“At some point we must content ourselves with ‘and so on’.” – Russell [Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy]
Every one who speaks washes up against the same beach [c1]. Some as pebble, some as wave, some as the very swirling sea. That they do not hear this same is witnessed by how few attend all. A function of the contemporary structure of knowing, our protection from lunacy, that the attraction of the cosmos exceed that of one another. Yet the relation is more fluid, dynamic, temporal than we are inclined to comprehend [c2].
In the semi-autobiographical “VALIS” [c3], Dick explores the existential crisis through the prism of Gnosticism. This journey from the surface eventually encounters with the Lamptons, who are communing with Sophia [c4] through their toddler, symbolically aided by audio equipment that ultimately kills her. The realisation that, “the Lamptons are nuts,” is, for Dick’s neurosis, the much needed recognition of a boundary to his reality. Albeit one that is still far broader than most, just narrower than some, of those he shares his world with. A pluralism – multiplicity – that should remain unresolved, because the act of resolution would be to flatten its very reality [c5].
The core of this text maps, to use modern terminology, complexity. The relation of apparently quite different perspectives in a pattern of commonality. The aim of this exercise is not uniformity. Indeed, the notion of a singular conclusion is to misread the map as static. This beguiling reality is one we struggle to inhabit: Constrained by time, we can never quite master it. That, “time may change me; but I can’t trace time” [David Bowie, Changes].
This text should not necessarily be read as the logical conjecture of its presentation [c6]: Language here tends towards the poetic the moment it is not held in absolute. Such tension in the midst of communication is revealing of the topic itself. The scattered character of the paragraphs, each upon a different topic, is intended to communicate a pattern – a pattern that could be formed in many different ways [c7].
(c1. With a sense of frustration at unmanageable change, that echoes Arnold’s Dover Beach.)
(c2. Throughout this text consider we broadly, as nature.)
(c3. Philip K Dick. Avoiding the temptation to augment this play on words (the novel’s characterisation is schizophrenic) with, “quite literally”.)
(c4. In this context Sophia is not merely wisdom, but the link between the reality constructed by the Demiurge (which for most mainstream religions is simply God) and the unknowable god. The audio equipment is surely an allusion to the theological Silence associated with such spiritual extremes.)
(c5. Satre is an exemplar in his underlying idea of the freedom to interpret thought. The tension between multiplicity and togetherness is what shapes reality – a core theme of this text.)
(c6. The imposition of structure is solely to keep my eclectic (multi-theoried) method on the same plane, thus vaguely readable. In an environment so overwhelmingly biased to ontology, the transcendent context of the text is intended to allow space for thought.)
(c7. Consider Kierkegaard’s oft-quoted, “when a classification does not ideally exhaust its object, a haphazard classification is altogether preferable, because it sets imagination in motion.”)
In this essay:
- Point Paradox – in which we draw knowledge
- Harmonielehre – in which we become familiar
- Syncretism – in which we illude to balance
In which we draw knowledge.
Consider the pair of axioms, Point and Paradox [p1]. To avoid confusion, call them Pf for focus, and Pc for contradiction. In keeping with mathematics, such notation is distinct from language and ambiguity. That the notation is based on language and can be compounded in the single letter P which is ambiguous from the perspective that considered Pf and Pc separate, will gradually be understood.
(p1. These axioms are no more valid than any, they are merely notions with which to commence description.)
Euclid’s [Elements] “a point is that which has no parts” hints at the difficulty of defining a tautology. A distinctly Wittgensteinian dilemma. Consider Pf as resolution and Pc as unresolution, where both are absolute. There is a definiteness to Pc’s state of unresolution, which should not be conflated with intuition’s “don’t know”. The definition of Pf and Pc can only be relative to one another. For example, where Pf is one place on a line, Pc is everywhere on that line except that one place. The base auto-genesis (start/end agnosticism) and inherent invertability of the pair becomes clearer in a spacetime relation [p2]. In the moment, they may be considered separately.
(p2. Especially see later description of object.)
Both Pf and Pc have the property of trans-dimensionality [p3]: Pf is on a line, surface, and greater dimensions. Just as Pc is this way and that, here there and anywhere, and more. Trans-dimensionality creates the illusion that patterns can be anchored. Russell’s [p4] thesis that mathematics deals, “with what can be said about any thing and any property.” Such is truth, if commonly by chains of dualities – again, until the addition of time [p5].
(p3. Trans-dimensionality may apply to any form of geometry, not merely dimensions in space. Vaguer notions, such as planes of thought, might be considered as dimensions.)
(p4. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. Russell refers this description to mathematics and logic, but Ayers (as Analytical philosophy) narrows logic to be pure Pf (devoid of all temporality – that the Problem of Induction, if interpreted to include pure events, not just directed time, is fiction), while Russell (and modern mathematics) needs to retain concepts such as Imaginary and Complex numbers (rooted in Pc), and thus mathematics has a broader definition than Analytical logic. The caveat to that argument is that Hume and Ayers have, as reflects their eras, slightly different conceptions of event.)
(p5. See later 3 body problem and the death of duality.)
When we speak of time we mean directed time, which is not (at this stage of the description) a property of Pc or Pf [p6]. Pc implies an internalised, undirected time: In physics, the oscillation, the waveform [p7] – that which maintains symmetry, which may well change, but whose change renders itself as before [p8]. The presumed irrelevance of the symmetrical is a function of the order in which we construct – the aggregation of change which is inconsequential to us [p9]. Kant’s construction of Transcendence is pragmatic for us, but is reliant on the assumption that our constructions also limit that we construct: That the circle could not perceive its own rotation [p10]. The relation between directed and undirected time echoes attempts to unify physics [p11].
(p6. Emphasis on we. As subsequently explained, Pc is undirected time. Pf simply is – as in, a point in time. The implications of “now” are not discussed because in P, Pf is never isolated from Pc.)
(p7. In Waveform-Particle Duality (a core idea in Quantum mechanics), waveform in Pc, particle is Pf.)
(p8. For example, if a circle is rotated, it can be said to be unchanged. The same for a square rotated 90 degrees.)
(p9. The most accessible notion is of aggregation and generalisation of simple objects, but what makes that possible is that those subcomponents are not considered to change.)
(p10. Can we not observe the phases of the Moon, because from a distant galaxy its revolutions around the Earth are a mere quanta?)
(p11. Unified Field Theory, Theory of Everything. Modern physics struggles with the distinction of times, see later on the limits of mathematics and Renormalization.)
Deleuze [The Logic of Sense] (and by proxy Stoic thought) characterises Pc as pure event. He summarises the arrangement as Univocity: “To the extent that divergence is affirmed and disjunction becomes a positive synthesis, it seems that all events, even contraries, are compatible – that they are ‘inter-expressive’. … The problem is therefore one of knowing how the individual would be able to transcend his form and his syntactical link with events, that is, to the affirmation of a disjunctive synthesis beyond logical contradictions, and even beyond alogical incompatibilities.” Deleuze squares the circle [p12] by adherence to singularity [p13].
(p12. This colloquial allusion to the infinitesimal is revealing. Deleuze, like for example Popper, still seems inclined to draw a fixed conclusion from otherwise excellent analysis of an unresolution. This can be counter-intuitive, but is in keeping with P. It is made practical by adherence to duality – crudely that only Pf and Pc be considered, outwith directed time.)
(p13. His conclusions draw on a Freudian conception of stabilising change by constant repetition. This alludes to the Reductionist attempt to obtain Pf (Pf as perceived, in spite of oscillation being Pc, a theme we shall return to) by minimising the inherent complexity of a natural subject, without (by definition of its nature) quite achieving an absolute Pf – especially common to medical and human science, in the vein of Freud.)
Paul [Romans 8.19] expresses this, “For the fervent desire of the creature waiteth when the sons of God shall be revealed.” The Calvinist translation retains the natural allegory of creaturae and filiorum Dei, lost in contemporary creation and children of God [p14]. Waiteth as pure event, revealed as awareness of this, fervent desire as active bias to hope, where the subsequent prevents the prior [p15]. Paul’s simplification into Stoicism of abstract (Gnostic) Christianity contrasts to Deleuze’s reconstruction from modern symbolism [p16].
(p14. Consider creation within body through the prism of natural philosophy.)
(p15. Where “subsequent prevents prior” references both order and time. Understanding is in time, hence a logical wording, “second statement in each pair prevents understanding of first”, is an over-simplification. The third, bias to hope, is an addition explored later.)
(p16. For Paul as Stoic, see Engberg-Pedersen. Initially consider simplification akin to reduction in dimensions: Gnosticism attempts to escape the jar – the meaning of which will become clearer, but broadly, the jar is (ambiguous use) the creation of the Demiurge. The only thing that remains from the attempt to escape the jar is hope – as described by Hesiod in Pandora’s Jar – a theme returned to later. Stoicism remains within while attempting to understand the defining character of the jar – change. Neo-Platonists simplify to duality. Then since Thomas Aquinas, towards Pf and the loss of bodily in the modern era as symbolism: A representation as other, albeit where symbols still have relation that can be traced back through this simplification.)
The transformation between body and symbol may [p17] be understood by the Hermetic (as attributed in the Renaissance [p18]) X: The opposition (in at least 2 dimensions) of heart and head – a definition in Pc (which might, for example, be interpreted as the formal public communication by head of the internalised gnosis of heart). X retains an inherent invertability, which does not fundamentally change knowing, merely rotates perspectives upon it.
(p17. We all geometrise, but our assignments may differ because geometry here means to juggle, to describe that which is in flux. Mystics are necessarily confused.)
(p18. The Renaissance concept of Hermeticism refers to a wide range of possibly Egyptian quasi-mysticisms, beyond the theological Hermetica. As in the earlier use of “Gnosticism”, it is unhelpful to define such schools of thought as fixed canon of ideas – they’re trying to escape the very notion.)
Western notions of change shifted, especially through the medieval and early modern periods [p19], from within to without: Theologians (in the broadest sense [p20]) may still interpret symbol as body, but most popular worship (again in the broadest sense [p21]) is now in the head, and expressed as belief, not knowing [p22]. Within and without remain perspectives on a relation: Within (as heart) that from you to other, without (as head) that from other to you [p23].
(p19. An example of this shift in perspective, that Saint Andrew’s crucifixion on the Saltaire (crux decussata) is a medieval view, embodied in the very flag of Scotland.)
(p20. The term theologian encompasses a broad church.)
(p21. Worship to include consumerism, from Church of England to celebrities to fashion. An alternative explanation of the wider point might consider the juxtaposition of the collective sacrifice of animals (as in ancient religion), to the individualistic consumption of objects (common to modern life).)
(p22. Calvin might be said to have symbolised language, albeit as shared canon, a far more dynamic symbology than that of relics and sacraments, but symbology none the less.)
(p23. Without seems to suit multiplicity because in such the world overwhelmingly acts on you. In contrast, the world in togetherness might be understood as just one union, in which case your influence upon it is substantial. This is an over-simplification of multiplicity and togetherness, but adequate for the moment.)
The opening quote (“at some point we must content ourselves with ‘and so on'”) is attributed to Russell, but echoes Leibniz’s [p24] studies of the infinitesimal: If ever-more sides are added to a rhombus, at what point does it become a circle? Conventional Reductionism is toward a finite Pf. Inversion implies toward infinity (an interpretation of Pc). Conceptually it is easier for us to break down than to build up [p25].
(p24. The conversion from many-sided-rhombus to circle is indicative of the relation between Pc and Pf. In regard to Leibniz, it may be helpful to consider Monad and Pc as the same concept.)
(p25. The briefest review of theories of complexity reveals only one theorist of note (Donald Hebb) who does not subconsciously premise the understanding of complexity as an attempt to reach Pf. That we are attracted to Reductionism is revealing of us, a bias that repeats in later text.)
Modern mathematics deals with this inversion, just not in totality. Cantor’s Transfinite shows how calculations can be performed on sets of numbers, such as a set containing all counting numbers (towards infinity), while the set itself is finite. Such abstraction of mathematics from practical to meta level mirrors thought [p26]. Inflating this construction of metas indefinitely is flawed by a (logical) loop – commonly the Barber Paradox – the set of sets that is also a member of itself.
(p26. Consider the relations of Spinoza’s (Ethics) imaginatio to scientia to ephemera – each a more elaborate construction of thought than the previous. That mathematics mirrors thought – thus is neither a system of arbitrary axioms, nor devoid of human influence – is understated because this whole text supports this pattern.)
Godel’s proof [p27] forced applicable mathematics to limit sets upon logic – as types and classes. Psuedo-Kantian constructions are theorised which tentatively expand beyond Pf [p28], but the core problem with sets persists. This broadly explains why mathematics is inadequate for solving contemporary theoretical problems in physics and intelligence [p29]. These problems tend to be natural – of time and world: That gravity cannot be Renormalized [p30], that the computer does not know when to start and stop [p31].
(p27. Incompleteness. Some of the themes can also be found in Tarski.)
(p28. Such as Martin-Lof’s Intuitionistic type theory.)
(p29. That these problems do not affect our practical lives should be considered in the context that they also tend to be temporal, where life is temporal.)
(p30. Feynman Renormalization handles infinity in Quantum mechanics, crudely a conversion between Pc and Pf.)
(p31. Turing’s Halting Problem.)
Consider Pf as 1, and Pc the square root of -1 [p32]. Pf is the realm of real numbers – sequences such as counting numbers. Pc is at a (geometric) right angle to this number line – the realm of imaginary numbers. That a real number problem may be solved from an imaginary formulation demonstrates relation [p33]. Applying Peano’s primitive propositions (axioms), 0 is P, since 0 is the base of both Pf and Pc [p34]. In the absence of directed time, P is Nihilism and Oneness [p35]. At this stage these assignments merely introduce the idea that the relation between Pc and Pf is understood as a field [p36]. A field is an un-P [p37]: A perspective which stresses the interaction with environment, not the thing (Pf or Pc) in itself. The relation of dimensions within a field is mere conversion of perspective [p38].
(p32. 1 is used in a binary sense, to indicate a true point. 0 is considered subsequently.)
(p33. That the opposite is more challenging reprises the bias to Pf in reductionism. That some relations are mathematically expressible, and some are not, gives shape. A cyclical pattern assigned certainty is towards Pc.)
(p34. Peano’s primitive propositions count from 0, not 1. In the case of Pc, 0 is in the centre of the number-line, so while cannot be squared, is core to the imaginary (number) pattern. Echoes of Frege’s (The Foundations of Arithmetic), “Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number zero.”)
(p35. Application of words to P is the misunderstand: Colloquially nihilism may be considered “nothing” and oneness “everything”. Any “thing” is better considered in directed time. That nihilism and oneness are equal sounds distinctly Nietzschen. Only a part of the model is presented at this stage – as described later, directed time changes. Incidentally, herein is the problem of the mathematisation of aesthetics – that aesthetics cannot be formulated because they are in directed time, specifically our own. That one and many are the same, where many is paradoxical, echoes Nicholas of Cusa. The expression is considerably older: Pc and Pf can be interpreted akin to the two forces within Zoroaster’s god. The emphasis here is merely on the inherent tension within P. The interpretation becomes clearer with the (later) assignment of towards good (in directed time) as towards Pf. Christianity retains the notion of devil as Pc (more apparent as the pre-modern idea of trickster), but loses the clarity of Pf, since Pf (as idealised good) becomes conflated with God (as both idealised good and totality including devil). The Fall links this back to some of the underlying themes of this text – will and knowing. That the lone individual is susceptible to the devil (a Reformation theme taken forward by Milton in Paradise Lost) makes more sense in the (described later) idea of familiarity to our shared, and biased, arrow of time: That an us is likely to be biased towards Pf, not Pc. The idea of loneliness returns later in this text as the basis of perspective, that the most reliable (but fluid, not absolute) truth is a function of us.)
(p36. P has similar qualities to Phased Space, a parallel geometry of position and motion, core to theoretical entropy. Unlike Phased Space, P does not presume directed time, thus no particular form of (asymmetric) change. That will be added later.)
(p37. Read the prefix un to P as inverse (thus double contradiction) and separation (basis of meta level). If the first is unintuitive, consider the set of sets which is also a member of itself: That un-P is the basis of Pc – and since P, un-P is also the basis of Pf, hence the trinity of our reality (more autopoiesis later).)
(p38. In the simplest case, from a right angle to itself, to the native pane of itself. Repeating an earlier footnote, this mirrors thought.)
Fields in physics are popularly considered as Minkowski spacetime, in which time is a 4th dimension, in addition to the 3 physically apparent dimensions. This is an applicable (practical) materialist construction (derived from notion of object), but the ordering, interchangeability, and number of dimensions should be treated with the same scepticism as Kantian Transcendence. The irony is that our constructions foster a rather fixed notion of time. Drake’s enchanting, “The time of no reply is calling me to stay; There’s no hello and no goodbye; To leave there is no way” [p39].
(p39. Nick Drake, Time of No Reply. I initially tried to quote Bryter Later, which has no words.)
In which we become familiar.
“And nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all; The needle returns to the start of the song; And we’ll all sing along like before; And we’ll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow.” Currie’s [Del Amitri, Nothing Ever Happens] description of death in time – undirected symmetrical oscillation, devoid of consequential change – the final line alluding to the phenomological account of directed time, that of not-lonely [h1].
(h1. Careful not to deduce death in time to be late 1980s Glasgow. The “phenomological account of directed time” should be read more broadly than simply Heidegger. That the flow of time is a function of relation, in our case especially between humans.)
The balancing of P within humanity is a common theme of Antiquity. Classical literary style manages statement (towards pf) and poetics (towards Pc [h2]) in dialogue (Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy provides a good example). Similarly the Bhagavad Gita. Much of Greek philosophy draws upon this arrangement, as found in Aristotle’s definition of Substance [Categories] – “that while remaining numerically one and the same, is capable of admitting contrary qualities” – where Substance is the ultimate subject of predication – such as a person. That dialogue has not only an inherent relativity, but an inherent temporality, presumably informs Stoic thought on times [h3].
(h2. Poetry as a bias towards Pc perhaps becomes clearer over the last millennium. Archpoet (Goliard style of the 13th century) not only revels in the duplicity of language (strongly towards Pc), but counters a more extreme (towards Pf) prevailing formal theology than would have been found in the Classical world. It is perhaps not coincidental that the rise of this style follows the Cathar “Heresies” (quoted because they quite reasonably regarded the Pope as the heretic), which represented the last public (military) stand of the more mystical elements within Western theology. In the modern period, poetics have become so detached from science that many see no relation between the two, in spite of Wordsworth and Darwin dealing with the same daffodils.)
(h3. That I regard Stocism as “common sense” (ironic quotes, since the contemporary common account is surely Aristotelian) has resulted in me reading almost nothing of it, hence my presumption may be just that. Stocism here generally references a shifting perception in ancient thought in response to overwhelming change (or a type that is not cyclical or especially predictable). It gives rise to trinity over dualism – in the terms here, a fluid, biased arc (called directed time) linking a more basic dualism of Pc and Pf. As such while I label this Stocism, something similar is apparent in the prophetic traditions of the period, where directed time has come to dominate perceptions and models of thought.)
Mere oscillation (theoretical Pc [h4]) is equilibrium without radiation, undirected time of no consequence. Directed time involves radiation and bias – a fluid inter-relation commonly called change [h5]. The distinction between these times is of our perspective: As perceived from not us, we are oscillation [h6].
(h4. Pc (and Pf) is theoretical because such cannot occur without the whole resolving to zero. That Pc can never be achieved may be understood as Hawking Radiation from Black Holes – that the singularity (absolute P) can not quite be realised, even in the most extreme of known cases. That which manages inflation, draws us together when we become too multiplicious – a theme later referred to as the elastic of entropy. Hawking Radiation is akin to the literary (to include verbal and aesthetic) heritage of humanity: A tiny proportion of what was known by those before filters back to the present in forms which have broad impact.)
(h5. Bias implies towards a non-equilibrium, while radiation might be construed as mere fluidity around an average equilibrium, and thus a mere oscillation. The conflation is intentional, since later in this text the (degree of familiarity with the) directed time field is conjectured to be the basis of Pc. A basis for an expression of set paradox, albeit one necessarily not apparent from our perspective in directed time.)
(h6. Change is change as we perceive it changes – we’re not isolated from this. Aside: On why the grand perpetuation through children is not of knowing – on death your continuum will end. Being a family blood line (a continuum) seems as legitimate as being an individual within it, yet we struggle to comprehend that because at each point of respawning, time is reset: Not merely that a child is born of their parents’ genetic template (an object-level transfer), yet with none of their accumulated knowing. But that time (and sensation, the basis of our interaction with time) seem oblivious to evolution: Contrast the consistency of earth’s diurnal cycle with the random patterns of sleep in the first 16 weeks of life. Or consider that half a child’s synapses (sense receptors) are lost by age five. An implication is that time elements must evolve within life, indeed are of life, such that they cannot be transferred, except in a base form. That accords with our metaphysical requirement for time to remain a privileged dimension. Theologically, it reflects sentiments such as “created in the image of god” – not as physical image, but as contradiction.)
Objects are merely a user interface of knowing [h7]. An object is the constant juxtaposition of what it is and everything else (and any other construction of transcendence, such as what it is regarded as and all its components). The juxtaposition is to focus first on the thing, and not on the other, leaving the other as unresolution. Then to switch, such the other is focused upon, leaving the thing in unresolution. An object cannot be known without time. Time here may be oscillation (undirected) or consequential (directed). More complex understanding tends to lean on the second, but the extent to which these times are different is a function of the perspective (ability) of the knower [h8].
(h7. To paraphrase Berkley. Not strictly Immaterialist, in that it does not deny objects, simply regards them as a tool by which to learn to know. Abbott’s Flatland expresses this in dimensions, albeit as the absurdity of living in two without awareness of the third, not the addition from the third to some notion of a fourth, here called knowing. Spinoza conceives something similar in his structuring of imaginatio, scientia and ephemera, where imaginatio is pictorial, scientia is akin to object, and ephemera is temporal.)
(h8. Aside: Why we consume – eat objects. The more you consume the more you know, but this is countered by familiarity (a recurrent theme in this text) – in most cultures obesity conveys an aesthetic with a bias towards “the bad” (Pc). Weil’s extremis, “to philosophise is to learn to die,” refers to knowing as the complete revelation of the prior relation (again the recurrent Gnostic theme that escaping the jar collapses the jar, although similar themes are lurking in Buddhism). The most thoughtful people struggle to live in awareness of both, invariably seeking some form of control over change (again, more later). Thus in natural philosophy the dominant theme is change, not the balanced diet taught by formal and social education.)
The ultimate knower (some notion of god) would not need to chain objects (especially as consequences) to reveal complexities, they would just know P. Since the chaining of objects is the basis of (understanding through) change [h9], the knowing of greater complexities through objects implies more change, unless the density of what we regard as objects alters, which is mentally unsustainable: The imposition of pattern fragments relations to us [h10].
(h9. Only apparent from an abstract perspective that does not construct from objects.)
(h10. That we increasingly regard one another as objects (such as via status symbology) suggests there is no scope remaining to alter the density of objects and still maintain a notion of us. Knowing only in pattern of objects loses personal relation, eschews familiarity to shared arrow of time (explained later), and once (de-)realised, reality. Re-affirmation requires re-simplification, but now with an awareness of limitation that reveals the sense of free will (required to remain in directed time, more later) to be illusory. Welsh’s recurrent Trainspotting eulogy to, “Choose life… But why would I want to do a thing like that?” Such transitions are extremely disruptive to mental health.)
Directed time shifts knowing from the duality introduced as Pc and Pf, to a 3-Body Problem – meaning one with no predictable solution [h11]. If we are hence forth preoccupied with directed time, it is because that is now the dominant perspective that restricts our knowing, not because of any particular teleology [h12].
(h11. To reprise the prior paragraph, complexity (chaining of objects as change) evokes a notion of fluidity – the inability to understand in totality gives rise to necessarily imprecise means, such as language. Rational thought remains in dualities because the 3-body problem has no finite resolution.)
(h12. Directed time has probably been the dominant perspective for the last 2 millennia, but the pattern pre-Classic differs, with greater emphasis on time as cycle. There are periods of greater change within both, which tend to spawn the most complex theologies and philosophies – Ancient Greece and the Scottish Enlightenment are both reactions to heightened states of change.)
As the field between Pc and Pf, directed time is traditionally called nature, but takes many modern names including scepticism and relativism. Spinoza’s Ethics is formally read as a monist Pf account, but as story it conveys Pc [h13]. Nature is the difference (as differing). That Deus is all three (Pf, Pc, and nature) seems so core to the trinity of Christianity that few theologians can conceive it [h14].
(h13. Readers who ignore the story find they do not understand the concluding chapter – especially common among analytical commentaries.)
(h14. To the question, why a trinity, consider the historic addition of the third notion (nature) onto the Pc and Pf of Zoroaster as a response to complexity in knowing. The intriguing relation is that the fluidity within the field of directed time is also the basis for Pc (and thus also Pf), and hence god describes the oneness (and nihilism) of our reality. Whether there is more outside the jar is the Gnostic investigation – albeit one that can not be considered from within, so has no practical purpose to its asking.)
The direction and non-equilibrium (bias) of this time seem (from our perspective as people within) inseparable concepts. Whether they are or not will be fudged by expressing familiarity with our (shared, biased) arrow of time. Our does not grant humans any importance – the terminology simply emphasises perspective [h15]. Familiarity is a corruption of the Wittgensteinan, to mean degree of commonality with other [h16]. The better one knows an other, the greater the familiarity, the greater the gravity between, the greater the tendency to flock together. Variations are time offsets, where time is not merely understood as clock time, but as pace [h17]. I call the management of these offsets Harmonielehre [h18].
(h15. The same might be said of that which knows and merely does not speak as we might hear. We share the same timeline as our planet, but seem to move at quite different speeds (contrast human lifespans with geology).)
(h16. In the broadest sense of the word other.)
(h17. I’m inclined to extend time offsets to include all mental activity, such as memory of past events, but it may be more helpful to consider day dreaming.)
(h18. Study of harmony. Derived from John Adams’ composition, which expresses the 3 aspects involved.)
This field spans P, but its equilibrium is towards Pf because the bias is to future, to hope, to good. Towards Pf is towards good, but not absolute good [h19]. That we are biased towards, but not at, good, is a common theme of human activity, but often misunderstood by purely dualistic systems: Kuhn’s observation that upon reducing to a single theory, scientists traumatically introduce new multiplicities to the topic, with which to once again commence the process of simplification [h20]. Or Minsky’s economic thesis that, “stability is destabilising” [h21].
(h19. Absolute good is at Pf, an endpoint for directed time, unobtainable within it.)
(h20. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn expresses this as multiple perspectives disappearing into one view, creating space to introduce some new ideas to simplify. I interpret this as constant tension between multiplicity and togetherness. The subtlety of this example is in how the move to togetherness (towards Pf) flows comfortably with directed time, while the shift back to multiplicity is more sudden and unpleasant. The progress of science exaggerates natural balancing. This tension means there can (by definition of perspective) be no “theory of everything”, since the moment such a theory was obtained, reality would fall flat. The caveat to that is if such a theory were able to extend living beyond all temporality, thus adding a new (beyond-time) dimension (medium, field, non-void) to the jar in which to continue to balance multiplicity and togetherness.)
(h21. Modern economists generally fail to understand Minsky because of their reliance on the mathematics of P, especially Pf (akin to stability).)
Physics is littered with the small, but none the less important, debris of the subject’s struggle with time. The association of familiarity with gravity is intriguing [h22]. That our arrow of time fits the Higgs field [h23]. Harmonielehre counters the theoretical tendency towards inflations, such as multiple worlds [h24]. Yet none may challenge time [h25], such is the dominance of its perspective: Godel’s Incompleteness is now widely accepted as disproving the absolute truth of mathematics (P), but his Universe (which disproves time) is still not, in spite of both using similar logics [h26].
(h22. A broadly Aristotelian idea that recurs through the history of thought. Weil’s Gravity and Grace is a more recent example. Gravity as knowing is the general concept. More specifically, objects act on one another in proportion to the degree to which they are known by each other. What we know most, moves nearest to our pace: How well known (familiar) determines how quick the echo (gravity).)
(h23. The Higgs field is unusual in that it has direction, non-zero equilibrium (bias to good), and asymmetry (understood here as not at Pc or Pf).)
(h24. And other kinds of inflation theoretically rampant in Entropy. The more extremely some notion theoretically pulls away, the more it is pulled back to a common core, as if attached by elastic – the elastic of entropy. The theological term for this is surely Divine Grace.)
(h25. A parallel may be drawn to Christian theology at the start of The Reformation, when the dominance of the Papal perspective was so great that any readjustment would inevitably lead to social cataclysm.)
(h26. Geometisations that allow the concept to be used to disprove itself. On the dominance of perspective, consider that Godel’s work on the topic is still commonly regarded as “time travel”, which is more palatable than time as fallacy.)
In which we illude to balance.
Many aspects of contemporary social behaviour could be better understood as management of change, than by pursuit of absolutes [s1]: Ethics that reflects diverse fluidity, not adherence to illusion of singular. Economics expressed in time, rather than objects [s2]. Mental distress as accumulated time offsetting fatigue, and thus as much a phenomena of the social organisation of knowing, as an individual neurological inadequacy. Flexibility in governance to react to change, conventionally hindered by policies which secure stability [s3]. Unicorn-o-phobia provides an example of the difficulties of managing change in an environment otherwise dominated by the pursuit of absolutes [s4].
(s1. Change is what distinguishes knowing from metaphysics, but only because metaphysics has been too narrowly defined. Absolute refers to both Pc and Pf, but most colloquially as Pf.)
(s2. Consider competitive advantage as time offsets – not the valuing of time or (temporal, especially human) intangibles as if an objective resources, as in current theory. All the examples cited could be expanded, as could the list of examples – the examples serve only to demonstrate the strength of the case for understanding through change.)
(s3. Climate change is not only a challenge because our actions are too remote (time, space, complexity) from the consequence, but that our reactions to it might be gimped our desire to freeze nature. Ultimately the climate change case study will reveal that humanity is not the slowest aspect of nature – the elements and cosmos live a lot longer, and their adjustments in time have much greater range than we can expect to control. The caveat is that humanity may know disproportionately more than its pace implies, but such a skew can surely not be sustained. Thus far, it has been obtained by sacrificing a large proportion of the species – see prior mental example.)
(s4. A counsellor may successfully address phobia in a generic sense, and not Unicorns. But in law Unicorns remain core to causality. Such is how the social worker and the lawyer in a child abuse case may work in different realities, the sort of multiplicity that singular hierarchical government cannot easily accommodate.)
The pursuit of absolutes is a combination of the obsessive shift towards Pf beyond natural bias [s5], and suppression of time offsets around natural bias [s6]. Leaders of thought and practice are amongst the worst perpetrators because they endure the widest natural variations in time offset, over which they desire control in order to live [s7]. Power to limit change – thus directed time – commonly expressed as the structuring of objects [s8]. Structuring is an attempt to make symmetric – from directed (asymmetric) towards undirected (oscillating) time, and as such towards the absolute of Pf – in which objects become less mutable [s9]. Less mutable objects become more stuck to the change they represent, ultimately until we cannot tell object and change apart. This is why contemporary society is so focused in matters such as ownership [s10] and partners [s11].
(s5. Includes over-optimism, and reductionism in practice. Near-to-Pf solutions inhibit change – lack flexibility or redundancy, especially over time. Edinburgh trams.)
(s6. Denial of fluidity, so even togetherness is rather fixed, and multiplicity constrained.)
(s7. “Desiring control in order to live” is utterly paradoxical (since absolute cannot be obtained in time), hints at the basis for (free) will, and hence why will is paradoxical. Which explains why social organisation of the whole tends disproportionately toward absolute – more so than the masses might need – and why power formally dominates trust, when often in practice trust trumps power. Control here can also mean personal autonomy. In extremis, hermitic existences are the expression of power by denial of relation. Anyone addressing the subject should be considered biased for this reason.)
(s8. For context read prior, expression of complexity in objects is change.)
(s9. Remember these differences between times are merely perspective, which within reason can be altered socially (a mockery of reason, already exposed social/temporal fluidity). The common expression are towards Pf, not Pc, but if is paradoxically understood as “certainly unresolved”, towards Pc is as viable an objective as towards Pf. Towards Pc is thought in pattern – what is assigned certainty, but remains cyclical, oscillating, in unresolution. Towards Pc is a less survivable direction, since it is both extreme and counter to natural bias, rather than Pf’s with natural bias and just more extreme.)
(s10. Wealth now primarily derives from ownership, not work for others. This not only de-temporalises the economy, but loses the direct relation between human activity, in favour of largely anonymous tokenisation and meta-patterns of objects. As an aside, ownership by debt increasingly represents conformity to modern society: Power with a stability paradox, since basic stabilizers, such as home ownership, engender instability when funded by excessive levels of debt, through fear of default, or unobtainability of aspiration – so much so that homelessness becomes a counter-culture directly challenging geographically-centric governance.)
(s11. In marriage a single relationship is now expected to deliver every aspect of companionship, love and happiness – an impractical expectation, since no human can sustain perfect union (and also deal with the rest of the world). Historically greater emphasis was placed on a group of supporting friends. Note the meaning of friends has also altered – now applied to vast arrays of people one can barely name, while classically applied to people one knew (in the sense of this text – beyond objects).)
Directed time is our manifestation of Pc: There is no resolution in fluidity, rather an array of actualities which, by dint of being over before we can digest them [s12], persist unresolved. The only difference between directed time and Pc is that we actively balance in directed time, while Pc oscillates over the same trajectory. Outwith our perspective, the result is the same [s13]. Directed time is thus the manifestation of will [s14]. Ergo knowing, in time, is the will to know – also stated, will is knowing, subject to the same checks and balances. And since our reality is temporal [s15], in willing to know we create our reality. Anno’s [s16], “Mankind exists because it has the will to live.” The autopoietic (self-creation) explanation of time is paradoxical because directed time is our preferred method of understanding Pc.
(s12. Cannot be understood purely in now – because, for example, the comparison between object and other is temporal.)
(s13. Since our balancing is ultimately just micro-managing an oscillation. Or how we perceive free will in an ultimately “deterministic” context – where deterministic means P, including unresolution, so determined means absolutely, rather than defined – paradox abounds! That the temporal equates to Pc is core to understanding how all does not inflate, and how temporal balance is Pc and thus encapsulates oneness when combined with the idea that Pf is Pc, explained earlier.)
(s14. Will derived from “we actively balance”, explored in the next paragraph.)
(s15. The differing of Pf and Pc – nature.)
(s16. Hideaki Anno (presumed), Neon Genesis Evangelion, via DJ S3RL’s Neon Genesis – the retort to, “I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Nothing makes any sense.” This is the same nonsense found in set paradox, for the same reason – an expression of the recursive link between temporal balance and Pc.)
Will to balance is the willed degree of familiarity with our shared arrow of time [s17]. A self that wills commonality with other is ultimately collective. Independence implies time offsetting, managed by gravity [s18] – and in extremis the de-temporarility of sleep or death [s19]. That will is normalised by gravity is important because it implies every object in directed time has will, not just those combinations of objects to which we might ascribe consciousness [s20]. Consciousness is in degrees, but those degrees are regulated by perspective not absolute: We ascribe those species most like ourselves with the greatest sense of consciousness.
(s17. Paradoxically, the more familiar we are, the more will is possible, which is of course constrained by the commonality that engenders it.)
(s18. Gravity as knowing, where objects act on one another in proportion to the degree to which they are known by each other. Managed by gravity refers to the earlier idea that the more extremely some notion theoretically pulls away, the more it is pulled back to a common core, as if attached by elastic.)
(s19. De-temporality excludes gravity, which is in time. That sleep is devoid of time is apparent to those who, as waking, catch themselves attempting to order dreams into sequential events. Dreams, like music, have no direction at their core – that we apply one is merely a requirement of our comprehending.)
(s20. Applies only to objects in directed time – that which radiates. Applies in proportion to gravity – degree of familiar, knowing. Consider objects as change.)
In seeking a conclusion, Hofstadter [s21] applied hierarchy to this strange loop to create a meta inviolate level, yet such goads infinite inflation [s22]. If the inviolate is perspective it remains within our loop [s23], and can be any aspect of that loop [s24]. The recursive loop is preferable to inflation because it is a constrainable, albeit in fluid paradox, basis for creating reality [s25]. Inflation is preferable to the recursive loop because it is limitless, never exhausts the fluid [s26], never constrains hope. Again balance, of directed time and reality, between recursion and inflation [s27].
(s21. “Godel, Escher, Bach”. If a description of the thing in itself can only loop, yielding to the desire to conclude is effectively to invalidate the idea being concluded. Note the hypocrisy of this objection under the heading of syncretism. The alternatives are notoriously difficult to read. The more this text explores, the more loopy (both meanings) it becomes. Of that which we cannot speak… we consign to ellipsis.)
(s22. Consider that the synapse/brain/being is an object sensing objects, thus must remain in its own loop, unless a hierarchy is applied.)
(s23. Consider our loop as Pf, Pc and directed time. As much of this text exemplifies, all are the same from outwith. I dislike Hofstadter’s loop terminology because the word implies sequence around a circle, when the relation is better expressed without order.)
(s24. The inviolate perspective as either Pc or Pf. In practice a shift towards these, because each cannot strictly occur since none may challenge the current inviolate – ergo shifts have to be within balancing, thus directed time will always have some importance.)
(s25. Constrainable as knowable. And it does not matter if the local god – our jar, loop – is a demiurge, because the local god is the only one we can exist in.)
(s26. Exhausts time, exhausts the analyser: As I engage in this, Tim(e) slows, and were I to entirely comprehend, Tim(e) would cease.)
(s27. Exploration of recursion has the same counter as inflation to infinity found in the infinitesimal – the elastic of entropy (Divine Grace). That recursion and inflation might occur in degrees alongside each other is difficult to conceptualise – not only that time both starts/stops and always is, but that adjustment is occurring in time, thus is and is not of itself. Instead perhaps consider this balancing as altering the rate of change – time balancing itself. If this sounds all too paradoxical, consider that in the absence of time (absence of the will to balance, the medium of adjustment), a requirement of balance is that the position is in proportion to its opposite, such that any position must be paradoxical. The logical exception – a fulcrum – is, in the absence of bias, the same zero at the core of Pf and Pc – which is oneness and nihilism, and thus not relevant to balance. And if recursion continues to sound insane, consider that infinite inflation – always more – is equally insane. That one position seems more difficult to understand than the other is a function of biased perspective.)
This inherent internalised paradox, this balance, this will to balance, is nature [s28]. It is in our nature to solve nature, but that cannot be [s29].
(s28. Much of the prior structure and terminology used to explain nature, such as time, can thus now be dispensed with.)
(s29. Be as cause, be as exist. Nature can be solved, but not without flattening the very reality we are solving it from.)
Knowing more is to act more as one, either by mass or pace. Mass as agglomeration of dominant perception [s30]. Pace as rate of change. That which regards itself as individual can only know more by increasing rate of change, not its mass [s31]. Yet to become God in knowing can only be done by one – the move towards one as an individual necessarily sacrifices all other: Contemporary human knowing is chained in ever-longer sequences of objects, as change, as a marketing exercise in relativised trust [s32]. The result is to inhibit free thought, especially of the nature of oneness [s33]. This is what was meant when Satre’s theme of freedom to interpret thought was earlier cited [c5] in the context of the tension between multiplicity and togetherness that shapes reality. Over-extension manifests itself in mental distress of trying to know [s34], and the extremism of those trying to know less [s35].
(s30. For example, a (cosmological) star, not a collection of net neutral plasma particles. Perception, because each of the particles is biased. Mass is analogous to gravity – crudely, bigger objects are more widely known.)
(s31. Against mass is perspective – for example, that in regarding oneself as individual one is limited to that individual’s mass. To regard myself as a part of a wider group, I would have to regard myself as not myself – much like set paradox. It has been shown prior that such a state is theoretically viable, just not from within itself, since it cannot break the inviolate perspective, and thus not practical.)
(s32. Typically through thought leaders, until a Foucault (without hint of irony) becomes canonical. This formation of “common sense” is exemplified by Casablanca, a film now so embedded in popular culture that one knows much of its script without ever having seen the film. Its fixing of relativism is neatly expressed in “play it again Sam”: “You must remember this; … The fundamental things apply, as time goes by; … The world will always welcome lovers, as time goes by.” Marketing is not necessarily a derogatory term, rather it conveys the notion that the strength of an idea is not in its truth, logic, or even appropriateness as a solution to a problem, but in the degree to which others can be convinced of its value – the dominance of the social bond.)
(s33. The inherent paradox, is the basis of balance, should go without saying.)
(s34. Mental distress as accumulated time offsetting fatigue, the human exercising more time offsetting than their lifespans can perhaps accommodate.)
(s35. Extremism understood as a desire to reduce the rate of change (that is, less extreme), albeit often through short term acts of extreme change or frustration.)
So we return, knowing more, and thus exacerbating our situation.
Disillusioned with the extremities of both contemporary empiricism (as absolute inflation) and postmodernism (as paradoxical recursion), the inclination to more moderate balance is natural. Such is not to entirely discount the Monty Python question – “What have the Romans ever done for us?” – since recursion and inflation balance [t1]. The notion of balance was dominant in the Classical world, and so far as Western colonialism and globalisation allow, persists in the East. Since Plato the Western tradition has regulated change by definition [t2], shifting ever more experiential uncertainties (in nature) into a realm regarded with certainty (P) – a process of symmetricisation [t3]. Bohm’s implicate order [Wholeness and the Implicate Order] is understood here as inverting the predicate [t4], transposing definition for degree [t5], symmetricising more towards Pc than Pf: The quanta is exposed over Newtonian physics (as Pc and Pf-centric respectively), but swapping extremes does not moderate extremity.
(t1. Monty Python’s Life of Brian. “But apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” Balance between recursion and inflation means notions such as hope and progress remain, just not at their current extremes.)
(t2. Plato being the celebrated first exponent of systematisation. That this happens then can probably be traced to the growing hostilities (traumatic change) and expanding world view (inflating complexity) Greek civilisation became embroiled with. We perhaps need Descarte to apply change to the Platonic model, and later Germanic philosophy to explain fluidity, although fragments are found in Stoic and Heraclitian thought respectively.)
(t3. From asymmetric nature to symmetric P. Prior, the dominant perspective (for example, in Zoroaster) had been P, suggesting the shift was in dominance of perspective toward nature. Thus regulation of change by definition, was as much a yearning for prior perspective (P), as it was a means of expanding knowing to deal with the traumatic elements of nature. Elements which were, to a large degree, created by the interaction of humans – war, trade – the creation of reality. The yearning for prior perspective is perhaps revealed by the rise of religions offering some notion of eternal life – outwith directed time (eternity is interpreted like prophecy, as that which transcends the medium of directed time).)
(t4. Rather than object change, change object. Note that stating this in plurality (for example, “object changes, changes object”) exposes the negative connotation implicity embedded in the inversion – changes disapprove! Bohm does not use this terminology, just attempts to swap object into signal.)
(t5. Degree (probability) replaces definition (absolute).)