On Pedro’s recommendation, I am forwarding this exchange to the list.

> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self
> Date: April 29, 2016 at 12:12:26 PM EDT
> To: Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> Dear Alex,
> In set theory, the empty set can be regarded as ‘framing nothing’.
> Thus it is denoted by an empty container {  }.
> The properties of the container are not relevant, only that ‘it’ manages the 
> act of containment.
> “We therefore take the form of distinction for the form.”
> From there, one generates all the multiplicities in mathematics by further 
> acts of framing.
> {  }
> { { } }
> { { }, { { } } }
> ad infinitum.
> If we said this in LOF it would be essentially the same, but parsimonious in 
> that the comma as an extra distinction would not be needed.
> If A is a set, then {A} is another set obtained by the act of framing. We see 
> it all as ‘framing nothing’ when the sets are traced back to their empty 
> origins as in 
> the layers of an onion. Some layering might have to be traced back forever 
> alas as in {{{{{…}}}}}. This is why set theorists are not happy to have sets 
> that are members of themselves at the foundation. Nevertheless, in order to 
> have language at all, self-reference is necessary. In LOF the mark < > is 
> seen to be a distinction and to refer to a distinction and so refers to 
> itself.
> At that point one realizes that in the form, the mark and the reader or 
> writer or observer are identical. Tat tvam asi.
> Best,
> Lou
>> On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> RE 1 Louis Kauffman: Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The form we 
>> take to exist arises from framing nothing.
>> RE 2: The objects of our thought and perception are so laden with the names 
>> and symbols that have been shifted to them, that their ?original nature? is 
>> nearly invisible. 
>> ME 1: Many philosophers of the East, such as Nagarjuna and Adishankara agree 
>> that when one realizes that the real 'Self' has no form (and no history of 
>> change) that this frees the embodied soul from being trapped in forms that 
>> get reincarnated in time. It is the Ultimate Liberating Realization! 
>> The Maharishi International University mathematician, Michael Weinless, 
>> formerly an Asst Prof at Harvard, was correspondingly fond of RusselL's 
>> distinction between ϕ and [ϕ]. 
>> Is this the same as what you are referring to, the 'framing of nothing'?
>> ME(2): I suspect that the cognitions of a fully enlightened person is 
>> acutely aware of the additional nonsense that has surrounded the original 
>> simplicity in such cases. 
>> E.G. In the webinar, I became acutely aware of many layers of academic 
>> comment / prejudice etc. that surround almost every seemingly innocent 
>> discussion question. 
>> -- 
>> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
>> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
>> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
>> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India  
>> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <tel:%2B44%207710%20534195> 
>> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics 
>> and Phenomenological Philosophy 
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to