Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton

Download 4.74 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   90
I submit that Pi 'dropped' out of the sky. This is not hard to explain historically. Q is another matter. It is Q that gives Pi its mundane purchase. Q is the tricky one. It may be allied with R and is the manifestation of panpsychism. It has a bootstrap quality that may be related to the ouroboric Z. Q, along with R, is the buckle of the cosmic bootstrap. The plethora of metabolic cycles are the primary instruments of quantum measurement. Animal consciousness might be viewed as simply an elaboration on this basic theme.
From the Anthropic perspective, Q is practically a no-brainer. It provides for the stability of the micro-world. It accounts for photosynthesis, vision and thermal radiation, among many other functions. But here again we are missing a narrative link to the other archetypes.
Quantum related symmetries provide for micro-level cloning. Thus its relation to R in providing the combinatorics allowed by spatial symmetry. It must also be involved in the organics of mathematics, as part of the anthropic loop implied thereby. In its relation to time it might possibly be sympathic with the A/O gap in the zodiacal circuit.

I am still trying to break the impasse over Q. Perhaps we can resort to the trinity (1, 2, etc), i.e. MDX or e^i*pi. The latter threesome suggest that Q should be identified with the imaginary unit and then, possibly, with the dialectic. None of these three (Q, i or D) make a solid archetype. Perhaps we can let Q represent the trio, among its more solid cousins. The combination (Q, i, D or Quid) might help us gain insight into each member. There is still the option of dropping Q from the seven primary archetypes. The Quid are bridging elements. They help provide for the relational character of the world, along with M. Such considerations ought to provide additional understanding of the function of the quantum.

Another facet of the Quid is projection. Quantum operators project probability functions into definite observable states. Such projection may underlie the emergence of Z from M. In this case there would be mutual observation and projection. In some fashion, a conscious specificity is wrested from the unconscious potentiality. A Quid for your thoughts.
The necessary mutuality of the primal emergence maintains a cosmic dialectical balance as seen in the yin-yang dynamic. However, the prophetic tradition does look forward to a constructive, teleological synthesis of Creator and Creation, Heaven and Earth.
Yes, there must be a teleological character to the Quid bootstrap. As it helps Z to emerge from M, so does it help R to emerge from the ouroboric structure of Z, and mainly from R we get the materiality of the world.
It is occurring to me just now that the Quid may also be responsible for the singularity of Creation. Consider Richard Feynman's quantum summation over histories formalism. In this case the sub-optimal paths destructively interfere leaving the one path of least action. This would be our BPW. It is the path of least resistance, given the primal Quid impulse. And there can only be one such BPW, just by Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles. Can we not play it again, Sam? Really there is no need. The Telos is just a universal Presence. Where there is no absence, there is nothing left to be repeated. It's all right there.
And now there is a bit of snow to be shoveled.
Evidently the Quid is involved in the symmetry breaking of M. In that role it is acting as the precursor of the Logos (1, 2, etc). But we also have the Johannine equation of X = L, thus we may have to append Quid as QuidX [but see below]. This is just to emphasize the relational nature of the archetypes, AZO/X/QRP, following from MDZ. QuidX is also involved in the A/O symmetry breaking of Z. In the BPW metanarrative it may be that the Logos has more to do with X2 than X1, but that is a technical detail. Both X and the third person, HG, serve as intermediaries between heaven and earth. This is another indication of the centrality of X.

Pi has also been related to the logos, symmetry breaking and X. This polyvalence of the archetypes is neither unexpected nor dysfunctional. This is how a relational world is supposed to work. It does not imply redundancy. Strictly speaking, M, D & Q are not archetypes. They are, however, essential to the bootstrap. Q also stands in for the atom. Perhaps the Logos as distinct from X should be given a formal status. Also note that X and Z are interchangeable in the trinity of MDX/Z. Z may emerge logically prior to X. X emerges as the self-organizer of Z, for the sake of Creation. Pi appears in the numerical trinity of e^i*pi, playing the role of the logos.

Four days ago I claimed it would be easy to see how Pi 'dropped' out of the sky, but I am not recalling the point of the allusion. OK, I believe that I was alluding to the chronometric power of the zodiac in particular and of the sky in general. It was astronomy on which we cut our mathematical teeth. The subsequent discovery of the e^i*pi trinity led the way to quantum physics and the taming of the atom. This was virtually the second incarnation of the logos as manifested in Pi. As such it would portend the X2-event that we are struggling to anticipate here.
The dialectic symmetry breaking of the zodiacal circle gives us the ouroboros and the ellipse. History is the result of the former, and I am tempted to say that anthropics is the result of the latter. That is less than obvious. Elliptic functions are the primary manifestation of the organicity of mathematics, which is a major factor in the anthropic telos via the physical symmetries of the Monster Group. Of course, there would be no history without anthropics, and vice-versa. Perhaps we are seeing the same breaking process from two different perspectives. There is just one dialectic operation, logos, zim-zum, syzygy, which would help to keep the panpsychism coordinated as in a psyche. The logos is always a dia-logos. Speaking of the zodiac, the number twelve figures prominently in the 'Monstrous Moonshine' that is part of the above organicity.

Symmetry breaking: I'm attempting to get a more coherent take on this topic. I'm also interested in this related statement. We have made some progress in deriving QRP from AZO, and AZO from M via D and L or symmetry breaking. D & L have to do with the mark of distinction. In physics, symmetry breaking is always spontaneous. Not so, here. Here it is always teleological, which is also true of D & L. T(elos) is self-realizing. Perhaps T & L are about the same, now that I think about it. DLT is another trio. These are three aspects of the self. Our non-spontaneous SyBr makes this trio a foursome: DLTS. Then we have the Syzygys to worry about. To what may they be ascribed? Here is some previous speculation.

The mother of all syzygys is the total solar eclipse. This is the most impressive of all celestial phenomena. It has certainly shaped human culture. Its related numerical coincidences were at the core of our ancient mathematical gnosis. There is a gender specificity on several levels of the phenomenon, providing an added semantic charge. The lunar shadow constituted a veritable stairway to heaven. Outside of anthropics, it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the accidental nature of the world. It is a calling card of the Creator.

The next most prominent syzygy is e^i*pi = -1. This has a 3+1 structure similar to that of the eclipse and of the trinity, MDX, when we include ourselves as the targeted element. Otherwise we have various types of coincidences, synchronicities and synergies to consider. Coincidences may be accidental or not. If not, they indicate an observer oriented and participatory bias in the structure of the world and the events that comprise it. In some cases we confront a possible non-causal semantic linkage between events. This could be the manifestation of an organic or holographic metaphysic. Such a structure is presumed in the postulation of a primordial Matrix, which in turn is a presupposition of immaterialism and the BPW hypothesis. In other words, the coincidences are the residue of the symmetry that preceded the dialectical breaking of it, and are the portent of a Telic synthesis. They both shadow and foreshadow the soon to be completed dialectical process that we call Creation/Resurrection.

The upshot is that we must add the syzygy/synergy to DLTS combination: now DLTSS. This is the third or middle element of our MDX or MDZ trinity. It is the engine of creation. But could this be other than the force or potency of love? Cosmic love + $3.75 will get you the proverbial cup of coffee in Times Square. Then what? The fact that we often identify X with O, T & L keeps our archetypal pot well stirred.

The logos operates as a symmetry breaker, very often; while the telos, as the omega, is the mother of synchronicities. Then recall that the dialectic, as a participatory dia-logos, combines L & T, sym/brk & synthesis, thus we may simplify DLTSS as D^3. Recall that this same dia-logos may have the empathic quality of love, or, at least, agape, to restate yesterday's result. As we identify O and T, we may also identify the Alpha with the logos, and then, following John, the christos with both pairs, and, so with the dia-logos [see below]. X then would be self-generating wrt M. This would make both Z & X primordial, one circular, the other lineal, with the ratio of pi. The cycle is something quite natural. The line is less so. Their ratio is also the logos, dividing the cycle. Distorting the cycle is the function of the dia-logos, producing the ellipse. This act puts us on the anthropic track via the Monster Group. Recall the Quid. It completes the microcosmic bootstrap. Its projective quality places it in the lineal column. It is the panpsychic version of the logos. The microcosm is the atom and the psyche, the two being logically related. Does this mean there cannot be an immaterial psyche? Both X & Z must live off of borrowed time. That need not render them mortal, but it does render time as virtual. Lineal history is not optional in the big scheme. The circuit collapses without a dia-meter. (I think of the virtual 'tadpole' Feynman dia-gram, remind me. The photon is lineal, like time but without time, while the electron/positron pair is excursive.) I'm hoping we are on the verge of completing the outline of the metanarrative. There are still some missing links, but the general form is taking shape. The cosmos is often depicted as a doubly or axially connected sphere. Shades of hollow earth! [This structure will have to be related to that of the ouroboros.] In e^i*pi, the imaginary iota serves as the dialogic element. Along with the logos or pi, it tames the ex-potential matrix. In math, the iota serves both an analytic and synthetic function.

The possibility that Z & X are coeval is a new thought for me. It would be a major factor of the metanarrative. It might help to explain the coevalilty of East & West. Factored into the equation may be a 'stealth' aspect associated with X, going back to the notion of the self-concealment of the less natural one of this pair. The mystical tradition is naturally diffuse, while the prophetic side is focused around a lineal succession, which is also the central story line of the narrative. We return to the problem of prophetic stinginess.
We see in the history of polytheism the example of the circle collapsing without a structural diameter. This collapse is instructive mainly in its naturalness. The dia-meter comes about as an alignment of the dia-logos. The axial alignment of the dia-logos results in the polar structure referred to yesterday. It may also be viewed as the head/tail symmetry breaking in the context of the ouroboros.
The ouroboros is obviously a case of dog eat dog, or god eat god to be more precise. There is much confusion about the nature of the sacrificial incarnation within the prophetic tradition, particularly between the orthodox and gnostic views. Many lives went up in smoke as a result. It all comes down to who ate whose lunch. In fact, the son ate the dad's lunch, despite the immediate appearance. Two of the pantheonic Z had to work out this deal, rather ignoring the rest, although there could have been a general conspiracy, the mother of all such. [2/4 - Please recall the juxtaposition of X/Y. Contra John, we may have to identify Yahweh with the logos. If anything, the christos would have just the last word, which is love. Yahweh is the mono-logos, Jesus is the dia-logos. Y disrupts the Z circuit in favor of X.] This is certainly a case of the telos wagging the dog. The rest of the pantheon may readily be excused for ignoring this shenanigans. It would all work out in the end. But this does seem to make X the derivative of Z. Is there a less biased way of spinning this yarn?
There may have always been a favored son of a matrix, as the partner of a primal dia-logos, but I'm not seeing the necessity. Does it have to be a single-self matrix? Can we invoke Leibniz' I/I? There must be a mythos relative to this problem.

Most of what I said yesterday was unnecessary. The simple fact is that the matrix is nothing if not the mother of creation. The genius of creation is simply its optimizing, teleological agent. This is not the patriarchal Creator of our fathers. That is the source all our confusion. It is our telos/christos that wags that old dog, and us. The telos necessarily operates though us creatures in participatory style. The participation is logically realized in an eschatological resurrection. This is just the bootstrap model of creation. The X1-event was an attempt to explain the bootstrap to a somewhat inept audience. It was never intended to be the final explanation. It was mainly a pump priming exercise: the first fruit of the resurrection, and all that. The final explanation is left for X2. That the messianic kingdom was within us, this message did register, in no uncertain terms, but it registered mainly at the emotion level. All we do now is rationalize that message. That is our X2.

The pantheists picked up on the notion of the God within. This idea was also the mother of all gnostic 'heresy'. Why have we been so slow to demystify that simple concept? Concealment and revelation are just as participatory as the rest of the world. It is only we who have concealed ourselves from ourselves. Our learning curve has been slow, and not always steady. We do, however, necessarily reach a threshold of readiness, when everything goes public. The social dynamics will not be unlike the first time, but the communication factor is several orders of magnitude greater. This is on account of the technology, but that is only the lesser part of it. The greater part is the intellectual content and our greater ability now to absorb it. Our training in scientific thinking over the last few centuries has much to do with our present state of preparation. All we have to do is turn that analytic obsession on its head, and that will be our synthesis. It may be easier said than done, but not by a whole lot. This time around, it will be all or nothing: no child left behind.
But is this X2 event not supposed to be of a minimalist sort? Is the prospective socio-political drama either necessary or desirable? In the first instance, I would say that it is technologically unavoidable, just from a communication perspective. It has to be an all or nothing event. But then won't there be disruptive consequences? The idea here is to minimize these disruptions by emphasizing the rational aspect of this new gnosis. This time around, the head will be leading the heart. The heart will catch up soon enough, but not so soon as to aggravate any disruption. Provided that the disruptions can be minimized, then any good story will benefit from its dramatic episodes. The metanarrative should be no exception. We are destined to live in interesting times.

Each time we go around the horn, there do seem to be fewer loose ends. Yes, for every answer, there are ten new questions, but these questions may be seen as subsidiary. The larger pattern becomes more solid. This is not to say there can be no more quakes in this cosmic scheme, but hopefully the scheme is sufficiently robust to withstand the damage.

What concerns me now is nothing less intractable than the genesis of genesis, or, in particular, the genesis of the logos. Down here it arrives with Abraham via Yahweh. In the BPW scheme, the logos serves as Alpha or the anchor of Creation.
I am taking the zodiacal pantheonic circuit, Z, as mainly internal to the matrix, and not involving the logos initially. The logos is the symmetry breaker of Z, occurring as either Y/X or A/O. Creation is acting as an appendage to the matrix, as if that were possible.
The radial symmetry of Z may be broken in elliptic fashion. This would be less disruptive than a circumferential break, and corresponds to the 'hollow earth' model. The logos then evolves via the syzygys of Pi. Admittedly, it is a long way from Pi to the Ten Commandments, but it is not inconceivable. A related issue is the origin of the Dialectic associated more with the christos. With ellipsis, the logos and dia-logos would come in tandem. Somewhere along the line we also have to come up with atom/Adam, speaking of anchors.
Previously we have spoken of Quid as being instrumental here, as the precursor of the logos, along with e^i*pi. But I have to ask if there can be a logos without a self. I'm thinking that the primal Z precedes the self, which is more associated with X. Nor may Pi precede the self. However, is not the dia-logos coeval with X, even to the point of being subsumed thereby? The primordial I/Thou is X/M. This is also the dia-logos which then entrains the Y out of the Z. Yes, the X does have to also belong to the Z. The primal trinity of MDX, is also a triangle of MXY.
Where then do we place the Quid? This will be associated with atom/Adam. The ouroboric Z and R are instrumental. Adam is the material guy. The Zoocosm, Z, converges on Adam, along with the metabolic atom. The Z becomes stretched out into human and natural history, as logically distinct and parallel elements within a single ecological/metabolic context. It is paleontology that is distinguished from archeology.
I would observe that if the ouroboric cycle is broken and stretched out it becomes a gestational cycle. The phylogenic version of the zodiac could then be applied to an ontogenetic cycle. As this is happening, other metabolic systems are entrained in coherent fashion. Ontogeny is a microcosm of cosmogony. What else would we expect? In cosmogony the logos plays the role of the DNA, yielding mathematical physics, for example. Admittedly it is not easy to conceive the transitional stages. Logical continuity in the 'evolution' of the archetypes is a big step toward naturalizing Creation, at least in the sense of rendering it coherent. That is also to make it plausible.

A natural impulse that is not helpful here is our impulse to inquire after the first instance of something, by way of explanation. This makes sense only when dealing with what Aristotle called 'efficient' causes. Only in such a regime does the origin explain the succession, as with the Big Bang or with the six days of Creation. The regime of the BPW is fundamentally teleological: it is the end that accounts for the means. In this case, 'end' is to be taken in its most general sense, not just as 'ending', although the eschaton may be expected to carry much of the teleological burden. The term Telos is meant to indicate the general sense of 'end'. I am suggesting that atoms and babies can sneak up on us unannounced. Their presence is felt well beyond the confines of history. They are integral to the dia-logos. We see this in the parturition of X. This is both an efficient and final process. Much of atomism is inherent in many fundamental phenomenologies. Genetic coding and photosynthesis are among the most basic of these.

It is eminently logical that a combinatorial diversity in the macrocosm should be supported by a cellular and molecular combinatorics. The habituation of biological cycles will serve to fix the molecular cycles. Biochemistry and biophysics, more or less as we know them, is the only possible outcome. The habituation process should be seen a logical rather than temporal. Linear time is just the result of breaking the cyclical symmetry. Time is the result of breaking the cycle habit.
Atoms are simply the logical accretion of our 'circuitous' memory. Memory is not in the atoms, atoms are in the memory. And memory is simply the temporal asymmetry of a coherence emanating from the Telos. This teleo-logic, organic though it is, also has a combinatoric support that we recognize as mathematical logic. The dialectic regime of the Quantum is the nexus of these two atomisms. In the terminology of the archetypes we might say that R & P -> Q. The coherence of Q is ultimately derived only from T/O. There is no logical way to get from Q back to T. The hoped for reversal of this sequence, as held by the logical positivists, has been as thoroughly discounted and discredited as any philosophical thesis ever has been. It is only the heavily fortified wall of Darwinism that is holding back the inevitable rising tide of a demand for coherence. Here you see the first trickle of coherence to breach that wall. The materialist establishment may only watch in silence as the trickle continues. Any response whatsoever will only abet the flow and hasten the deluge.
Individual memory is derivative of the atemporal cosmic mind or memory, which is not distinct from the immaterial cosmos itself. Atomism, as far as it goes, is just the logical result of analyzing that memory. Atoms cannot be more solid or stable than the logic of the coherence from which their quantum processes are extracted.

Let me hasten to point out that there is another aspect of the all or nothing game. This has to do with existence. For the immaterialist, existence is entirely relational, but for the materialist it is all or nothing. I would like to show that the latter position is incoherent. It should not be difficult.

For the materialist, existence must be clear cut, but, unfortunately, existence has been and remains notoriously abstruse. The fall-back position for the materialists is just to say that they will accept as gospel whatever happens to be the current ontological fashion within the physics community. The unacceptability of such an ad hoc metaphysical stance is widely remarked and acknowledged, even amongst the materialists. They apologize and ask the forbearance of their philosophical colleagues. The simple fact is that physics and metaphysics are concerned with very different issues. The ultimate responsibility of physicists is just to be pragmatic about their subject matter. Their ultimate metaphysics can only ever be that of pragmatism. The next simple fact is that pragmatism and materialism have a vanishingly small ontological overlap. My case is closed.
But just for the nonce, let us posit the existence of ideal [sic] atoms. The ideal atom would have an entirely independent existence. I maintain that this is incoherent. Said atoms would have to be indestructible in all eternity. More significantly, such entities would be incapable of internal relations. Their only relations could be accidental or spatio-temporal. Such a metaphysic could not support anything resembling chemistry. What could be the ontology of water, for instance? In fact, for our pragmatic scientist, the ontology of a molecule is not distinct from that of an atom; nor, even, is that of a pancreas. There can ever only be differences of degree for any sort of pragmatist. The ultimate ground of existence can ever only be phenomenological.
I maintain that chemistry is possible only in a relational world. No semblance of a molecule could exist without the presence of 'exchange' forces. The exchange force operates only because the different types of atoms share essential mathematical symmetries. These symmetries are only indirectly related to the external shape of a given atom. These internal symmetries are manifested only in the interaction between atoms. The symmetries are of no account other than in such a relational context. These forces are one aspect of the widely touted 'non-local' nature of quantum phenomena. The materialists do not deny chemistry, but they do deny that such purely relational essences exist outside of the quantum-chemical realm. In contrast, I maintain that quantum chemistry is just the tip of the relational iceberg that is our world. The essential properties of the pancreas are just as irreducible as are the molecular properties of water.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   90

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page