Wednesday, January 02, 2008

The center and the whole-what it means?

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Part of the understanding here is that in having "touched that centre," realize that it is the source from which any theory will begin it's emergence into the reality of our modelled and wakeful world.

Now Peter LYnd makes talk of the Black/White hole. It is part of my understanding for such a thought to occur, realizing from a source it could manifest into our daily world, why not that "this creation" impel any thought construct into manifestation as well? The universe the same?

From the Buddhist perspective there are at least two senses that we can give to this phrase 'being with creation' that Von Franz uses in this context. First, according to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, if we have developed the requisite skill in meditation, at the moment of death we are presented with a unique opportunity to connect with this 'central hole where creation takes place' - that is, with the 'emptiness' or 'plenum' or 'fullness' that is at the center of things. According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it manifests at that time as a 'clear light'. If we are capable of realizing what is going on at that moment we also gain control over the creative process in which emptiness manifests in form, and conscious reincarnation becomes possible. But, secondly, we can also take all of this in a less literal, more figurative, PSYCHOLOGICAL sense - as a description of what must take place within the individual in order for her to become a conscious participant in her own inner creative processes, an agent of personal change, and skilled at what is sometimes called 'paradigm shifting'.

I mean how many in science have this standard by which they must work? Have this other side to them and their life? The "questioning and wanting know" of this other mystery to life? What is this mystery I am talking about?

Well to me I have this "indirect way of answering" that reveals this uncertainty, yet, I have this innate sense of "knowing without knowing how I know." That's not really a good answer is it?:) Some will attach themselves to this previous statement. I have seen it before, and I know they will answer accordingly.

I've talked about the centre many times on this site.

I've open up this post with the information that lead me along never really knowing the direction, yet fully confident that in time it would fall into place.

Visual Imaging.

I can't go into a whole lot here other to say that the source of these images are intriguing to say the least.

I am presented with a "paradoxical situation" that is confusing for me, until, I seen this process in action. The "inner/outer" somehow being explained within the confines of our beings. So while I see things happening on the outside, they were first implemented within. I don't feel happy with what I just wrote. Ihave to show you what I mean by way of images that show this paradoxical situation.

Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.

How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...

He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.

But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)

It would not be complete without introducing another paradoxical situation that Brian Greene himself presented. But before I do that I wanted to write here something else for consideration. It will speak to the Garrett Lisi's and their idea about imaging that comes deep from within them. How they organize a "whole structure of creation" from within themself. Model it, outside themself. It's more then just a fingerprint.

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points. That each theory involves loops-in string theory, these are string loops; in loop quantum gravity, they're harder to describe non-mathmatically, but, roughly speaking, they're elementary loops of space-suggests there might be a connection. This possibility is further supported by the fact that on a few problems accessible to both, such as blackhole entropy, the two theories agree fully. And on the question of spacetime's constituents, both theories suggest that there is some kind of atomized structure. Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

Take note on that last part of Greene' statement Garrett. The paradox as follows,

it turns out that within string theory ... there is actually an identification, we believe, between the very tiny and the very huge. So it turns out that if you, for instance, take a dimension - imagine its in a circle, imagine its really huge - and then you make it smaller and smaller and smaller, the equations tell us that if you make it smaller than a certain length (its about 10-33 centimeters, the so called 'Planck Length') ... its exactly identical, from the point of view of physical properties, as making the circle larger. So you're trying to squeeze it smaller, but actually in reality your efforts are being turned around by the theory and you're actually making the dimension larger. So in some sense, if you try to squeeze it all the way down to zero size, it would be the same as making it infinitely big. ... (CSPAN Archives Videotape #125054)

Well not to be undone, and more explicit in this example,

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So I am not sure if this hits home for any of you? I will push on here in a bit. Life is calling me here.

No comments:

Post a Comment