KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Commentary 36 (to C34 by Haselhurst)

( NEUROLOGY AND ORDER )
by Chris Lofting
30 May 2001, posted 12 Jnue 2001

<1>
Waves pass through each other; particles collide. Back at the end of the 19th century people like JJ Thompson etc were 'into' vortex atoms etc where atoms were not 'particles' but intense vortices of energy - wave-like ... but then along came Rutherford...

(2) In the context of 'wave models', what is 'acceptable' is that the sensory cortex is tied to cardinality only and as such is linked to topological perspectives with an emphasis on a sensory 'sheet' that is 'rubbery' and so tolerant of distortions/exaggerations. In this realm the concept of ordinality is 'unknown' or at best a 'potential'. Thus there is no 'first' or 'second' etc and so no 'origin', no sense of 'beginning'. There IS a sense of 'all is linked together' such that any sensation resonates the whole 'sheet' such that the sheet 'bubbles' with sensations all of the time. This can create the 'idea' of a wave-like existence, and a more holographic perspective BUT a holograph needs an 'interpreter' beam, a reference beam, and so something discrete. Thus the rubber sheet has all points linked to all others more so than being like a holographic film (that said, we are attuned to process frequency information, harmonics processing etc which would favour a holographic concept and so allow for such natural processes as metonymy to function).

<3>
With <2> in mind we note that our neurology is used at abstract levels such that the sensory sheet, functioning at the level of concrete sensations, is also an influence on internal sensations in the form of ideas.

<4>
Our development processes have evolved to a level where a sensation can cause us to 'go for the details' and we seem to use neurons as prisms to do this where the neurons act to take sensation and derive its spectrum – a parts list. The structure of this spectrum is fixed, it is ORDERED, and the act of going for details leads us to ordinal considerations that help is to structure the details to give us a 'refined' perspective on the sensations. IOW the concept of discreteness is derived BUT this does not mean that all things are by their nature 'wavy', only that they are by their nature 'potentials'.

(5) With the development of ordinality, *especially* with the emergence of auditory language and its accompanying ordinal emphasis, so a more discrete bias emerged in our maps, dominated our maps, such that our maps became more precise. However a consequence of this precision is the re-discovering of our more 'wavy' past which is a realm that is 'ordinal-free' and as such is interpreted from an ordinal perspective as 'random'.

(6) We need to 'rediscover' this realm. (BTW Chaitan's books favour the perspective of an ordinalist viewing something 'alien'; it isn’t. By working through ANY discipline we will arrive back at that sensory sheet from which we started ...)

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

Chris Lofting

websites:

http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting

List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis