KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Commentary 29 (to R12)

IF A METHOD FAILS ...
by Adrian van der Meijden
6 April 2001, posted 17 April 2001

This version hopes to replace Kant's Epistemology and correct Husserl's static approach to existentialism to replace both with a dynamic approach, that is, a multi-leveled, approach. It is further programmable, probably in LISP, but I lack the competency to do so, and it can accommodate all of math's operators. Thus it might well extend Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica". As elsewhere with Quantum Physics, which does not quite abrogate Newton's mechanics, so here the "applied" is rendered into subsets and merely amplifies a single overcoupling model into a polymodal process one. This matches how math has several varieties of numbers. I apologise to people who did not grasp some of my meanings in previous posts, as I have used this approach all the way along. It may well need polishing up in fine detail.

<1>

A least hypothesis approach would treat the mind matter dualism as essential or "given". This needs to be tackled dynamic fashion such that it posits a 3rd and virtual domain of consequences in which we can either treat each aspect in its own right or combine them in a positive, negative or neutral association, together with the fixed and mutable for all. This is isomorphic to both electro-magnetism and logic. This amounts to the Trinitarian. I posit that thereby the subsets attainable in an applied sense are mutually irreconcilable and leads to a "garden of forked paths" already implicit in language as 1st, 2nd and 3rd person. Anyhow we already know that myths and theories alike cannot be compared with each other although they share an underlying grammar. In addition we need a zero position or dimension in which there is no self, no form, only being in a unitive sense. This forces that we propose that the relation between mind and matter arises as form, which stands apart from both time and space. This 0-D need not affect what we do but it does affect how we do things. We already know matter and energy are mutually convertible. If we take the unitive state as a flux and pre-quantal then the quantal "gateway" introduces form through mental interaction, introducing a change we map in time. None of this is very radical yet it's effects are.

<2>
I base this on Alchemy's the ONE begets the two, the TWO three and from the THREE derives the myriad. The ONE amounts to H.M.'s 0 D and my para-subjective. We could also call it the Z.P.E. field and Bohm's implicate, without the "order", thereby having only the explicate with order. The TWO makes it dual because "without constraint no advantage". IT has to act on itself to yield change. Here it is of no moment where consciousness is located as we call it infinite when no quantity can be applied, as quantity relates to form. This enables this dual to be local for matter and non-local for mind, not unlike the waves and particle issue, such that we get an interaction between the local and global as action AT a distance as well as action FROM a distance because the coherence of unity must be maintained. In a field of infinite potential all the functions of such a field are also everywhere in access and it is through an asymmetry in its flux that events emerge.

<3>
From the T'ai Hsuan Ching (Book of the Unfathomable Mystery) {Shu and Hsu amount to "energy" or Tao or meaning and "the principle of statecraft".)

"Does not the Creation of Things,

"Begin by assembling them into Groups.

From the Rg Veda 10.129.1&7 {translation from Antonio de Nicolas, "One Dimensional Man".}

" Neither Existence nor Non-Existence was as yet,

" Neither the World nor the sky beyond it;

" What was covered? And where? Who gave it protection?

" Was there water, deep and Unfathomable?

The poet ends with:

" That from which Creation came into Being,

" Whether it had held it together, or it had not.

" He who watches in the highest Heaven

" He alone knows, ....unless, ... he does not know?

So it is not that these matters have not been pondered all along the way. It reflects Rolle of Hampolle's Unknowing, which does not imply un-Being [There is no *real* nothing, only an existential one], just that even Being cannot recognise itself unless it dualises. Thus we may say "god" was conscious but not self-conscious until divided in itself. We might add that the conscious is for god and the self-conscious unto us.

How does it get from a 0-D to a 1-D? We cannot even assess whether it is an unbound Chaos shaped into form by mind or something else. Logically we may posit this as THE Big Bang while accepting also that it goes on all the time, as recently suggested, by a conversion of a black hole implosion arriving at some ?impossible? [by a "re-normalisation" perhaps] relation with its dualistic condition to go white hole nova and recycle. This merely extends what Hawking has already proposed. This initial Big Bang is a noumenal event and as such unobservable, and, as it were, part of eternity.

<3>
This *mystery* pervades throughout existence as conundrum, paradox and anomaly we may as well call indeterminacy and as found in theology about whether god leaves his creation to its own devices or inserts miracles. But if indeed "creation" is "The body of God" he/it also constantly maintains it such that we find for Siva and the Celtic Cabiri that they create, uncreate - ie recycle - and maintain the universe. So we really cannot have "singular" answers, except in the applied. It's ambiguous where we may resolve the ambiguity, and remove "paradox" in the applied by absolutising or fixing a dynamic in a temporarily stable state, but that is all. The Cabiri have "but one eye between them" such that we can have it only one at a time but for the flux it is everything all together and at once and no limits imposable.

<4>
Having gone this far we can reconstruct from the three relations alone. In the associative it unifies and is productive or introduces change. In the dissociative it is "at war" with itself and then yields the energy the associative can utilise. For the neutral it will be stable and both unity and the dual have this in common. Thus we can have it linear as long as we realise that this is our elective and in not the nature of things. For mind and the cosmos alike it is holistic and non-linear, or as for neurology: anastomotic. Jung, in collusion with Wolfgang Pauli, proposed "enantiodromia", the opposite is also true, as we can readily demonstrate with Infinite Set Theory as well as recent cyclotron results. We may as well speak of symmetry, asymmetry and neither as call it positive, negative and neutral.

<5>
A Rg Vedic hymn on Dawn has it "from between her legs emerged the six directions" which leaves only small doubt what the orgiastic Cabirian rites demonstrated. This yields an initial six possibilities that double up into 12 when we add inequality as fixed versus mutable.

<6>
My personal abstraction and simplification of this, as a least set of opposites, comes as follows. We have six irreconcilable imponderables as:

Whole Part

Series Parallel

Digital Analog

For which, in order for something to happen, we have to effect closure of at least one of the set. Newton did this for space. Einstein for Time and Quantum Theory has yet to decide, altough I here suggest

no-form <-- the quantal--> form

as a possibility. Each of the three is thereby attended by a different kind of paradox. We are already puzzled enough by our recent entry into the digital about continuity and consistency. We can have full consistency only in the enclosed or "solipsistic", or tautological for the applied and indeterminate for the rest. By analogy to the solipsistic the solution to the demon trapped in a box is to revert back to before the demon was trapped as a kind of time travel. We anyhow go through many ASCs every day.

Epistemology, pure and simple, is only qualitative, therefore non-scalar. There's nothing "wrong" with the solipsistic as long as it is not permanentised. Closure or exclusion as "concentration" or focus has to occur or else we'd never get down to work. In this connection epistemology, ontology and psychology go together. God may indeed well have created the universe but in the process he also created us as self conscious creatures which, by virtue of cosmic infinity, have free will, thus, in a way being asymptotically "like" god but not quite identical with, except for the zero condition. For the non-dogmatic man is creative as Huysmann's Homo Ludens.

<7>
This leaves us any two of the triad above to utilise as a applied form of dualism. The garden of forked paths shows up as a set of permutes. The paradoxes for the three are, respectively of form, time and space, or existence versus non-existence, potentials versus appearances and whether it is void or filled, together with attraction, repulsion and no action at all, or harmony, cacophony and no noise at all. I suggest it is the mind that makes the choices and combinants in its participation with the cosmos, whereby in the unitive the relation is mutual or open and in the applied dualities it will then be closed or one-directional.

<8>
I shall have to leave it at this as the first permute is 6, the second 720 and at the third my calculator goes zero, making the series out as 0, 1, 3, 6, 720,... My tiny mind cannot even manage the second order permute. It gives me a nice feeling to see that all belief structures are hereby equally valid in their own rights and invalid in the comparable. All possibilities are equally explorable and yield their own kinds of consequences. We don't need any changes to our language either as it was designed with all this in mind by way of nouns fixed and verbs motile. I hope this may constitute a suitable ending to the era of dogmatism.

--------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden