To continue where I left off last. [in the hope of]
Roland Bartes is right: Heterogeneity. Our society politics to
homogenise us into tereotypes
on an ant colony. tying us down to the workbench. Contrariwise ann E. that
includes sentience
includes individual variety. Not a fingerprint, hair parting, walk, talk,
snowflake, flower
bud. cat or whatever but it is uniquely individual. That boils down to a fairly
large number of
qualitites mixed up by degrees of each in combination. Ignoring whether or not
Astrology is
valid it is one of the more complex characterologies in three levels as done in
Alchemy as
body, mind and spirit or body, ideas and universal abstractions. The I-Ching is
slightly more
complex and not quite binary as Yin and Yang but trinary
That is, just as for DNA messaging, we get Yin and Yang static and Yin
and Yang dynamic where
Yin and Yang change into and out of each other, which typically reduces to a
set of three,
twice repeated for heaven above and earth below or as intangibly real and
sensorily tanible
apparent. It makes up 4096 individual possibilities, too many for any
individual to categorise.
So we have to learn to accept we cannot know it all and need others in the
right kinf of
combination to get a true pattern. You cannot have two dynamics in one trigram
as they will
contradict and null each other. So it's always two statics, one dynamic per
trigram.
In an ever dynamic real world setup without absolutes, only variables,
that's inevitable. The
forebrain cortex, and I've been unable to ascertain this for the hindbrain
cortex, is studded
all over with a sheet of 50 high stacks of transducer type cells which far
outreach math's
rather limited 3 variables max in a formula. We'd need some weirdo new
computer chip design to
match that, not even quantum computing could do.
It re-introduces true democracy, not the farce we have now, in which as
groups we can
communally contribute to the kind of thing Fred Hoyle is into. It tackles every
aspect of a
given whole, unit or system as several SF writers have explored, such that all
possibilities
are weighed up together and perhaps the dominant ones picked up on.
This creates the interesting exercise whereby we have to work on how
each different notions of
anybody can be fitted together as a whole, somewhat describably as a universal.
Whether that's
done by empathy or telepathy does not matter. It means stretching our minds to
understand
others or transcending ours or getting off the square we occupy. It seems to
mean, think
globally, act locally??? Social control at large by a small elite won't work.
It has not for
millenia.
Adrian.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
