything to the integrity of observation, including the subconscious, otherwise it’s all merely experience.

 

By allowing us to see deeper into the unconscious bases of our own experience, fractals point the way to the invisible, interconnected ground of all being, giving rise to observer and observed, mind and body, inside and outside, subjective and objective experience alike. Here we glimpse the fabric of the infinite whole as it is sewn into each finite part.

 

Again the difference between experience and event, maybe be fundemantal . I appreciate this -Semiotically, the ubiquitous presence of fractals and self-similar dynamics in mind, body, and nature as revealed by modern computing, offer exciting possibilities for new metaphors of unity between mind, machine and nature. – and the fuzzy greys - By adding reentry as a third term, Varela opened up an infinitely deep, Pandora’s box of middle ground filled with fuzzy grays, lost identity, and unfathomable complexity. Here not only can something be true and false simultaneously, but even more, Varela actually believed that the existence of autonomy in nature depends upon this contradictory state of affairs – pointers to apesrpectivalism what is to me an initial move to that two step thingy

 

By asserting reentry as a third value in its own right, Varela agreed with Spencer-Brown that self-referential dynamics establish the presence of time. But he went even further, to assert that paradox becomes embodied at the most basic level, in the very form itself. Whether in organic or inorganic forms, autonomous systems appear supported by inherently contradictory underpinnings.

 

True, fascinating perspective. And to go further – to operate outside time is to operate outside contradiction. The other dimension – unconditional, aperspectival. Since we have to take into account all form ( universe et al) is/are a construct given the absurdity of a location or a cosmic address.

 

On one of my favorite things   - ncr -   Physicist and psychologist Arnold Mindell (2000) believes that all mathematics is a code for linking observers with the observed. Mindell upholds imaginary numbers to represent qualitative, subjective aspects of experience, or what he calls“nonconsensual reality”

However I have to say that qualitative is more than subjective aspects of experience as is nonconsensual reality . Obersver and observed is accounted for not just in terms of scale. That the size of the scale involves  a shift to the qualitative is interesting, and potentially turns information non-linear. But the very existence of any scale is subject to observation. And that fractals introduce scale invariance is pretty cool, but the prototype lingers.

Iam trying to find, with my approach here, how  fractals addresses the other domain - you had said - self world and other are seperate realms, seperated by fractal boundaries. I guess that would be functionally closed and structurally open

 

 

 

 

 

[Terry Marks-Tarlow, Ph.D.]

I suppose you could say "perfectely self-same" where the match between part and whole is exact, and "approximately self-same" in the cases where the match is statistical...

Thomas said:

Terry, I'm the only one using self-same language, so I'll speak to it.  The word similar implies same, thus for any one thing to be similar to another, it must be same in certain respects to that other.  That's a necessary implication.  For my part, I prefer a language that respects this implication, and further that respects full polarization in concept.  The word difference implies same (not similar), thus the difference-polar is difference-same.  I prefer full polarization in concept as it keeps paradox alive.  "Similar" dulls the sharpness of paradox because it combines same and different in one word, thereby dulling the edge of contradiction.  That edge, in my view, is an essential element of a non-linear view.

[valli]

 

Terry, great to have you in this community :)

 

The first is the idea that qualitative is only a property of subjectivity or interiority and quantitative is a property of an outside world. I remember that someone mentioned the quantum dimension of wavelike uncertainty as a qualitative property. This is cool to consider

Sure, and its cool to consider recursivity between inside and outside worlds and between quantity and quality – obviously they are related way down .

the quantity of fractional dimension itself includes a qualitative aspect

let me take quality to be an irreducible factor. Then all difference is an aspect of quantity. Difference is a quality that is communicated by the language of quantity, which could have beside numbers, aspects of density and intensity of constituents – which intensifies quantity within a given frame say in terms of size for one thing – as an interior movement , this is not limited as in, interestingly, there is no limitation of quantity. Quantity which is measurable , the very architecture of limitation has endless room on the inside. A recursivity in how a self similar constituent (unit, fractal) is informed by the expression of form on the outside.

So it can be easily seen how this inner movement expresses itself as the rest of the evident universe , from any constituent which owes its existence to contradiction. Solves meta problems like location and cosmic address. (possibly self similarity is irreducible to difference) but, I think it shows that all formative forces are implosive and not explosive. Questions energy and fuel sources , and if the eloquent rocket can go any distance at all :) beside the obsession with the bang going all the way back

The tango between quality and quantity comes through in different contexts. In another post I was suggesting, * there isn’t a qualitative difference between I, we and it. What’s interesting (beside the exterior) is this quantitative difference in the quantum of qualitative stuff. Which is to say there is more mind in a jumpy organism than in a rock. The quality of all interiors in itself isn’t isolated *

 

the quantity of fractional dimension itself includes a qualitative aspect. So it might describe the "ruggedness" of a mountain chain, the "fluffiness" or "whispiness" of a group of clouds, the "roughness" of tree bark, the "snakiness" of a riverway. It's as if fractal dimension captures the nature's textures, her degree of irregularity, smoothness, etc. And these qualities are built right into the number

Makes a lot of sense to me. the outside world can be a reflection of high quality (which is a property of interiors or even interior quantity?) Like what you described about mountains and rivers, and interestingly these are not subjective – the fact that they are built into the numbers makes sense. (Subjectivity though reiterates itself as a thing of quantity? a sort of selectiveness between variability and difference – intersubjectivity and non consensual reality . another time maybe :)

 

 

 

 

[valli]

 

Thinking of self similarity and all (and contradictory aspects) , the whole withdraws as all withdraws . Into, rather than out there. A part is in your face :) The smaller the fractal and smaller the scale, the greater the measurement. The dissappering fractal is informed, or, helped along by expanding space .

So all can only be contained in a diminishing scale (Since out there all is moving faster than measure) Similarity of a fractal then - the bare minimalism of it - has potential for maximum info ad infinitum. If infinity (and other things) invents itself at the edge of space, it owes its reality to a diminishing scale.

Its interesting that difference then is location , and since location is a construct/interpretation – difference is a point of view – anyone/things point of view is always different from anothers – which makes difference not subjective (relationally) but locational. Its also interesting that everytime a contradiction is allowed for the loop tends to complete, that becomes a relational aspect independent of interpretation, independent of things. And that whole which isn’t a thing, is a no thing, arises from , is off and between things is the difference. kind of parallel to the difference between location and location (points of view). This one – between location and non location/relational – possibly allows a thing freedom from its own location , withdrawing - allowing the room for all - in complete self similarity

mm wild – that location as interpretation resolves a non subjective difference in points of view and the difference in self similarity, without reducing it. A logic that refuses the the familiar frame of concretization, or locality. Logic is non local.....

To stretch it, functional closure is a set of different points of view which gives rise to trees and mountains and rivers ! qualitative aspects which are not subjective. different Points of view which are not subjective. Another aspect of  contradiction which gives rise to a variety of forms, a subtle difference perhaps from the contradiction which gives rise to form per se, one which takes into account that the whole is not just a relational aspect of things, but is also a necessarily originary no thing

 

[Terry Marks-Tarlow, Ph.D.]

Nicely said! Personally, I love the way that contradiction is at first disputed scientifically and then folded in to a new view that is more inclusive and complex, as in the story told by Tom above involving Bohr and Schrodinger. The accusation that one is avoiding the conflict, either by avoiding dealig with contradiction, or by making up a different system seems classic and repetitive in the history of science and math. On page 163 of Psyche's Veil, in a Science box called "The mote in math's eye," I tell a similar story involving Whitehead and Russell and Godel. Whereas Whitehead and Russell tried to dismiss paradoxes of self-reference (e.g., This sentence is a lie, which is true if it's false and false if it's true) as mere linguistic tricks, Kurt Godel invented a system of numbering that translated any mathematical statement into a number and os could include meta-mathematical statements where self-referential assertions could be made about mathematical statements. Using this method, Godel proved no logical system can be simultaneously complete and consistent. By folding in contradiction this way, Godel unhinged the very basis of mathematics by proving its logical inconsistency. 

One of the things I loved about Lakoff and  Nunez's book, Where Mathematics Comes From, is that depending upon the underlying metaphor, even the simplest concept, such as "number," can generate entirely contradictory mathematical entailments, each of which is correct from within its system.

 

When it comes to fractals, the very concept is inherently contradictory in many ways. Fractals are numbers that are simultaneously finite and infinite. Their boundaries are both open and closed. Their area is bounded, yet infinitely deep. The shorter the measuring stick, the longer the fractal. Getting back to the comment above that "difference is in location," the idea of a multifractal is very cool. This is the idea that within a single object, that different locations can operate according to different scales. So rather than being self-similar, this property is called self-affine. Once the scales start slipping and sliding like this, we are in Alice in Wonderland's land. Though seriously, when I went to the Chaos Society conference this year, it appears that the eye operates according to this kind of multifractal scaling. Makes sense that we would use different scales depending upon the size of the object on the retina.    

 

valli said:

 

Thinking of self similarity and all (and contradictory aspects) , the whole withdraws as all withdraws . Into, rather than out there. A part is in your face :) The smaller the fractal and smaller the scale, the greater the measurement. The dissappering fractal is informed, or, helped along by expanding space .

So all can only be contained in a diminishing scale (Since out there all is moving faster than measure) Similarity of a fractal then - the bare minimalism of it - has potential for maximum info ad infinitum. If infinity (and other things) invents itself at the edge of space, it owes its reality to a diminishing scale.

Its interesting that difference then is location , and since location is a construct/interpretation – difference is a point of view – anyone/things point of view is always different from anothers – which makes difference not subjective (relationally) but locational. Its also interesting that everytime a contradiction is allowed for the loop tends to complete, that becomes a relational aspect independent of interpretation, independent of things. And that whole which isn’t a thing, is a no thing, arises from , is off and between things is the difference. kind of parallel to the difference between location and location (points of view). This one – between location and non location/relational – possibly allows a thing freedom from its own location , withdrawing - allowing the room for all - in complete self similarity

mm wild – that location as interpretation resolves a non subjective difference in points of view and the difference in self similarity, without reducing it. A logic that refuses the the familiar frame of concretization, or locality. Logic is non local.....

To stretch it, functional closure is a set of different points of view which gives rise to trees and mountains and rivers ! qualitative aspects which are not subjective. different Points of view which are not subjective. Another aspect of  contradiction which gives rise to a variety of forms, a subtle difference perhaps from the contradiction which gives rise to form per se, one which takes into account that the whole is not just a relational aspect of things, but is also a necessarily originary no thing

 

[valli]

 

With self affine , then,  there is movement from thing to relational, From similar to affinity. So a closure of the gap between relation and object is implied and consequently fractal and object? And the boundaries between fractal and scale becomes fuzzy…..

Multifractal is intersting, I’m trying to place it? It makes it easier when you say within a single object - a sense of infinite axial architecture in 3d space , taking it places , capitalizing on its given location rather than knocking it. Something like that :) but there is the gray area between object and fractal