To aid in my memory of just what kind of beast I have left to hobble around this universe, I’ve taken to re-reading this book. I must apologize for the messiness upfront, and I feel great hope in Bonnitta’s initial Recursion. Such amazing traction, resonance, depth, and reflection in your expansions, Bonnitta! It’s always exciting to intermingle universes… ;) And I’m ecstatic that you are digging into this process of translating our wor(l)ds, because I/WE will learn so much! Con-gea-ling a continent from the archipelago. Very fun. I also must say that I take my own map of this space very loosely as it’s really more an art than a science, given the lack of input I had during the writing of much of it. More intuitive and subjective than inter-objective, perhaps. But such is philosophy at the (internal) periphery. For example I hadn’t read “Where Mathematics Comes From,” (Lakoff and Núñez) which you, Bonnitta had pointed me to a few months back. I really wished I had, however, because our respective works are so complimentary…which just goes to show yet again this massive convergence of disciplines on the horizon now…. reaching a new harmonic.
So, to this end I am going to leave a trail of attempts to clarify points, some new scrawlings on that old ragged parchment. Watch out for this … or that … kind of thing. But it will also contain reflections into resonant threads as I process into what’s being said by my former self…and will no doubt, as is always the case, help me flesh out my current tangents in SZII. This process will take the place of, or perhaps include the questions I was going to provide, as possible things to consider to aid in the orientation, or reflect into. But I think it makes sense if I scout ahead and provide some harmonics to smooth the waters and give a view on what’s to come as we proceed. So I will provide a commentary for each section, hopefully, at the beginning of the week, as I go along the voyage with you all. Here’s the first one, comments to follow as I finish the reading…but please feel free to engage in this thread, if something resonates.
All page references from SpinbitZ I:
~p76 : What is this imbalance in the mathematical ratio here? I find it rather difficult to see clearly from the rough text. To give a view from above, it is an attempt to tap into an intuition of the root-level move from implicit immanence to explicit transcendence via transitivity (I will explain more simply below, see emphasis…). First in the initial closure (transcendence in root-level involution) of the unit-identies, the number ’1′ (essentially, the mathematical proton) and input-output (iopol) inversion (in the embryogenesis of math, a bit up ahead, you’ll see ;) ). Involution always precedes a new evolution, because only with new depth can we begin the necessary reconstruction, rooting deeper and deeper into complexity (continuity, not homogeneity) and source. This is a critical move with interface philosophy, that transcendence and immanence, or evolution and involution are deeply coupled. This recursive tension between immanence and transcendence is at the heart of complexity, and it shows up all over, but very clearly in software engineering and language games in general. This is the problem of scope creep and dealing with legacy code. We are, after-all, creating and reverse-engineering one vast sprawling language game at the same time, and triangulating down to source in the vast complexity (infinite difference in continuity and unity). But it is a self-similar echo of/as the real, and we are catching glimpses of this cognitive fine structure in cycles of cycles, and recurring patterns, deeper harmonics in slippage and remapping… And this is what excites me because the ontology and epistemology, the metaphysics and the mathematics, at the deeper “image-space” level (percept-level, embodiment at the sensori-mnemonic interface, where we find intuition, emotion, and qualia), are really coming to convergence. Science, Philosophy, and Mathematics are coming to reflect one common structure, as we involute through the embryogenetic layers into the pre- and proto-conceptual which they all share.
When we root here, we will find (and this is the difficult part of the transmission, because it is the near the peak of this trek)… we will find that this is not occurring with the orthodox ontologies we find in modern physics. The Strings, GUTs and TOE-nails of the pre-complexity (mythic, classical, and transitive) mathematical physics. They have radically failed, exploding in the loss foundations in the transition between transitivity and immanence, the post modern vertigo before rooting in rootlessness…recursion and a new harmonics. Rather as Prigogine intuited, the key component is the integration of radical complexity into a new simplexity. The classical (Being centered), legal (Laws of Physics), solid-/particle-biased, simplistic and transitive, ad-hoc, and agglomerative “multi-dimensional” black-box trans-linearity of the post-Cartesian mathematical physics, including in essence and orthodoxy Quantum Mechanics, radically failed in an explosion into, quite literally, the giant flying spaghetti monster which is seen so clearly in the failures of String Theory and MWT to reconnect to causation (immanent, this time)…and this is due to the transitivity and linearity at its heart. Again, this transitivity is really the essence of what I see in Prigogine’s key distinction between the classical and integrative post-classical dynamics. In the interrim, to deal with the complexity, stochastics and probabilities must suffice, until the new immanent causal metaphors can be seen (as they are in nascent Sorce Theory).
Rather, what’s more telling of the direction here is the return to the infra-dimensional, beyond also the rational solid form of Fuller’s geometry, and into the recursion and integration at this deeper level of dimension itself (this polar level of the vision-logic axes), into yet another iopol inversion (move to immanence) with the integration of the ratio in fractional geometry . It is no coincidence that the fraction in fractional dimensionality is the mathematical ratio. Again, the return to immanence precedes yet another explosion into transcendence….this one just beginning to bloom, having barely found its way into physics, but with glimpses as well in the convergence between Sorce Theory and electro-fractal cosmologies. All these disciplines and arts share and evoke the same recursive, holonic, and embryogenetic structures.
So, back to the mathematical ratio, and the attempt here (~p76) to elucidate the transcendent bias. This “trans-bias” is seen in the ratio with the simple fact that transcendence and transitivity form the initial couple (invoked occasionally with “trans-trans-bias”). Increasing numbers at the top are paired with increasing numbers for the whole, while increasing numbers for the bottom (immanence) are inverted with respect to the whole. There is a hidden “negative” (or pole, namely immanence, with no limit at zero) in the implicit unity in the denominator … which has suddenly appeared with the ratio. Where did it come from? It was always there in the original agglomerative (transitive) enfoldment of the finite unity or ’1′ in every number. Simply assuming unity in immanence (or in other words at the origin-identity of the implicit immanent-transcendent axis now coming into view), Fuller’s “unity is plural and at minimum two” (our principle of finite unity), is what allowed the unit-identities of number to congeal from “conceptual substance” in the first place (much like a bi-lipid cell membrane, or a root-unit in Sorce Theory, because they are formed of and around this general polarity, the abstract essence of nucleation, the pulsing and cycling, involuting and evoluting membrane of closure).
The rectilinear Cartesian grid is the view from this initial transitive axis (Fuller’s “attic window”), while the immanent pole (and immanent-transcendent (I/T) axis) has not yet been explicitly operationalized, as we see later, on the periphery with Fuller’s Synergetics. This initial move into transcendence and then transitivity is the number-line: The move from implicit to explicit (nothing to something) and on into agglomeration, from zero to infinity. This is the initial positive infinity, above the solidus, wobbling through the trans-trans instability and into the vestigial imaginaries … and on … until… right now, at the extending cusp of the return of our language game to radical or “pure” immanence…and the return to(wards) actual complexity….from the crumbling upper crust of representation…as we move into the power of recursive harmonics and its ontic-epistemic entrainment … but at the critical point of involution into the virtual in the “singularity”. Perhaps indeed this holonic fractal entrainment, this coming laser-like focus between our self-same layers in this infinite difference will be our Ariadne’s thread out of the problems of the information explosion and prediction in the looming eclipse at the auto-evolutionary horizon.