Hi John:

I will be unable to reply for several weeks.

Hal Ruhl

At 06:16 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
let me know if my (naive) worldview on Stephen's question is compatible with
what you wrote (below):

(to1: I don't know what to do with "all possible" because it is far beyond
any idea we may have. Unless we restrict the 'all' to "whatever we can
think/know of).

to2: In the inherent and incessant DYNAMISM (as you wrote "random"? and I
still do assign random to our ignorance to find order in cases called
'random') - -  to resolve the inherent incompleteness (ie. relax the stress,
as I like to word it):  any BEING must represent a snapshot of an inevitable
and transitional BECOMING - from and into.
That is in my 'wholeness' worldview. Totally interconnected,
interinfluencing, interresponsive dynamism.

to 3: Boundaries are constituting the 'models' of 'Somethings', restricting
the observer (which I identify as ANYTHING/EVERYTHING that accepts
information) from viewing the totality.
I call such diversion from the wholeness a reductionism: reducing the
observation into a boundary-enclosed model view. So in such case a BEING is
acceptable as partial to the model. I think this agrees with your 'states'
being above-model entities, as you said: "passing through the boundaries".

to 4: I don't 'speculate' into reductionist detail-viewings (I have trouble
enough with the wholistic formulations and once I slip into the cop-pout
laxness of reductionist thinking, I lose grounds).
However the "width" of boundaries you mention comes handy in the current
problem I have on my agenda: How come that in the wholistic ie. unlimitedly
interconnected world certain items are "more connected" than others - sort
of a natural basis for model-formation? George Kampis lately called such
differentiation (in evolution-thinking) a "depth" of the connection.  I
tried an "ideational closeness" but this is too primitive a metaphor. It
emerged from my Karl Jaspers F. paper (2004) of "Networks of Networks" where
the infinitely outbranching unlimited network systems still form networks
and not a boundariless free floating 'grits'. Closeness came in from a
visualization of interconnected networks, through how many can one get to a
distnat item, which itself of course is also a network on its own.  --Ideas
appreciated. --
(Forgive me to burden you with my ongoing topic of so far unsolved

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers

> Hi Stephen:
> At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
> >Dear Hal,
> >
> >    Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
> >
> >Stephen
> Let me try it this way:
> 1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
> 2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the
> All/Nothing system and must resolve the incompleteness - this repeats
> endlessly] that passes states from the outside to the inside of an
> Something [There are many [infinite] simultaneously evolving Somethings -
> due to the repeats] [Becoming].
> 3) The boundaries of the Somethings bestow instantations of reality to
> states as they pass through the boundary [Being].
> 4) The width of the boundary determines the pulse width of Being over the
> dimension of closely coupled states [continuity etc.]
> Hal Ruhl
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 07/06/05

Reply via email to