(for possible interest and discussion)

Our concept of ‘balance’ plays a foundational role in our individual
and collective social behaviour, and there is not one but two popular
understandings of ‘the achieving and sustaining of balance’.
Difference in giving precedence to one over the other is a primary
source of conflict in our modern social dynamic.

The two balance-seeking approaches can be distinguished through the
example of a sailboat in a storm and a powerboat in atmospheric/
hydrodynamic conditions that its ‘onboard’ power and steerage are
capable of ‘neutralizing’.

In the former ‘inclusional-balance-seeking’ case, the fluid dynamic
the sailboater is included in is ceaselessly unfolding as an
innovative, unpredictable dynamical continuum, and the sailboater, in
seeking to stay in balance with the fluid dynamic (i.e. ‘stay
afloat’), extracts his power and steerage from it in a continuously
‘attuning’ fashion.   This ‘inclusional’ type of balance-seeking is
based on direct engagement with the fluid, dynamical space one is
included in, that one cannot ‘let go of’ (drop out of attuning with)
and still stay afloat.  Thus it is not possible to put into
precedence, the driving of one’s behaviour in the service of achieving
‘one’s own’ ‘purpose-determined’ destination.

In the latter, ‘purposeful-balance-seeking’ case, in the
conceptualizing-theatre of our mind’s-eye, the overwhelming presence
of nature’s fluid dynamic we are included in, that we derive our power
and steerage from, recedes from its dominant influencing position and
shrinks into the background (it is ‘neutralized’), leaving on front
and centre stage, ‘us’, the purposeful player/s as if the power and
steerage available to us now derives from ‘our own onboard
resources’.   In this schema, we see our dynamical selves as ‘local,
independently-existing systems with locally originating [purpose-
driven] behaviours that we are fully and solely responsible for.’

The sailboating metaphor for balance-seeking is the more comprehensive
of the two since the powerboating metaphor can ‘nest inclusionally
within it’ (e.g. the sailboater can also direct his vessel with oars
and this behaviour will rise to dominance as the force of the fluid-
dynamic he is included in subsides).  On the other hand, the power-
boating metaphor is purely onboard point-sourced and purpose oriented
and ‘starts off’ with an implied neutralizing of the fluid-dynamics of
space (removing them from their natural and innate position of
dominance).

How then shall we go about ‘seeking balance in our social dynamics’?
Should we regard ourselves as ‘sailboaters’ and put the ‘inclusional
balance-seeking’ approach in precedence or should we regard ourselves
as ‘powerboaters’ and put the ‘purposeful-balance-seeking’ approach in
precedence?

This turns out to be an important built-in foundation in our western
culture’s concept of ethics and social dynamics management (how to
organise ourselves).  Our ‘western’ choice of powerboating is sown
deeply into our historical philosophical thinking and into our
scientific and mathematical reasoning.

For example, Aristotle, in his "The Doctrine of the Mean",
Nichomachean Ethics II., 6-7”,  associates "virtue" with ‘hitting the
mark’ (implying purposeful behavior) and ‘evil’ with ‘missing the
mark’ (also implying purposeful behaviour);

"Virtue, then, is a kind of moderation inasmuch as it aims at the mean
or moderate amount. ... Again, there are many ways of going wrong (for
evil is infinite in nature, to use a Pythagorean figure, while good is
finite), but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and
the other hard--easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. On this
account also, then, excess and deficiency are characteristic of vice,
hitting the mean is characteristic of virtue: "Goodness is simple,
evil takes any shape.""

Once our heads get inside of this Aristotelian philosophical
conjecture, we are in a purpose-driven prescriptive realm where the
overwhelming role of the fluid-dynamics of the natural living space we
are included in, has been ‘neutralized’.

In other words, ‘space’ has been taken out of the conceptualizing
theatre, leaving only purposeful beings (powerboaters) ‘doing their
own thing’ on front and centre stage.

‘Balance’ is now implied to be something ‘we make happen’, as in the
aphorism ‘an eye for an eye’, which holds us each fully responsible
for ‘our own behaviours’.   This is the familiar ‘zero sum’
mathematical archetype that has been shown to be ‘too simple’ by
systems scientists.  The thermostat control system has been given as
an example wherein we have equipment to raise and/or lower room
temperature and we specify ‘the mark that we want to hit’ that
‘calibrates’ the system’s balance-seeking purpose.   This control
system is characterized by a negative feedback loop which continually
drives its onboard equipment so as to hit the desired mark, measures
the gap between the desired mark and the mark actually hit, re-
adjusting the onboard equipment correspondingly so as to ‘home in on’
the desired mark and thus eliminate the unwanted evils, ‘excess’ and
‘deficiency’.

Of course, if we include space in our conceptualizing, we may have the
situation where there are two people in a house with one thermostat
where one is on the sunny side of the house experiencing excess and
the other is on the shady side experiencing deficiency, and both seek
to take control of the system and drive it in opposite directions at
once.  Once ‘space’ is again recognized as playing the dominant role,
we can see that ‘Mach’s Principle’ holds and that ‘our behaviour is
conditioned by the dynamics of the common space we are included in at
the same time as our behaviours are conditioning those dynamics’.  The
common dynamical space we are included in is the universal mediator of
dynamical behaviour.  If we huddle together, this warms up the common
space which, at the same time, warms us up, and if we disperse and
move apart, this cools down the common space which, at the same time,
cools us down.  The dynamics of space thus inductively organise
(actualize and shape) our individual and collective behaviours.

The balance-seeking ‘ethics’ of ‘what purposeful people do’ is an
innately deficient ethics in that it does not comprehend the dominant
role of the common dynamical living space that we are included in.
The ‘successful’ manager who ‘makes his numbers’ according to
corporate plan and purpose, may leave the workforce, the environment
and host community in a shambles in the process, simply by failing to
acknowledge and attune to the fact that the purposeful behaviours he
is orchestrating are, at the same time, conditioning the dynamics of
the common space he, the employees, the host community, our fellow
flora, fauna, air, earth and water, are all included in, and vice
versa.

As mathematicians such as Henri Poincaré have pointed out, in order to
conceptualize dynamical behaviour in terms of ‘local results’ (as is
the case with the purposeful individual that seeks to ‘hit the mark’
in a balanced fashion, avoiding the evils of excess and deficiency),
we must assume that the present state of the world (i.e. the ‘results’
that are caused by the purposeful individual) depends only on the
immediate past.
As Poincaré says in "Science and Hypothesis" in the chapter
"Hypotheses in Physics", subsection "Origin of Mathematical Physics";

"We recognise at the outset that the efforts of scientists have always
tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by our
experience into a large number of elementary phenomena.
And to do this in three different ways : first, with respect to time.
Instead of taking into account the progressive development of a
phenomenon as a whole, we simply seek to connect each moment with the
one immediately preceding. We assert that the present state of the
world depends only on the immediate past, without being directly
influenced, so to speak, by the memory of a more distant past. Thanks
to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession
of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down “its
differential equation”; for the laws of Kepler, we substitute the laws
of Newton."

We can reconcile this with the balance-seeking ethic of ‘an eye for an
eye’.   In Kepler’s ‘Harmonies of the World’ (1619), he makes the
point that the sustaining of ‘spatial harmony’ prevails over the
harmonies implicit in the particular behaviours of the planets.  Thus,
the planets taken in pairs must ‘give way for one another’ in order
for the harmony of space to be sustained (see footnote 1.).

This is the equivalent of Mach’s Principle, that the behaviours of
those included in a common dynamical space conditions the dynamics of
that common space at the same time as their behaviours are being
conditioned by it (by the dynamics of the common space they are
included in).

If two people, both of whom embrace the Aristotelian ‘excess-and-
deficiency avoiding’ balance-seeking ethic and the ‘eye-for-an-eye’
enforcement tactic, confront each other over a currently perceived
behavioural ‘excess’ or ‘deficiency’, the fact is that these current
excesses or deficiencies may have long roots (as in family or tribal
feuds).   Thus, we fall into the trap discussed by Poincaré in regard
to the hidden assumptions in our rational thinking; i.e. in our
tendency “to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by our
experience into ...

read more »

Dear Ted,

Your letter today has coincided with a lot of thinking I have been doing in
regard to the inability of people I have been in recent
correspondence/discussion with, 'to see the point of the non-locality of
space', that is, to get past the 'yin-yang', 'space-matter',
'landscape-river' reciprocal correspondence within a localized 'whole', to
understanding the 'reciprocal flow in a dynamic relational 'hole' . Indeed,
once the 'whole' has been imposed, I think people find it difficult to
appreciate how all possibility for dynamic relationship is stultified,
because 'breathing' is prevented.

All this difficulty also relates to our difficulty in communicating what is
so distinctive about inclusionality/transfigurality from 'conventional
holism'. So long as people don't 'see the point', our communications to a
wider world are going to be stifled by the very same attitude of mind that
stifles by imposing closure. There just has to be a way of signalling what
is so very fundamental about the departure we are making, within the space
of a few words, and here the apprehension of 'space as openness' has
strengthened in my mind as a readily communicable theme. Where this takes us
as far as communicating the significance of inclusional/transfigural
geometry is concerned, I think it may be helpful to describe this as an OPEN
SPACE GEOMETRY, which is radically different from the CLOSED SPACE
GEOMETRIES that we have all been brought up with, in being consistent with
natural fluidity. I think this distinction between open space geometry and
closed space geometries may provide an effective summary, in a few words, of
the paradigmatic transformation we are making. I have put this in the
attached 'title page' for a possible book based on my ongoing compilation of
'inclusional essays, 2007-2008'.

Meanwhile, it struck me rather strongly how your description of
'powerboating' in the sense of the 'diminution of the non-local'
corresponded with the description of the 'catalysmic splitting' of 10
dimensional Universe into 4-dimensional with diminished 'companion' in the
passage pasted below from Lere and my latest 'superchannel' paper.

Love

Alan

--------------------------------------------------
Pooling Power: The Inclusional Source of Natural Creativity in
More-than-Three-Dimensional Space

Superspace, as just described, is a space that exceeds three dimensions. So
also, but in a different and more limited way, is the spacetime of
relativity and what has been called 'hyperspace'. So what is hyperspace?
Here is the answer provided by Michiu Kaku (in 'HyperSpace'):

According to hyperspace, before the Big Bang, our cosmos was actually a
perfect ten-dimensional universe, a world where interdimensional travel was
possible. However, this ten-dimensional universe "cracked" in two, creating
two separate universes: a four- and a six- dimensional universe. The
universe in which we live was born in that cosmic cataclysm. Our
four-dimensional universe expanded explosively, while our twin
six-dimensional universe contracted violently, until it shrank to almost
infinitesimal size. This would explain the origin of the Big Bang. If
correct, this theory demonstrates that the rapid expansion of the universe
was just a rather minor aftershock of a much greater cataclysmic event, the
cracking of space and time itself. The energy that drives the observed
expansion of the universe is then found in the collapse of ten-dimensional
space and time. According to this theory, the distant stars and galaxies are
receding from us at astronomical speeds because of the original collapse of
ten-dimensional space and time. This theory predicts that our universe still
has a dwarf twin, a companion universe that has curled up into a small
six-dimensional ball that is too small to be observed.

But maybe this cataclysmic cracking of space and time is more an artefact of
an unnaturally space-restricting cosmology bursting at the seams than a real
event in the natural evolutionary history of everywhere. Maybe it symbolizes
the 'fall from grace' arising from the imposition of closed space geometry
that reduces infinity to nothing and follows from trying to get a definitive
answer to the following question:

'Where does power come from?'

Let's personalize this question, as a way of recognizing how the
rationalistic splitting of subject from object, observer from observed,
produces paradox and an ultimate incompatibility between 'point-forces' and
'point-entities'. Try asking:

'Where does the power that moves us come from?'

A domineering mind will answer 'within us', so assigning sole responsibility
for 'action' to individual or group as an independent entity. A subservient
mind will answer 'outside us', so delegating responsibility for 'reaction'
entirely to 'action' located elsewhere. Neither answer is realistic. Both
answers assume an absolute division between 'inside' and 'outside' as
objectively definable localities, such that the source of all power can be
tracked down to a fixed point within or without, that is a 'point-force'
that drives the 'point-mass' either from within itself or outside itself.
Hence there is ambiguity regarding which 'point-force' to believe in as
ultimate cause of the movement of the 'point-mass', with the two kinds of
point irreconcilably differentiated. A bridge connecting the two may be
sought so as to unify one with the other, as in supersymmetry, but so long
as space is excluded from each point and substituted with only another kind
of point, all possibility of flow within and between them is precluded.

No sooner, however, is space everywhere ('omni') recognised to span
continuously between ('inter'), within ('intra') and throughout ('trans')
each point, than bidirectional flow from and into each other as simultaneous
local-non-local sources and sinks in natural, dynamically balancing
communion becomes not only possible, but inevitable - unless by some
infinitely remote likelihood everywhere equilibrates at once and the cosmos
gridlocks into a giant standing wave. Now we have the transfigural, dynamic
flow-line symmetry of reciprocal, bidirectional flow, through which we can
answer that what moves us cannot originate from somewhere specifically
inside or outside our individual bodies, but from everywhere non-locally
including and locally channelled through the receptive spatial pools of our
central identities or zeroids. Power derives not from some forceful, pushing
or pulling point located somewhere ineffable, but the inductive influence of
receptive (i.e. zeroidal) space everywhere. Power comes, via transspace,
from all through all: into somewhere local, from everywhere around, through
its receptive interior and out again, in continual circulation.

Now, we can at last understand our dynamic natural situation, which
transcends the three-dimensional spatial limitations of hard-line symmetry
and objective definition and satisfies the spiritual yearning that many are
aware of deep within us for 'higher dimensions'.  There is this deep feeling
of both including and being included in an invisible realm permeating
within, without and throughout us and all Nature, without external or
internal limit. In not being accessible to quantification in purely material
terms, and infinite at all scales, hence comprising a set of relative
infinities, this realm may seem 'mysterious'. But it is mysterious only in
so far that we try to exclude it from our consideration: what is truly
mysterious - paradoxical - is how we could come to imagine that we can
explain anything, let alone everything, without materially including it.

Perhaps it is the 'concrete jungle' of urban life that most especially
dispossesses our minds from being in tune with the infinite and reinforces
the definitive imageries and excluded middle logic of static,
space-excluding, Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. If you grew up in
the Nigerian town where Lere was born - it is a big village really - you
would have been confronted with the awareness of not being alone even when
nobody is around everyday. You would have come back from school with nothing
to eat at home. You would have had to hop to the farm to pick some maize,
alone. And then you would leave the house and walk into the tropical jungle
behind the house. Tropical forest instils fear because you are bombarded
with all kinds of sounds from insects, the all-enveloping majestic presence
of eagles above your head, the chirruping and, is that a wild cat meowing
there or what? You want to run but you don't. You have to stand your ground
alone in the wild. You are alone. No, you are not alone. You can feel other
presences, yes the warmth of others who are keeping vigil over you and from
whom your courage derives its fillip. It is always like that everywhere. It
is the same everywhere that when you are alone you don't feel alone. The
thoughts of or about the Other flow into your world as you flow into their
world. One is never alone. You are never alone.

Where Does Power Really Come From.doc 33K Download

yes, the ‘open space geometry’ relative to the ‘closed space geometry’
‘speaks to me’, but then, i know where you are going with it,
already.

i do see it as a valuable distinction.  in my mind, i take ‘open
space’ to mean ‘unbounded space’ and then my mind goes to the fact
that
space is self-enfolding so that one’s mind is not even ‘attracted’ to
the boundaries of space (‘how far out’ space goes etc.).  i think of
plate tectonics and the rocks diving in towards the interior of the
earth and erupting/emerging at the surface in a continual recycling,
so that the ‘sphere’ that we impute to the earth, which we normally
think of as a spherical mass or spherical material body, is instead
the ‘silhouette’ of this continual self-enfolding that seems to
character the full universe.    the implication is that this spherical
material body we call the planet earth is just the ‘envelope’ to this
self-enfolding.  it is not (the sphere is not) a material object in
its own right, but a ‘place’ where matter is being continually
recycled so that this ‘matter’ has no persisting existence in
itself.   so the spherical shape we see is a ‘place’ that is made
manifest by the dynamics going on there.   the rocky sphere we have
been calling a material body; i.e. ‘the planet earth’, is merely
‘appearances’ (schaumkommen) as schroedinger described matter at the
lowest particulate level; i.e. ‘resonances’, ‘standing wave
silhouettes’ that the material is continually passing through, as in a
standing wave that pokes up in a rapidly moving mountain stream and
stays in the same place or almost (it shifts about a bit according to
variations in the flow).   this is similar to heraclitus comparisons
where a candle flame is compared to a material object; i.e. the flame
is nothing other than a ‘place’ where there is persisting
transformation.

this way of looking at ‘material bodies’, as ‘places’ seems to me to
be not far off aristotle’s comments in ‘the physics of place’.   who
knows what he was thinking of, but i could imagine that the plate
tectonics sort of thing could be a fit with whatever he was thinking
of;

"Now these are regions or kinds of place --- up and down and the rest
of the six directions. Nor do such distinctions (up and down and right
and left, etc.) hold only in relation to us. To us they are not always
the same but change with the direction in which we are turned that is
why the same thing may be right and left, up and down, before and
behind. But in nature, each is distinct, taken apart from itself. It
is not every chance direction which is 'up' but where fire and what is
light are carried; similarly, too, 'down' is not any chance direction
but where what has weight and what is made of earth are carried ---
the implication being that these places do not differ merely in
relative position, but also as possessing distinct potencies, . . .
These considerations would lead us to suppose that place is something
distinct from bodies, and that every sensible body is in place.  ...
the potency of place must be a marvelous thing, and take precedence of
all other things. For that without nothing else can exist, while it
can exist without the others, must needs be first; for place does not
pass out of existence when the things in it are annihilated." ---
Aristotle, ‘The Physics of Place’

that is, the ‘sphere of the earth’ is a ‘place’ where things are
continually passing out of, and at the same time coming into,
existence.   if we had a video of the universe over the past 10
billion years, we could look at the place where the earth was ‘going
to be’ and see some spherical dynamical form appear about half way
through the video, a spherical form that would persist for the four
plus billion years up until the present; i.e. the spherical place
“does not pass out of existence when the things in it are
annihilated.”, ... but how can we claim that this spherical earth is a
material body when we openly acknowledge that it is just the
silhouette of continuing birth and death of matter?

the six directions are what are used in the native american medicine
wheel also and continuing renewal emerges from the center at the
meeting of sky above and earth below, as connects with the flows
coming in from ‘the four directions’.  the medicine wheel ceremony is
very ‘inclusional’ in that this same flow as is symbolized by the
medicine wheel, we are understood to be ‘made of’.

but the big trick in the medicine wheel ceremony is to come to think
of one’s self in these same terms of being continually renewed
(destroyed and created) by the continuously synthesizing flows, so
that we humans, our visible aspect, like the earth, becomes a
silhouette or ‘place’, rather than a ‘material structure’.  sure, the
body cells look like they persist, but are they not, just like the
earth and schroedinger’s particle, ‘silhouetted places’ where matter
is being continually destroyed and renewed in the flow?

now, in the sailboating metaphor, what makes the sail ‘billow out’
like that and have a persisting bulbous shape?  the sail is simply
silhouetting the continual passing through of the wind; i.e. the power
is coming from neither the inside nor the outside in a closed space
geometry sense.  the power derives from nature but then so does the
dynamical flow-form that makes use of it; i.e. as in the example of
the hurricane in the atmosphere (its power neither comes from within
or from without and this only appears paradoxical because by speaking
of ‘it’, we axiomatically affirm ‘its local existence’ when it is in
fact not local but a feature in the nonlocal fluid-dynamical continuum
of nature.

as far as the mathematics of ‘the big bang’ go, and ten and six-
dimensional universes, ... i have trouble personally with notions such
'the big bang' since i can’t begin to relate them to my experience.

i have just started to read eckhart tolle’s ‘A New Earth’ and i can
relate what he says about the leap in consciousness that is required
to go beyond the veil of maya.  e.g. making the leap from 'things'
such as 'the third rock out from the sun’) to ‘places’ (the spherical
silhouette of continual creation/destruction) and to your shift from
‘closed space geometry’ to ‘open space geometry’, and his point is
that you cannot ‘try to understand’ such things, but you must ‘find
the understanding that is already within you’.  this corresponds also
to the distinction made in the amerindian tradition between ’hawk
learning’ (something you DO 'try to do' and succeed in doing) and
‘eagle learning’ (something that you discover within you).

if one tries too hard - ’ e.g. ‘what the hell is six dimensional
space?’, ... unless one lives and breathes such mathematics, one is
never going to allow the understanding to emerge.

so, the trick, to me, would seem to be that the person who goes from
‘closed space geometry’ to ‘open space geometry’ has to find the
understanding within themselves, unlike understanding ‘closed space
geometry’ (i.e. one must take one's mind out of gear so that 'maya',
the veil that occludes the needed understanding, gets out of the way).

love,

ted

On 27 Aug, 12:19, "Alan Rayner \(BU\)" <a.d.m.ray...@bath.ac.uk>
wrote:

read more »

Dear Ted,

Yes, I think we are on the same flow-length here, although I prefer the
description 'limitless space' to 'unbounded space', in view of my interest
in 'dynamic boundaries' as 'dynamic distinctions' (but not definitions) in
the 'folding' or 'dynamic configuration' of space (meaning openness) as
dynamic relational flow-form. I might also prefer 'inflowing' ('inspiring'/
'in-forming') and 'outflowing' ('expiring'/ 'ex-forming') to 'created' and
'destroyed' in processes of reconfiguration. The point we actually make
about the hyperspace description and associated mathematics of the Big Bang
is indeed that it is an artefact of closed space geometry and so doesn't
relate to natural experience or natural geometry.

Meanwhile, I think the 'silhouette' you refer to corresponds with the
'zeroid' of transfigural mathematics....

Pasted below is a section from Lere's and my 'Superchannel 2' paper, which
is about to appear in our 'inclusional journal'.

In 'Superchannel 3' and 'Superchannel 4', to follow [the hyperspace quote
was from 'Superchannel 3'], which anticipate the outcome of the Large Hadron
Collider experiment, we go so far as to question the existence, in a
conventional sense, of 'matter', 'mass' and 'force' as artefacts of closed
space geometry.

Warmest

Alan
-----------------------------------

Any geometric figure as a bodily inclusion of space – and thereby any thing
in this world as a flowform, implies that transfigural geometry is inside
the primordial womb of zeroids. In the folds of a zero spiral that
constitute the superchannel, the zeroids which do not show up as local
bodies inside the superchannel are nonetheless implicit because they are
what space itself comprises as receptive centres everywhere, without
definitive location. And so, to get some picture of how the flowform folds
of a zero spiral arise through the dynamic interplay of inseparable
receptive-permissive spatial context and responsive-resistive informational
content, let us begin with a simple circular informational figure as an
inclusion of receptive space comprising zeroids as centres everywhere, as
depicted below.

In conventional Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries, the boundary
outlining this figure would cut its inside off from its outside, whereupon
all analytical attention would focus solely on what is contained by the
figure as a whole, much as we might focus on a tennis ball or apple as a
single, discrete entity, all one in itself, with space co-extensive with its
structure. In the transfigural case, however, the informational boundary
both outlines the inside and inlines the outside of the figure as a dynamic
relational hole without cutting either off from the other, but interfacing
both as a relatively resistive transition zone that itself includes zeroidal
space. Correspondingly, above we have a circle which originates not by
objective imposition onto space from a fixed point, like a circle drawn with
a set of compasses, but more like a bubble dynamically balancing between the
responsiveness and receptivity of its interior and exterior space. That is,
the circle forms inductively, rather than forcefully, as a fluid co-creation
from the living space whose identity is rooted in the invisible zeroids that
reside in the core of every dynamic form. In the superchannel, the zeroids
are not shown but wherever there is a fold, as we shall show very soon, such
that every form is both itself and an inclusion of others and space, they
are intrinsic. There are no zeroids outside the folds of the superchannel
because these are all-inclusive as a flow-line of continuous breathing
points.

In other words, wherever a circle or any geometric figure arises
inductively, as a dynamic, receptive-responsive inclusion of zeroidal space,
it is capable both of flowing into and flowing out from the heart of itself.
What flows in this dynamic situation is the fold of a zerospiral, because
every geometric figure is a potential flowform that dynamically embodies
receptive space as a fold.

Now, let’s what see how as a dynamic configuration – not a discrete
definition – of  space, a circle can transfigurally open out as a flow that
responds receptively to include what in conventional Euclidean and
non-Euclidean geometries would lie irretrievably outside of itself. This
corresponds with the empathic and loving feeling for what conventionally
would be described as an independent other that we can describe as a sense
of ‘our heart going out to them’. What we have in one direction is:

which is the alpha fold of the flow of a zerospiral as the point and also
the line of transfigural geometry of transfigural mathematics. When the
circle transfigures to take in what lies beyond it in four directions, at
right-angles, what emerges is a single-fold breathing point or ‘point-line’
as a continuous line that dynamically includes all, and all that dynamically
includes one:

Since any such breathing point is a dynamic inclusion of all space, and
hence not solely local, any change at one point anywhere influences all
points everywhere, and vice versa. All are encompassed by a continuously
fluid line, so that like children clambering over a ‘bouncy castle’ or
‘air-bed’, any movement of one simultaneously changes the topography of
‘hills, valleys and mountains’ in the ‘fluidscape’ for all, themselves
included.

-----------------------------------------------------

read more »

clip_image002.jpg 13K Download

clip_image004.jpg 21K Download

clip_image006.jpg 29K Download

just to ‘zoom out’ a bit, in an attempt to put a few things into
connective perspective, from my point of view..

what has always appealed to me is the argument such as that of Eckhart
Tolle in ‘A New Earth’ and ‘The Power of Now’, ... though i am
troubled when i refer to these works because of their ‘new-agey’
popularity.    that is, i think of new-age ‘teachings’ such as this,
as trendy stuff that people quote that never really induces the
powerful transformation that it alludes to.

but my own experience affirms to me that tolle is on the same tack as
us when he speaks of ‘The Arising New Consciousness’; i.e. tolle says;

“Most ancient religions and spiritual traditions share the common
insight --- that our ‘normal’ state of mind is marred by a fundamental
defect.  However, out of this insight into the nature of the human
condition--- we may call it the bad news--- arises a second insight:
the good news of the possibility of a radical transformation of human
consciousness.  In Hindu teachings (and sometimes in Buddhism also),
the transformation is called ‘enlightenment’.  In the teachings of
Jesus, it is ‘salvation’, and in Buddhism, it is ‘the end of
suffering.  ‘Liberation’ and ‘awakening’ are other terms used to
describe this transformation.

The greatest achievement of humanity is not its works of art, science,
or technology, but the recognition of its own dysfunction, its own
madness.  In the distant past, this recognition already came to a few
individuals.  A man called Guatama Siddhartha, who lived 2600 years
ago in India, was perhaps the first who saw it with absolute clarity.
Later, the title Buddha was conferred upon him. ‘Buddha’ means ‘the
awakened one’.  At about the same time, another of humanity’s early
awakened teachers emerged in China.  His name was Lao Tzu.  He left a
record of his teachings in the form of one of the most profound
spiritual books ever written, the ‘Tao Te Ching’.

To recognize one’s own insanity is, of course, the arising of sanity,
the beginning of healing and transcendence.  A new dimension of
consciousness had begun to emerge on the planet, a first tentative
flowering.  Those rare individuals then spoke to their
contemporaries.  They spoke of sin, of suffering, of delusion.  They
said, ‘Look how you live.  See what youar doing, the suffering you
create.’  They then pointed to the possibility of awakening from the
collective nightmare of ‘normal’ human experience.  The showed the
way.

The world was not yet ready for them, and yet they were a vital and
necessary part of human awakening.  Inevitably, they were mostly
misunderstood by their contemporaries, as well as by subsequent
generations.  Their teachings, although both simple and powerful,
became distorted and misinterpreted, in some cases even as they were
recorded in writing by their disciples.  Over the centuries, many
things were added that had nothing to do with the original teachings,
but were reflections of a fundamental misunderstanding.  Some of the
teachers were ridiculed, reviled, or killed; others came to be
worshipped as gods.  Teachings that pointed the way beyond the
dysfunction of the human mind, the way out of the collective insanity,
were distorted and became themselves part of the insanity.

And so religions, to a large extent, became divisive rather than
unifying forces.  Instead of bringing about an ending of violence and
hatred through a realization of the fundamental oneness of all life,
they brought more violence and hatred, more divisions between people
as well as between different religions and even within the same
religion.  They became ideologies; belief systems people could
identify with and so use them to enhance their false sense of self.
Through them, they could make themselves ‘right’ and others ‘wrong’
and thus define their identity through their enemies, the ‘others’,
the ‘nonbelievers’ or ‘wrong believers’ who not infrequently they saw
themselves justified in killing.  Man made ‘God’ in his own image.
The eternal, the infinite, and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol
that you had to believe in and worship as ‘my god’ or ‘our god’.

And yet . . . and yet . . . in spite of all the insane deeds
perpetrated in the name of religion, the Truth to which they point
still shines at their core.  It still shines, however dimly, through
layers upon layers of distortion and misinterpretation.  It is
unlikely, however, that you will be able to perceive it there unless
you have at least already had glimpses of the Truth within yourself.
Throughout history, there have always been rare individuals who
experienced a shift in consciousness and so realized within themselves
that toward which all religions point.  To describe that nonconceptual
Truth, they then used the conceptual framework of their own religion.”

 * * *

ok, where do we ‘come in’ relative to this, or does ‘inclusionality’
relate to any of this?

we, ourselves, are clearly not ‘Buddha’s’ (in the sense of having
attained 'enlightenment').  we worry too much.  and, speaking for
myself, ‘the end of suffering’ has not yet come anywhere near taking
over and liberating my anguished self.

my view is that this ‘insanity’ that tolle talks about has left its
geological record in the layering of scientific concepts that we teach
ourselves to believe have been ‘progressively refined’; i.e. in our
insanity we have deposited layers of overly-literal understandings
that ‘miss the point’, a net that we are gathering in that never had
the fish within it, ... crisp frameworks that we use to reason and to
actualize and shape our behaviour, that are the hollow shells of a
departed deeper, warmer understanding whose light and warmth only
occasionally flickers, a reflected memory of its former presence in
the starkness of their empty recesses.

our ‘scientific understanding’ is not ‘progressing’ towards the
‘nonconceptual Truth’ that tolle mentions, it is progressing towards
its own implosive collapse from the growing weight of its escalating
mind-burdening detailed inquiry.

this is consistent with tolle’s overall thesis, but it goes somewhere
where he does not go. with ‘inclusionality’ we are ‘decoding’ the
archetypeal frameworks and structures that constitute ‘the veil of
maya’ that hides the nonconceptual Truth (hyper-conceptual Truth?).
these rational structures are the very embodiment of the
‘trying’ (power-boating determinism) that we must suspend in order to
‘understand’ the world and ourselves more deeply.  if tolle is right,
we will never reach deep understanding by ‘trying’ --- being
determined to DETERMINE --- what is going on with ourselves and the
world.

our challenge, it seems to me, is not to get caught up in ‘trying too
hard’ to describe the veil lest we create yet another veil that
mesmerises us, teasing, torturing and emburdening our mind and thus
keeping our ‘mind’ continuously ‘in gear' so that we are deprived of
the possibility of suspending our mind’s activity to enjoy encounters
with ‘the end of suffering’.

‘inclusionality’, to me, recognizes the artificiality of the split
between ‘self’ and ‘other’ (‘organism’ and ‘environment’ etc.) which
then forces us to think in prescriptive, deterministic (power-boating)
terms wherein everything has to ‘try’ to achieve/determine some result
(e.g. we emburden the organism with 'trying to survive' in the
prescriptive/determinist framework of 'Darwinism').   is the hurricane
emburdened with ‘having to try’ to go north and carry its thermal
energy from the thermally rich equatorial regions to the thermally
poor polar regions?  no, the hurricane IS the atmosphere ('the whorl
is the flow') and it already inhabits both equatorial and polar
regions.  it doesn’t have to ‘try’ and make this happen, that is what
our 'mind' imposes on it, ... it (our mind's understanding of it)
simply has to ‘let go’ so that it becomes one with the dynamical
balancing that characterizes the nonlocal fluid-dynamical continuum of
nature.

so, to me, your ‘open space geometry’ is not something CONCEPTUAL that
our MIND needs to grasp (it is not ‘more positivist stuff’), but is
where we ‘go to’ (a condition that is waiting to swallow us and take
us in so that we become one with the understanding that we have been
searching 'out there' for) when we let go of all of the prescriptive
stuff that associates with ‘closed space geometry’.    the zeroids
etc. at first invite us to ‘grasp them’ but in our trying to do so, we
see the futility because they tease us with their infinite
nonlocality.   that is, the essence of ‘open space geometry’ is the
elusive ‘shining’ in the stark hollow structures we get by trying to
be definitive and prescriptive.   thus, i would equate ‘open space
geometry’ with kepler's hyper-conceptual understanding of
'geometria', ... as reviewed in the following, from a 1998 essay
‘Burying the Hatchet’ www.goodshare.org/homecom.htm ;

 “For Kepler, 'geometria' was the source of nature's mystery and
divinity (Kepler once asserted; "Why waste words, geometry existed
before the creation [yang], is co-eternal with the mind of God, 'is
God himself') and the uncertainty associated with its multivalent
harmonies and self-referentiality was an innate source of beauty in
nature. Kepler quoted Virgil in regard to the elusive absence of
finality in astronomical space-time relationships; "Galatea seeks me
mischievously, the lusty wench; she flees to the willows, but hopes
I'll see her first."

for you and lere, galatea’s heavy breathing and the warm inducting
folds of her ...

read more »