"The
Cube of Space provides one data set of attributions and relationships,
the Tree of Life another, Esoteric Astrology another, Numerology
another, etc... I see this as being analogous to having some
N-dimensional hyper-geometric model of reality and then by fixing
certain sets of parameters at a time creating projections of this model
into 2d and 3d space so that we can see the multitude of relationships
between variables in a way that's visually understandable. Yes all the
models have some cross correlations, but each model also reveals
additional relationships which the other models don't show. "
Ah, so the Cube of Space is not the final arbiter of description? And that there may be other '2nd-tier' models that fill in its gaps? And even 3rd or 4th tier models that enfold it? Or using spatial terms, the cube is 3-D, so perhaps there are 4-D models that transcend and include it?
Along these lines I have some visual images to depict what I'm getting at. Recall I said somewhere that there was a difference between a theory for anything and a theory of everything. The former allows for infinite progress, as well as regress. The latter seems more to have a beginning and end point, both being the fundamental thing in itself, or as I call it, an assholon. So for example, we might have an integral cube of space and an integral tree of life, which some correlative overlaps but also offer spaces not in the other, like a vesica pisces.
This is instead of the image of nested spheres, which indicate that one is completely subsumed within the other, or at a 'higher level' of awareness or consciousness, whereby one is transcended and included within the other. The latter is typical of TOEs and looks like this.
I'm just using spheres because its easier to graph (for me) than cubes, but the latter would work too. So for example in the interaction of a 2nd tier cube with a 2nd tier tree, using your integral cube attributions, the shared space might be that only the lower right cuberant (instead of quadrant) of the entire cube interacts with just the top three sepiroth of the tree. Granted this is just a simple example of the overlaps to get a 'picture,' and not likely accurate to the details.
Perhaps a more accurate example might be using a word in a sentence in a paragraph, etc. The word's meaning will be in relation to how it's use in a particular sentence, so there is overlap between the two. Granted in a size scale the word is just one thing and the sentence is several words so 'larger.' Still, the word is not subsumed in the sentence like a nested sphere, since it can and does form other meanings in other sentences. So in our vesica pisces the word might be a 'smaller' sphere sharing space with the 'larger' sphere of the sentence. But to show the relational shared spaces of that word with other sentences we might need an image like the flower of life.
Choose
any sphere/word and one can see the virtually infinite ways it can
interact with other words in other sentences in other paragraphs, etc.
Say that the above flower is one 2nd-tier model, like your integral cube
(noting how this flower is in the shape of a cube). Let's call it a
'holon' to keep within a kennlingus framework. This sort of image allows
the 'smaller' holons within it to be related by overlaps instead of
subsumptions; the same with the models interactions with other models.
And again fitting more into a TFA instead of a TOE, the latter of which
often gets caught in 'altitude' wars and pissing contests.
And by the way more akin to something like the OOO/SR notion of a strange mereology and a democracy of objects. All of which, to enter the pissing, to me seems more post-metaphysical and hence more altitudinally 'integral.' And not at all akin to the aperspectival madness Kennilingam associates with pomo. Hence my extended ruminations in the real/false reason thread over the legitimation battle for what constitutes post-formal cognition.
Ah, so the Cube of Space is not the final arbiter of description? And that there may be other '2nd-tier' models that fill in its gaps? And even 3rd or 4th tier models that enfold it? Or using spatial terms, the cube is 3-D, so perhaps there are 4-D models that transcend and include it?
Along these lines I have some visual images to depict what I'm getting at. Recall I said somewhere that there was a difference between a theory for anything and a theory of everything. The former allows for infinite progress, as well as regress. The latter seems more to have a beginning and end point, both being the fundamental thing in itself, or as I call it, an assholon. So for example, we might have an integral cube of space and an integral tree of life, which some correlative overlaps but also offer spaces not in the other, like a vesica pisces.
This is instead of the image of nested spheres, which indicate that one is completely subsumed within the other, or at a 'higher level' of awareness or consciousness, whereby one is transcended and included within the other. The latter is typical of TOEs and looks like this.
I'm just using spheres because its easier to graph (for me) than cubes, but the latter would work too. So for example in the interaction of a 2nd tier cube with a 2nd tier tree, using your integral cube attributions, the shared space might be that only the lower right cuberant (instead of quadrant) of the entire cube interacts with just the top three sepiroth of the tree. Granted this is just a simple example of the overlaps to get a 'picture,' and not likely accurate to the details.
Perhaps a more accurate example might be using a word in a sentence in a paragraph, etc. The word's meaning will be in relation to how it's use in a particular sentence, so there is overlap between the two. Granted in a size scale the word is just one thing and the sentence is several words so 'larger.' Still, the word is not subsumed in the sentence like a nested sphere, since it can and does form other meanings in other sentences. So in our vesica pisces the word might be a 'smaller' sphere sharing space with the 'larger' sphere of the sentence. But to show the relational shared spaces of that word with other sentences we might need an image like the flower of life.
Choose
any sphere/word and one can see the virtually infinite ways it can
interact with other words in other sentences in other paragraphs, etc.
Say that the above flower is one 2nd-tier model, like your integral cube
(noting how this flower is in the shape of a cube). Let's call it a
'holon' to keep within a kennlingus framework. This sort of image allows
the 'smaller' holons within it to be related by overlaps instead of
subsumptions; the same with the models interactions with other models.
And again fitting more into a TFA instead of a TOE, the latter of which
often gets caught in 'altitude' wars and pissing contests.And by the way more akin to something like the OOO/SR notion of a strange mereology and a democracy of objects. All of which, to enter the pissing, to me seems more post-metaphysical and hence more altitudinally 'integral.' And not at all akin to the aperspectival madness Kennilingam associates with pomo. Hence my extended ruminations in the real/false reason thread over the legitimation battle for what constitutes post-formal cognition.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.