Arthur #12 article

[Chummy]

In this sentence,

"Although the perimeter of the Koch fractal is infinite, the icon can be contained within a circle, demonstrating the esoteric principle that the infinite is contained within the finite."

...you're confusing the mathematical infinite (or "indefinite") with the metaphysical Infinite. Operations upon finite items surely can generate the indefinite, but by definition the Infinite or Absolute in the metaphysical sense cannot be contained within the finite -- if it could, it wouldn't be truly Infinite or Absolute in the metaphysical sense. (The "indefinite" or *mathematical* infinite is ultimately quantitative, whereas the metaphysical Infinite is qualitative and ultimately grounds the former.) Fractals don't change anything about the relation between the indefinite and the Infinite just because their perimeter is indefinite (or *mathematically* infinite).

[daniel]

i suppose I should have made it clear I meant it was a symbolic representation.

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
i suppose I should have made it clear I meant it was a symbolic representation.But a symbolic representation of what, exactly? Which "esoteric principle" really claims that the Infinite is *within* the finite?

[jezebelle]

Holography?

[Chummy]

Originally posted by jezebelle:
Holography?David Bohm makes good use of hologram metaphors in relation to how different orders of organization enfold/unfold into each other, but there's always ultimately still a distinction between the "totality-itself" (or the "holomovement" as a *whole*) and its interrelated parts. All finite aspects of the Infinite are in interrelation; but that each part is related to the whole in some respect, or in potentiality, isn't really the same thing as saying the whole itself, *as* a whole, is "within" each part...prior from being a whole in the first place! Even with hologram metaphors, ultimately the Infinite/Absolute is the Infinite/Absolute and the finite is the finite. Anyhow, as much as I admire David Bohm, he's hardly an espouser of "esoteric principles." He's a thoughtful, metaphysically-bent scientist.

[Chummy]

Originally posted by Chummy:
...Which "esoteric principle" really claims that the Infinite is *within* the finite?Just to prempt the obvious: "The Kingdom of God is within you" doesn't mean that the "Infinite is within the finite," but that the apparently-finite ("you") is not actually finite in its highest possible state ("the Kingdom of God"), once "you" is overcome. If the Infinite isn't considered to exist *prior* to the finite, no finitude would even be possible.

[daniel]

i feel like you are splitting hairs a bit, but split away if you want.

The infinite can only manifest itself, presence itself, through the finite. The infinite in itself would be by definition beyond conception or experience. To become infinite would be to splinter apart. For this reason, Eternity is in love with the products of time, as Blake sorta said.

During my last ayahuasca trip in Brazil, I received the message, "You go deeper into the physical to reach the infinite." After that, I had a long seeming conversation in which I was trying to express my fear of the infinite, and the "thought entities" who were speaking to me kept telling me it was great to reach the infinite. I could not be convinced.

[Humming]

I agree with the ayahuasca manifestations--it IS great to reach the infinite. It can be painful and quite bewildering, but ultimately the view is intoxicating and transformative.

You are indeed pulled apart and completely disseminated, but it isn't difficult to become singular again.

Practice in lucid dreams to find the infinite. If you can tap into that power inside of yourself in a dream--visualize standing out overlooking a cliff, seeing the sea as it stretches infinitely out in front of you in all directions, you will no longer be leery of the experience.

I do find, however, that the more I release my Self, the harder it is to succumb to the necessities of living here in society's mock torture chamber, the so-called "real world". So, caveat emptor....

[forteanajones]

Dzogchen also seems to deal specifically with this concept of the infinite manifesting in the finite. I believe the infinite, if I'm getting this right, is referred to as emptiness (the essence of all beings - but not to imply meaninglessness or a lack of existence) and is complimtented by luminosity (awareness). The second lamp teaches that the rigpa (self-arising innate awareness) resides in the heart center but is not in actually localized there.

...it's similar to what we mean when we say that "in" each being is the nature of mind. The nature of mind is not individual and not localized. It is truer to say that we exist in the nature of mind than to say the nature of mind is in us. But in our experience it is easier to recognize the nature of mind if we go "in" to the deepest place in ourselves, the heart. This is why we say thaqt the rigpa resides in the heart, and why the heart is in the center of the life-force prana and why love is always connected to the heart. Thus we talk about the "light of the heart". - Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche, Healing with Form, Energy and Light)

[ September 13, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: forteanajones ]

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
...The infinite can only manifest itself, presence itself, through the finite.What I was trying to suggest is that if one accepts a metaphysical process of:

Unconscious Infinite -> Illusion of Finitude (Maya) -> Conscious Infinite

then the "finite" only exists, metaphysically-speaking, in a relative or secondary sense. So to say that "the infinite is contained within the finite" is very misleading at best (& to me an outright contradiction in terms), because the finite itself only has relative existence.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I have a pet peeve of running into math and science metaphors being used without a scope of their intended application being given. Often the very same terms have very different meanings in math/science vs. in the history of philosophy and metaphysics, and confusing them can make for the worst type of New-Agey writing, IMO.

But I'm still left wondering: what specific "esoteric principle" were you referring to? Blake?

Originally posted by daniel:
The infinite in itself would be by definition beyond conception or experience.Exactly.

Originally posted by daniel:
...I was trying to express my fear of the infinite, and the "thought entities" who were speaking to me kept telling me it was great to reach the infinite. I could not be convinced.Yet what *would* or could ever convince you . . . apart from the Infinite Itself?

[Chummy]

Originally posted by forteanajones:
...It is truer to say that we exist in the nature of mind than to say the nature of mind is in us....Exactly. That's related to the point I was trying to make, since ultimately the Infinite is prior to or beyond the finite altogether...

[sire_012]

chumly:

Exactly. That's related to the point I was trying to make, since ultimately the Infinite is prior to or beyond the finite altogether... the infinite did come to exist inside this existence which you are always under seige from outside forces to believe is finite so it may be more of a case of language... language tricking you into believing that the 'infinite' is actually in a place at all, let alone in a place 'beyond' where you are now.

b

[Chummy]

Originally posted by sire_012:
the infinite did come to exist inside this existence which you are always under seige from outside forces to believe is finite so it may be more of a case of language... language tricking you into believing that the 'infinite' is actually in a place at all, let alone in a place 'beyond' where you are now.
b[/QB]That's true, I agree. But I think that if we ARE going to use language at all where we are now, then there are still better vs. worse ways to do it. Non-language or silence is great, but when nonsense or purposeful vagueness presumes to be "serious" sense (what I, at least, took the fractal "symbolic representation" to be, in the context of crop circles and the infinite/finite claim being made), it just doesn't do it for me. Of course, nonsense or vagueness without pretense is altogether different, IMO...

[Rob P]

Chummy wrote: Non-language or silence is great, but when nonsense or purposeful vagueness presumes to be "serious" sense (what I, at least, took the fractal "symbolic representation" to be, in the context of crop circles and the infinite/finite claim being made), it just doesn't do it for me. Of course, nonsense or vagueness without pretense is altogether different, IMO..

How about Perspicuous without Pretense??
re-read what you wrote, take a deep breath and relax...
This isn't a metaphysical bar where you have to feel
the need to prove yourself or disprove someone else.

seeya
Rob

[ September 14, 2004, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Rob P ]

[Chummy]

Originally posted by Rob P:
How about Perspicuous without Pretense??...Sounds good to me. I try to aim for that Albert Einstein quote ("Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler"), although usually don't succeed obviously. (Certain topics do actually *require* a certain level of complexity or recursivity though...)

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
...Eternity is in love with the products of time, as Blake sorta said.The line immediately following that one is:
"The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure."

Originally posted by daniel:
During my last ayahuasca trip in Brazil, I received the message, "You go deeper into the physical to reach the infinite."But do you accept that untimately what's thought of as the "physical" is just a certain low-level of matter/energy, itself within 'mind' anyway (or whatever term one wants to use)?

[daniel]

I wouldn't call the material world around us "low level," I would think of it as "Mother Earth," and consider it sacred.

Yes the world is also a projection of subtle levels of mind, it is the dreamtime, or tlacticpac for the Maya, the dreamworld of Earth. But I suspect that all the other worlds and possible manifestations of being are contained within this one, and become available to us as we enter into a more accurate understanding of reality. To go out, we will go deeper in. Rather than expanding or escaping, we will intensify, inscape. Immanence is the goal, not transcendence.

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
I wouldn't call the material world around us "low level," I would think of it as "Mother Earth," and consider it sacred.That's fine; I didn't mean the phrase in a dismissive way, just in a referential sense. Ultimately, everything is sacred, but to talk about different levels of order (a la Bohm), words like "higher" and "lower" are sort of unavoidable.

Originally posted by daniel:
...But I suspect that all the other worlds and possible manifestations of being are contained within this one...Immanence is the goal, not transcendence.Well, I personally think it's precisely the reverse, which would explain why we think of finitude quite differently. But the question still remains: which "esoteric principle" is your view actually based on? Which tradition & what scripture? Esotericism isn't just anything. Eclecticism is, though. Either is fine with me as long as it's not pretending to be the other one.

[ September 15, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Chummy ]

[daniel]

i don't have the time to look for this right now. It is from research on crop circles. Here is one similar concept from my friend Allan Brown's text on squaring the circle as a basic principle that the crop formations refer to again and again - a problem that fascinated occultists and initiates throughout the Western tradition including Leonardo da Vinci:

"Our cultural fascination with squaring the circle lies in part with its powerful metaphorical and allegorical symbolism; for it has long been an accepted given in sacred geometry that the circle is a symbol of spirit, of heaven, of the unmanifest, the immeasurable and the infinite, whilst the square is the symbol of the material, the earth, the manifest, the measurable and the finite. The physical act of squaring the circle serves as a metaphorical harmonization of dualistic principles. To the medieval mind it servedd to dissolve the spiritual and the ecstatic back into the physical, to us in the 21st century it probably serves to remind us of the daemonic, non-physical dimensions of reality. ... the squaring of the circle demands a transcendence of dualistic thinking, in which 'that which is above comes into accordnace with that which is below, and that which is below comes into accordance with that which is above."

So perhaps I glossed by substituting the concept of containing when I should have said harmonizing or according... however i think there is other material I was thinking about also... it may be from Gleikc's populist book on Chaos science, if I get the chance i will chase it down. Gleick talks about the Koch snowflake representing the infinite perimeter that can be contained within the circle - it is an interesting paradox.

Rather than "higher" and "lower" I suppose there is denser and subtler, or one could talk of different levels of intensification.

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
i don't have the time to look for this right now. It is from research on crop circles. [...] squaring the circle as a basic principle that the crop formations refer to again and again - a problem that fascinated occultists and initiates throughout the Western tradition including Leonardo da Vinci [...] So perhaps I glossed by substituting the concept of containing when I should have said harmonizing or according... however i think there is other material I was thinking about also...Daniel, I'm only pressing you on this because there is a big difference between: (1) mathematical concepts with precise axiomatic definitions; (2) similar terminology used within the history of philosophy and metaphysics; and (3) the "esoteric" meaning of the revealed religions.

I appreciate you bothering to reply to my posts, but I guess I won't hold my breath waiting to hear what makes you think mathematics is somehow *automatically* "esoteric," or what "esoteric principle" you were actually referring to in your article. (Instead of answering my question, you simply threw out another well-known *mathematical* problem. What's especially ironic is that squaring a circle hinges on the *transcendental* number pi.) I guess one *could* call a fractal within a circle a "paradox," but it's really no different than any mathematical notion of an indefinite limit. It just happens to look "trippier" than a regular-old asymptote does, I suppose.

Going from crop circle patterns -> "esoteric principles" is a leap that requires more than 1 grammatical clause of an explanation (what your article alloted to it). Whether crop circles are created by aliens or humans is completely irrelevant to the ways mathematics does and does not relate to metaphysics. (Also, properties of triangles don't at all violate Euclid's "paradigm" -- they're actually perfect examples of Euclidean geometry. It's non-Euclidean geometry that's beyond Euclidean geometry, not triangles.) If you're actually in the middle of writing a book on this stuff, please, please do everyone a favor and have someone who actually knows some math and metaphysics read it over first -- unless you just don't care about making sense or being taken seriously.

Originally posted by daniel:
Rather than "higher" and "lower" I suppose there is denser and subtler, or one could talk of different levels of intensification.Sure, but regardless of the terminology used the underlying relation between finitude and the Infinite would still be the same relation.

[ September 16, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Chummy ]

[daniel]

Chummy,

I kind of feel impelled to ask you at this point: Why don't you remove the enormous stick from your ass?

I would love it if 100 other better qualified people than me were writing and publishing in mainstream and nonmainstream publications about all of this material - I was very cheered and relieved to see the interview with Grant Morrison in the current Arthur, which seemed like someone actually thinking along similar lines and willing to speak about it.

I am completely up front about my lack of expertise in many areas and do consult with people regularly who have more knowledge - I am always willing to learn and trying to learn. The mass of material i have been seeking to assimilate has definitely been daunting for me - especially science material. I still struggle to understand the precession of the equinoxes for instance, and yes math does escape me unless I go very slowly.

If you are so together about all of this stuff, please, write essays and articles on your own, go out and research the crop circles and write articles about them, take principles of chaos science and fractals and quantum physics and molecular biology and convey those ideas to a larger audience (as the film What the Bleep... has tried to do). Be my guest to make me look like a dilletante - perhaps not by critiqueing me directly, because who cares?, but by formulating your own ideas in much clearer fashion. I am not trying to protect my turf or save myself from ridicule. I will applaud you for your work if it is good.

It is interesting to me that you will invest so much energy in nitpicking some minor detail in my piece rather than going to the crop circle websites and revelling in the wonder of these patterns and try to create your own thesis about them. But that seems to be the way "human nature," such as it is, functions, that somehow it is more interesting to try to "score points" in some imagined male competition than doing original thinking for yourself.

[gone]

I think we can all be forgiven for not being experts on everything, or even experts on anything. The cult of the expert is generated equally by the projections of the reader as much – if not more than – the author. It’s all just one person’s stab at an opinion, and that’s fine by me.

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
...I am completely up front about my lack of expertise in many areas and do consult with people regularly who have more knowledge - I am always willing to learn and trying to learn. The mass of material i have been seeking to assimilate has definitely been daunting for me - especially science material. I still struggle to understand the precession of the equinoxes for instance, and yes math does escape me unless I go very slowly.All I'm saying is that if one doesn't know the details of what one is writing about, then maybe one shouldn't be writing about it so assuredly or cavalierly.

Originally posted by daniel:
...It is interesting to me that you will invest so much energy in nitpicking some minor detail in my piece rather than going to the crop circle websites and revelling in the wonder of these patterns and try to create your own thesis about them. But that seems to be the way "human nature," such as it is, functions, that somehow it is more interesting to try to "score points" in some imagined male competition than doing original thinking for yourself.To me personally, hasty and misconstrued links between science and esotericism isn't just a "minor" problem; it's emblematic of New Age eclecticism. You've made my point for me, because I'm not the one writing a column in a national periodical about this stuff. I just don't happen to really care about crop circles. I take alien life for granted, and the laws of math are the same for them too. Where's the real mystery in it? Simply that some alien race enjoys doing high-tech doodles? There's nothing really "esoteric" about it, I'm afraid. Anyhow, I'm not trying to "score points." It just so happens that you didn't answer the question I asked you, that's all.

[sire_012]

CONGRATULATIONS CHUMLY!!!! YOU WON! YOU WON! YOU WON! WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!

Chumly the Champ!!!!!!

And what's the prize for winning? You get to be Right! You also get The Last Word In! But most of all, you formidable champ you, you get to go home the same young, lonely, miserable cramp you were when you got here in the first place!!!! Way to go Chummy!

I'd like to be the first to personally congradulate you Chumly, since first arriving here, you've managed to not change one bit!!! That's right, with your aptitude at being right you've managed to run off as many people electronically as you would have in the flesh, you've really stepped the bar up on this forum. But fuck these people right? Who needs people when you've got The Truth!

Congratulations Chum, you won again! Go get 'em, tiger!

[Chummy]

Originally posted by sire_012:
CONGRATULATIONS CHUMLY!!!! YOU WON! YOU WON! YOU WON! WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!

Chumly the Champ!!!!!!

And what's the prize for winning? You get to be Right! You also get The Last Word In! But most of all, you formidable champ you, you get to go home the same young, lonely, miserable cramp you were when you got here in the first place!!!! Way to go Chummy!

I'd like to be the first to personally congradulate you Chumly, since first arriving here, you've managed to not change one bit!!! That's right, with your aptitude at being right you've managed to run off as many people electronically as you would have in the flesh, you've really stepped the bar up on this forum. But fuck these people right? Who needs people when you've got The Truth!

Congratulations Chum, you won again! Go get 'em, tiger!You've convinced me now. I officially admit it: I don't think triangles are Euclidean anymore, and there's no difference between the finite and the Infinite. I'm a lot happier now, even though I was happy before too. You're right, who needs the Truth anyway? It's more fun to just make things up.

[ September 16, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Chummy ]

[gone]

Originally posted by Chummy:
...perfect examples of Euclidean geometry.I’d never heard of Euclidean geometry before this thread today and then I left the computer to pick up some light reading in the form of Russell Hoban’s ‘Her Name Was Lola’ only to find Euclidean geometry mentioned again. Who would’ve thought? Perhaps Her Name Was Actually Lila (she was a showgirl).

[Lowlight]

Where's the real mystery in it? Simply that some alien race enjoys doing high-tech doodles? There's nothing really "esoteric" about it, I'm afraid. if you dont see the mystery in this then you see it in nothing, because the core problem within it is the same for 'us' and 'them', it is a question of 'being', which is itself part of the centre of all mystery. you may know a lot about maths, but what do you actually know about the esoteric, the occult? all of what you criticise daniel for can be switched back on you.

[daniel]

Chummy,

What it is really is a question of your psychic energy and how you want to utilize it. You seem to assume I am setting myself up as some kind of authority figure when it is not the case. It is the normal adolescent male trip to then want to critique and tear down the authority figure. We waste a lot of our energy in such pursuits.

I really was happy to hear your initial criticism and give it a thought, though your tone from the beginning was offputting.

Since you "take alien life for granted," and find no mystery there, what do you plan to do with your time here on Earth?

[Chummy]

Originally posted by daniel:
What it is really is a question of your psychic energy and how you want to utilize it...Yes, I agree about that one bit at least! Like I said I have a pet peeve about running into math/science mapped to metaphysics without any acknowledgement of the how or why of the particular approach taken (or that there even could be more than one approach to mapping them -- but when the math or metaphysics is off to begin with, it's especially annoying to me). But you're right in that I think the real question is whether to even respond to those sorts of occurrences (for me this isn't really about you or me personally, but about the ideas). If someone happens to know that "1+1=2," for example, then there's only so many ways to say it. It can always be sugar-coated, paired-down, or mixed in with some psychoanalysis or something, but ultimately -- if one is really trying to talk about the *ideas*, and not just the pop-psychology of the messenger -- then there's only so many ways to say it. Because of that, someone who insists that "1+1=2" is prone to taking a "bad tone" just out of sheer frustration (if they do bother to try to say anything at all), whereas someone publicizing the notion that "1+1=3" is supposedly just taking a "stab at an opinion." Authority is one thing, but there’s also honesty. It's no wonder that crop circles, UFOs, and the like, become trivialized so quickly within our culture.

Originally posted by daniel:
Since you "take alien life for granted," and find no mystery there, what do you plan to do with your time here on Earth?I don't have any desire to delve into my personal life on this web forum. (Comes back to your psychic energy point, actually.) "God bless us all though," because I think we're all sure going to need it over the next few years...

[Chummy]

Originally posted by LowlightOracle:
[QUOTE]if you dont see the mystery in this then you see it in nothing, because the core problem within it is the same for 'us' and 'them', it is a question of 'being', which is itself part of the centre of all mystery. you may know a lot about maths, but what do you actually know about the esoteric, the occult? all of what you criticise daniel for can be switched back on you.G-d is a Mystery; Being (the manifested aspect of God) is mysterious; crop circles are curious (but not "esoteric") . . . and I'm outta here! Peace out.

[forteanajones]

I think Chummy's gone and now I'm actually a little sad. For a while, I admit I felt increasingly annoyed by what felt like a mosquito-like persistence on a single, unimportant, miniscule point. If there was even a point. For several days I assumed it was, for lack of a better term, ego-based macho-mathematical-pseudo-intellectualism.

I think a second, careful read - if anyone is able to bear it - will reveal that the now-absent mosquito appeared to be trying to engage in argumentative dialogue - which is actually exactly what we are all perhaps trying to do here - by using the process of discovery. I still view this discussion as having been a valuable educational dialogue, even if we were unsuccessful at arriving jointly at a conclusion via mutually accepted inferences (whew!).

I don't have any degrees, not even a HS diploma, and I certainly didn't follow most of the technical debate although I like to think that one day I'll be able to. (Unlike Gelfer, I have heard of Euclidean geometry before, but this occasion motivated me no more than the previous occasions to go and find out what it actually is).

But I did recognize what seemed to be a genuine interest in getting to the bottom of an idea through plain-old-debate, because I get like that also with people close to me. For me, it's a desire to understand what the heck is preventing me from seeing things the same way. And because I'm not patient enough sometimes to wait, come back, and approach the idea in a different way, my persistence can sometimes create situations like the one we have here.

Maybe it just boils down to the aesthetics of argument?

[ September 17, 2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: forteanajones ]