Image: http://www.iawwai.com/UnificationOfRSP.htm
Image: http://www.hegel.net/en/e1323.htm
Image: http://ctmu.net/
The tetrahedron is also a representation of the (symmetric) structure of the minimum set of four logical elements that define the self-referential (reflexive) process.
The simplest 3-dimensional representation of the most asymmetric form is less often recognized. We propose this simplest asymmetric form as the corresponding defining element of the self-referential (reflexive) PROCESS itself, complementary to the minimal logical STRUCTURE of the process as described above. In fact, this most asymmetric form is the minimal (topologic) form of any/all process which begins from the uniform homogeneous chaos of nothingness/anythingness (Ain Soph, in Qabalah).
As an analogy, picture this nothingness/anythingness as a sort of infinite "cosmic jello". The introduction of any disturbance whatever into this "cosmic jello" is of indeterminately large magnitude, compared to the previously undisturbed state. (This "first cause" is the equivalent of Prigogine's dissipative flux.*) It results in the reflexive flow of uniform isotropic "cosmic jello" through itself as defined on the surface of a 2-torus (donut); sort of a "smoke-ring" set into motion (puffed from the contraction-zimzum) by the dissipative flux of first cause: "Fiat Lux", the introduction of light/consciousness into the void. (This 2-torus form as the archetype of the self-referential process is discussed in detail in "The Reflexive Universe" and other works of Arthur M. Young.)
http://www.meru.org/lightintent/lightin.html
Conceptions are Social Constructions
...
Like many authors in the history and presence of semiotics, the FRISCO authors have used a triangular graphical representation to depict the different aspects of a sign and their relationships. The three corners of their figure stand for the domain of a sign (its referent or pragmatic aspect), the conception of a sign (its meaning or semantic aspect), and the representation of a sign (its syntactic aspect). However, the FRISCO authors have extended the triangle by a fourth point in the centre thus
forming a pyramid or tetrahedron rather than a simple triangle (cf. fig. 1). This central point annotated by “actor” emphasises the essential role of the entity or group of entities which is responsible for forming, communicating, interpreting and using signs.
http://public.beuth-hochschule.de/~giak/arbeitskreise/softwaretechnik/publikationen/ISCO_4fin.pdf
"The reference is the object that the expression refers to. For instance, the name Mark Twain refers to Mark Twain, i.e. Samuel Clemens, the man who lived in the U.S. and wrote satires. The name Samuel Clemens also refers to that man. Hence the two have the same reference.
The sense is the "cognitive significance" or "mode of presentation" of the referent.
Linguistic Expressions with the same reference may have different senses.
Frege uses the following example to illustrate this view. Let a, b, and c be three lines, each of which joins one vertex of a triangle to the midpoint of the opposite side (each of a, b and c is thus a median). Then it is a theorem that
"[t]he point of intersection of a and b is then the same as the point of intersection of b and c. So we have different designations for the same point, and these names ('point of intersection of a and b', 'point of intersection of b and c') likewise indicate the mode of presentation; and hence the statement contains actual knowledge." Gottlob Frege, Über Sinn und Bedeutung"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference
Frege's Sense and Tarski's Undefinability:
http://tinyurl.com/4egcunh
"In 1931, Kurt Gödel published his famous incompleteness theorems, which he proved in part by showing how to represent syntax within (first-order) arithmetic. Each expression of the language of arithmetic is assigned a distinct number. This procedure is known variously as Gödel numbering, coding, and more generally, as arithmetization.
In particular, various sets of expressions are coded as sets of numbers. It turns out that for various syntactic properties (such as being a formula, being a sentence, etc.), these sets are computable. Moreover, any computable set of numbers can be defined by some arithmetical formula. For example, there are formulas in the language of arithmetic defining the set of codes for arithmetic sentences, and for provable arithmetic sentences.
The undefinability theorem shows that this encoding cannot be done for semantical concepts such as truth. It shows that no sufficiently rich interpreted language can represent its own semantics. A corollary is that any metalanguage capable of expressing the semantics of some object language must have expressive power exceeding that of the object language. The metalanguage includes primitive notions, axioms, and rules absent from the object language, so that there are theorems provable in the metalanguage not provable in the object language."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem
"To demonstrate the existence of undecidability, Gödel used a simple trick called self-reference. Consider the statement “this sentence is false.” It is easy to dress this statement up as a logical formula. Aside from being true or false, what else could such a formula say about itself? Could it pronounce itself, say, unprovable? Let’s try it: "This formula is unprovable". If the given formula is in fact unprovable, then it is true and therefore a theorem. Unfortunately, the axiomatic method cannot recognize it as such without a proof. On the other hand, suppose it is provable. Then it is self-apparently false (because its provability belies what it says of itself) and yet true (because provable without respect to content)! It seems that we still have the makings of a paradox…a statement that is "unprovably provable" and therefore absurd.
But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof? For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level? Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox. Voilà: self-reference without paradox! It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth. Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”.
...
But before giving an account of Lowenheim-Skolem and Duhem-Quine, we need a brief introduction to model theory. Model theory is part of the logic of “formalized theories”, a branch of mathematics dealing rather self-referentially with the structure and interpretation of theories that have been couched in the symbolic notation of mathematical logic…that is, in the kind of mind-numbing chicken-scratches that everyone but a mathematician loves to hate. Since any worthwhile theory can be formalized, model theory is a sine qua non of meaningful theorization.
Let’s make this short and punchy. We start with propositional logic, which consists of nothing but tautological, always-true relationships among sentences represented by single variables. Then we move to predicate logic, which considers the content of these sentential variables…what the sentences actually say. In general, these sentences use symbols called quantifiers to assign attributes to variables semantically representing mathematical or real-world objects. Such assignments are called “predicates”. Next, we consider theories, which are complex predicates that break down into systems of related predicates; the universes of theories, which are the mathematical or real-world systems described by the theories; and the descriptive correspondences themselves, which are called interpretations. A model of a theory is any interpretation under which all of the theory’s statements are true. If we refer to a theory as an object language and to its referent as an object universe, the intervening model can only be described and validated in a metalanguage of the language-universe complex.
Though formulated in the mathematical and scientific realms respectively, Lowenheim-Skolem and Duhem-Quine can be thought of as opposite sides of the same model-theoretic coin. Lowenheim-Skolem says that a theory cannot in general distinguish between two different models; for example, any true theory about the numeric relationship of points on a continuous line segment can also be interpreted as a theory of the integers (counting numbers). On the other hand, Duhem-Quine says that two theories cannot in general be distinguished on the basis of any observation statement regarding the universe."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Theory.html
"In philosophy, ontic (from the Greek όντος = part. of ειναι = being) is physical (physite), real or factual existence.
"Ontic" describes what is there, as opposed to the nature or properties of that being. To illustrate:
Roger Bacon, observing that all languages are built upon a common grammar, stated that they share a foundation of ontically anchored linguistic structures.
Martin Heidegger posited the concept of Sorge, or caring, as the fundamental concept of the intentional being, and presupposed an ontological significance that distinguishes ontological being from mere "thinghood" of an ontic being. He uses the German word "Dasein" for a being that is capable of ontology, that is, recursively comprehending properties of the very fact of its own Being.
Nicolai Hartmann distinguishes among ontology, ontics and metaphysics: (i) ontology concerns the categorical analysis of entities by means of the knowledge categories able to classify them. (ii) ontics refers to a pre-categorical and pre-objectual connection which is best expressed in the relation to transcendent acts and (iii) metaphysics is that part of ontics or that part of ontology which concerns the residue of being that cannot be rationalized further according to categories"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic
"A group action is a flexible generalization of the notion of a symmetry group in which every element of the group "acts" like a bijective transformation (or "symmetry") of some set, without being identified with that transformation. This allows for a more comprehensive description of the symmetries of an object, such as a polyhedron, by allowing the same group to act on several different sets, such as the set of vertices, the set of edges and the set of faces of the polyhedron."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_group_action
"The quaternion algebra therefore is the precise model of the holographic hyper structure of three facing mirrors, where we see mirror inversion as the quaternionic anticommutation. The two versions of the quaternion multiplication table correspond to the two possible ways of arranging three mirrors into a triangular mirrorhouse. When we move on to octonions, things get considerably subtler – though no less elegant, and no less conceptually satisfying. While there are 2 possible quaternionic mirrorhouses, there are 480 possible octonionic mirrorhouses, corresponding to the possible variant octonion multiplication tables!
Recall that the octonions have 7 imaginaries i,j,k,E,I,J,K, which have 3 algebraic generators i,j,E (meaning that combining these three imaginaries can give rise to all the others). The third generator E is distinguished from the others, and we can vary it to get the 480 multiplications/mirrorhouses.
The simplest octonionic mirrorhouse is simply the tetrahedron:
Image: http://samscoville.blogspot.com/2009/02/dialectical-materialism-integrating.html
More complex octonionic mirrorhouses correspond to tetrahedra with extra mirrors placed over their internal corners. This gives rise to very interesting geometric structures, which have been explored by Buckminster Fuller and also by various others throughout history."
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2007/mirrorself.pdf
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/miroct.html
1. POLITICS:
1.1. Wasn't Hegel a totalitarian?
No.
"Totalitarianism" is a relatively new concept. It was employed for the first time in the XXth century, mainly to define a form of political organisation where there is the attempt to subordinate the whole behaviour and the consciousness of each single individual and the complexity of an entire society (and its different institutionalised bodies) to a unique principle, which is considered as the "highest" and "purest" value.
Taking into account this definition, it is deeply wrong to define Hegel as a totalitarian.
Firstly, Hegel lived in Germany between the end of the XVIIth and the beginning of the XIXth century, a time where no totalitarian forms of government existed, therefore it would be anachronistic to project on the philosopher ways of thinking and political experiences which are not proper of his time.
Secondly, it is not even possible to find in Hegel's political philosophy elements which would have influenced yet-to-come totalitarian regimes. A distinctive character of Hegel's Logic, which is also recalled in his political philosophy, is that "the true is the whole". And the "whole", that is the "universal", would not be "universal" if it did not include in itself the "particular". In other terms, no "universal" ideal can be imposed, abstractly, on the "particular", on the complexity and the richness of the many "particulars", because such imposition would contradict the very character of the "universal", making it just another, dangerously dogmatic form of "particular". This means that Hegel - would he have had knowledge of totalitarianism as a form of political thought - would have considered it, as it is, the worst form of obscurantism and dogmatism.
Thirdly, it is not possible to find in Hegel's political philosophy any link to actual and "fulfilled" forms of totalitarianism. For instance, Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" considers family and civil society as crucial moments in the development of every individual. Hegel recognises explicitly all over this work that the "privacy" of the family is sacred, and that the independence of civil society is one of the distinguishing features of modern times. He opposes any attempt at attacking such pillars of society as a whole. That is exactly the opposite of what was attempted in XXth century totalitarian regimes, where civil society was subordinated to the "Party" and family's privacy came under ferocious attack.
Philosophers who have tried to describe Hegel as a totalitarian (such as Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell) simply misread Hegel, did not take the time to understand what he actually had to say, and committed the regrettable mistake to use Hegel's philosophy as a subject of reversed propaganda against Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the aftermath of World War II, with an eye on the coming Cold War. Now that the Cold War is over, it is necessary to reappraise Hegel's political philosophy and definitively abandon such gross and misleading interpretations of it, caused by the ugly "spirit of those times".
1.2. Wasn't Hegel a lackey of the Prussian Monarchy?
1.3. Wasn't Hegel a German nationalist?
1.4. Wasn't Hegel a Nazi?
No.
Nazi ideology is based on two key concepts: the subdivision of world's inhabitants into a hierarchy of biological races (and, as a consequence, anthropological nominalism); an irrational exaltation of force, action and violence on reason, thought and law and order. Both principles are utterly incompatible with Hegel's political philosophy.
Hegel's main concept, "Spirit", cannot in any case be identified with the one of "race". Already in the "Phenomenology" Hegel heavily criticizes pseudo-scientific doctrines which claim to be able to explain human behaviour through "exterior and accidental" details such as the form of the head or the characteristics of the body.
According to Hegel, one of the major conquests of Christianism (and then of the French Revolution) was the discovery of the concept of "human being" as such. In his "Philosophy of Right" (1821), he claims that it is no longer important whether one is called French, German, Jew or Italian, because these characterisations are sublated in the very concept of "human being".
Moreover, Hegel is a staunch supporter of law, codification and rationality against "tradition" and "feeling". In his "Philosophy of Right" he declares that the respect for the codified law is the "shibboleth" distinguishing the true philosopher from the dangerous fanaticist.
Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that Hegel's philosophy was explicitly rejected by Adolf Hitler in his Table Talks of 1940.
1.5. Didn't Hegel glorify War?
1.6. Didn't Hegel say that the State is Divine, or even that the State is God?
No.
There is a famous sentence in Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History that has been badly translated into English, so that it fits with the old prejudice that Hegel identified the State with God. The bad translation is: "The State is the march of God through history". The actual correct translation, corresponding to the German text, is: "That the State exists, is like the march of God through history". From the surrounding text, it is clear that Hegel is not affirming that the State is God. He is just using a theological metaphor to explain that the State represents the incarnation of human freedom in a set of institutions, just like Christ represent the incarnation of God in our human history.
It is true that Hegel attributes to the State an important function in his political philosophy. He considers the State to be the highest incarnation of the "objective spirit", the highest form of institutionalised freedom ever reached by man. It is important to note that Hegel considers a State to be rational, insofar it is also free: the more a particular State is free, the more it is closer to the concept of State itself.
The fact that State is so important to Hegel does not diminish the crucial function of the previous moments of the objective spirit, i.e. family and civil society. Hegel never proposes to "swallow" and annihilate them in the State. The existence of civil society as such is an essential feature of modern times. As far as international politics is concerned, Hegel was well aware that any given State was limited by its self-interests, and that those interests were at odds with those of other nations.
Finally, Hegel's system cannot be reduced to the section of the "objective spirit". There is a higher reality than the one represented by the State, and it is constituted by the three moments of the "absolute spirit": Art, Religion and Philosophy. While creating the material conditions that enable artists, theologians and philosophers to operate, the State can't impose itself on these crucial aspects of the freedom of consciousness.
1.7. Doesn't Hegel's dictum, "Reality is Rational," oblige us to accept War, Atrocity and Injustice?
No.
Hegel's dictum actually reads: "What is rational is actual, what is actual is rational". It is important to notice the succession of moments in this famous sentence: first comes "the rational is actual", then comes "the actual is rational".
A correct interpretation of the dictum relies on the correct understanding of the word "actual". As Hegel himself explained, "actuality" does not correspond to mere existence. "Actual" is what has to happen, because of the implications already contained in itself. In other terms - to take an example - in a situation where an underprivileged class is blatantly exploited by a privileged one, there are already the germs of revolt and violent change. That revolt is then "actual". The contingent and terrible consequences of exploitation and revolt (such as death, injustice, revenge) accompany the realisation of the actual, but are not "actual" themselves. They are awful "accidents".
According to Hegel, what is "rational", i.e. what corresponds to the progress in the consciousness of freedom, must happen, because rationality - according to the lesson taught by the old ontological argument - presupposes its own existence. Therefore, what is rational is also actual in the sense explained above. As a consequence, the reverse is also correct: what is actual is rational, i.e. it corresponds to the progress in the consciousness of freedom.
It is important to realise that this result is not always cautioned in Hegel's philosophy, nor history is a "straightforward march to the Reign of the Free". Hegel's philosophy does not make forecast for the future: as Hegel said, philosophy arrives too late. While Hegel's vantage point is that the consciousness of freedom will ultimately progress, this is not an assured result, but it is the result of history as such: and history is not only made of "actual" events, but also of "contingent" elements, whose strength has to be measured.
Therefore, to come back to the main question, the concept of the "actuality of the rational" only explains that what we see around us is not the irrational result of a plot or of violence and brute force; instead, it is the result of the becoming rational of the actual. Hence the rationality of the actual prompts us to fight against injustice and oppression, which are the irrational components of human history.
...
B. Because of the speculative/dialectical structure of Hegel's philosophy, it is easier - for the less motivated or hasty reader - to take for Hegel's own conclusions the partial results of more complex reasonings. Hegel's own treatment of positions which he did not endorse is, typically, one of embracing and penetrating the opposition, to show, from within, their internal inconsistencies and self-contradictions.
It is therefore understandable that parts of Hegel's reasoning are actually deep analyses of theoretical positions which need to be sublated, and that the result of these analyses is different from the arguments used, although these arguments are integral part of the achieved result.
The profound significance of Hegel's concept of "sublation" ("Aufhebung") has often been missed. Sublation has been sometimes considered as simple "reconciliation" with previous opposed positions, sometimes as utter "elimination" of previous positions. It has rarely been understood that sublation means at the same time "overcoming" and "preservation" of previous positions.
C. Finally, Hegel became the victim of a heated political climate which has led to a propagandistic use of his presumed political philosophy against various political enemies.
During his life, Hegel was attacked by the German nationalists for his lack of patriotism, and despised by conservatives and reactionaries for his support to the ideals of the French Revolution. After his death, his philosophy was used as a banner for the progressive liberal youth active before the 1848 revolution in Germany, but also criticised for its moderate position by an emerging Communist movement. During the Bismarck era, Hegel was almost forgotten due to the trend of Positivism in philosophy, and when he was remembered he was often despised for his "un-German-ness" and his unpatriotic and French inspired philosophy.
During World War I, like any other culturally relevant German element, Hegel was made the subject of hasty, grossly simplifying and rough military propaganda, and condemned as one of the foremost expressions of a German will to power, tribalism, preponderance of the State and militarism. The advent of Nazism and the outbreak of World War II contributed to create a definitive false image of Hegel, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon countries. The outbreak of Cold War, and the links between Marxism and some of the concepts of Hegel's philosophy, contributed to make Hegel the scapegoat, alternatively, for Nazism, militarism, totalitarianism and Communism.
X.2. Further readings
http://www.hegel.net/en/faq.htm#1.1
"In Hegel, the term Aufhebung has the apparently contradictory implications of both preserving and changing, and eventually advancement (the German verb aufheben means "to cancel", "to keep" and "to elevate"). The tension between these senses suits what Hegel is trying to talk about. In sublation, a term or concept is both preserved and changed through its dialectical interplay with another term or concept. Sublation is the motor by which the dialectic functions.
Sublation can be seen at work at the most basic level of Hegel's system of logic. The two concepts Being and Nothing are each both preserved and changed through sublation in the concept Becoming. Similarly, determinateness, or quality, and magnitude, or quantity, are each both preserved and sublated in the concept measure.
...
Whereas, in Hegel, sublation shows the movement of Geist, often translated as mind or spirit, Marx identifies it as the manner of development of material conditions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Professor Max Planck from his speech at Florence, Italy (1944) titled, {The Nature of Matter}
"Alvin Plantinga defines "fideism" as "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." The fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious," and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason. The fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith. Plantinga's definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much "reason" per se — it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational — but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism
“If we had it [a characteristica universalis], we should be able to reason in metaphysics and morals in much the same way as in geometry and analysis.”
“If controversies were to arise, there would be no more need of disputation between two philosophers than between two accountants (Computistas). For it would suffice to take their pencils in their hands, to sit down to their slates (abacos), and to say to each other … : Let us calculate (Calculemus).” - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
http://mally.stanford.edu/cm/
"The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that have certain properties, but any physically possible object having those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws, properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic framework.
It would be a mistake to think that a theory postulating abstract objects is incompatible with our theories of natural science, which seem to presuppose that the only things that exist are the things governed by our true scientific theories. To see that the theory of abstract objects is compatible with natural scientific theories, we only have to think of abstract objects as possible and actual property-patterns. These patterns of properties objectify a group of properties that satisfy a certain pattern. For example, it will turn out that the real number π can be thought of as the pattern of properties satisfying the open sentence "According to the axioms of real number theory, π has the property F" (where "F" is a variable ranging over properties). There are an infinite number of properties satisfying this pattern (and an infinite number that don't). Our theory of abstract objects will "objectify" or "reify" the group of properties satisfying this pattern. So, on this view of what abstract objects are, we need not think of them as some ghostly, imperceptible kind of nonspatiotemporal substances. Instead, they are possible and actual patterns that are grounded in the arrangement of particles in the natural world and in the systematic behavior and linguistic usage of mathematicians and scientists as they discover, state, and apply theories of the natural world.
We can summarize the principal objectives of the theory of abstract objects as follows:
-To describe the logic underlying (scientific) thought and reasoning by extending classical propositional, predicate, and modal logic.
-To describe the laws governing universal entities such as properties, relations, and propositions (i.e., states of affairs).
-To identify theoretical mathematical objects and relations as well as the natural mathematical objects such as natural numbers and natural sets.
-To analyze the distinction between fact and fiction and systematize the various relationships between stories, characters, and other fictional objects.
-To systematize our modal thoughts about possible (actual, necessary) objects, states of affairs, situations and worlds.
-To account for the deviant logic of propositional attitude reports, explain the informativeness of identity statements, and give a general account of the objective and cognitive content of natural language.
-To axiomatize philosophical objects postulated by other philosophers, such as Forms (Plato), concepts (Leibniz), monads (Leibniz), possible worlds (Leibniz), nonexistent objects (Meinong), senses (Frege), extensions of concepts (Frege), noematic senses (Husserl), the world as a state of affairs (early Wittgenstein), moments of time, etc."
http://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html
"5. Necessitated Freedom:
When the evolving soul achieves Self-Realization, both Emerson and Aurobindo agree that the individual becomes a perfect instrument for Cosmic Will and in perfect harmony with all of creation. Such an individual would be neither capable of wrong action nor would they have to strive to be virtuous. They would have achieved what Kierkegaard calls the "teleological suspension of the ethical." They would act spontaneously from the inner promptings of Spirit. Aurobindo explains that the activity of a divine man or woman would not only be free from subjection to wrong impulses which we call sin, but would also be unbound by the rule of prescribed moral formulas which we call virtue. The realized individual is governed in all its acts by the light and truth of the Spirit.
Emerson upholds a very similar philosophy. He tells us, "In proportion as a man comes into conformity with God, he asks right things, or things which God wills, & which therefore are done. And when he is wholly godly or the unfolding God within him has subdued all to himself, then he asks what God wills & nothing else & all his prayers are granted."18 The important point with respect to Necessitated Freedom is that it is so perfectly in harmony with Emerson and Aurobindo's world-affirmation. The goal of life is not Self-Realization and withdrawal from an illusory world. The goal of life is a Self-Realization that results in a life of perfect, divinely inspired action in harmony with all of creation.
6. Terrestrial Evolution:
Terrestrial evolution is for both of our process philosophers a fundamental construct, and is another aspect of their philosophies that puts them in harmony with Humanism's open-ended attitude toward truth. Both of them interpret nature in terms of terrestrial evolution. In this they were pioneers the first in their respective countries to reassess philosophy in an evolutionary light.
The significant fact is that both Emerson and Aurobindo conceive of evolution as the progressive revelation of Spirit. In the case of Aurobindo, his focus on the descent and ascent of Consciousness-Force (Chit-Shakti) is the key to his general theory of terrestrial evolution and is described in terms of two complementary processes: involution and evolution. According to the principle of involution, the world evolves on its several levels of Being (Matter, Life, Mind) because Brahman or Sachidananda, has already involved itself at each of these levels. Involution is the process whereby Brahman seeks its own manifestation through the multileveled universe. Evolution is the reverse process or return of Spirit to itself. Through the rise of ever-higher biological forms, Spirit emerges progressively more self-conscient in Nature. Evolution, then, is the process of Brahman returning to Itself: Aurobindo explains, "God having entirely become Nature, Nature seeks to become progressively God."19
With a little help from Hegel, Emerson came to hold a view decidedly similar to Aurobindo's. Emerson initially had spiritual reservations about evolutionary theory because he identified it with atheistic materialism. He had difficulty accepting evolution because his classical and Christian education trapped him into thinking that spiritual people believe in the Adamic myth of the Fall, while atheistic materialists hold that we have evolved from lower forms of life. Emerson learned from Hegel that he could accept the teachings of evolution without committing himself to the skeptic's atheistic materialism. Hegel helped Emerson understand that the process of evolution is itself a manifestation of Spirit. The influence of Hegel's philosophy comes out clearly when Emerson says that consideration of the woeful condition of much of humanity argues for "the German thought of the Progressive God, who has got thus far with his experiment, but will get out yet a triumphant and faultless race."20 With respect to terrestrial evolution, Emerson shared with Aurobindo the view that the ascending process is guided by a Progressive God whose purpose is to create a new race of beings "triumphant and faultless."
7. Transmigratory Evolution:
Both Emerson and Aurobindo agree that all souls, by means of successive rebirths, are ascending through Nature's spirals of form to Self-Realization. In the case of Emerson, while he appreciated Hegel's "Progressive God," and appropriated his idea of history as the unfolding revelation of Spirit, there is an aspect of Hegel's philosophy that is anathema to Transcendentalism: it negates the importance of the individual. In the Hegelian view, individuals are nothing more than stepping stones in the Spirit's progressive revelation. In order to accept the aspect of Hegel that he approved (history as the progressive revelation of divine power) while rejecting that which he did not (Hegel's anti-individualism), Emerson made perhaps his greatest intellectual leap. He fused evolution and reincarnation, science and samsara, and brought forth one of the most important truths of Transcendentalism: the law of transmigratory evolution. While scientific evolution teaches us that higher species have evolved from lower ones, Emerson applied the concept of the evolution of the species to the individual. In this view, the individual is not merely a Hegelian stepping stone in some vast cosmic process; the individual is at the heart of that outworking process, and retains personal identity throughout this process because the individual continually returns as part of the march of history through successive reincarnating forms. According to the law of transmigratory evolution, the individual soul evolves upwards through all of the lower biological species, and continues to evolve spiritually in human form until it reaches Enlightenment.
Emerson explains that nature's highest end is "ascension, or the passage of the soul into higher forms."21 The soul makes this ascending passage through successively advanced reincarnations. As Emerson says, "We touch and go, and sip the foam of many lives,"22 and each soul continues to do so until reaching Enlightenment.
While Aurobindo shares with Emerson a theory of transmigratory evolution, his path to this common resolution was the easier one because Aurobindo was philosophizing in a tradition that: 1) already accepted the great age of the Earth (whereas Emerson's Christian tradition saw the Earth as only 4,000 years old); 2) already accepted karma and reincarnation (whereas Emerson had to discover the former for himself and borrow the latter from Indian philosophy); and 3) already pictured individuals as ascending towards higher states of consciousness through successive rebirths (whereas Emerson's tradition pictured individuals as fallen and in need of salvation). While Emerson had to overcome these formidable metaphysical obstacles, Aurobindo had only to marry ready-to-hand principles in his own tradition to the theory of terrestrial evolution to reach conclusions very similar to Emerson's theory of transmigratory evolution.
In harmony with Emerson's line of reasoning, Aurobindo's reflections bring him to the conclusion that "human birth is a term at which the soul must arrive in a long succession of rebirths and that it has had for its previous and preparatory terms in the succession the lower forms of life upon earth."23 Thus the soul expands its consciousness through existences in the lower orders of nature, and continues to evolve through subsequent human incarnations. This process of reincarnation is then, as Aurobindo says, "a progressive development of our conscious being towards a supreme recovery of unity with God and with all in God."24 This is the law of transmigratory evolution shared by Emerson and Aurobindo: by means of successive rebirths, the soul ascends through all of Nature's spires of form chemical, vegetable, animal, humanly intelligent and finally spiritual."
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_gordo_tantra.htm
"A while ago, some friends and I started a conversation about Hegel and East/West. The conversation is still ongoing and enlightening. Recently, I came across a brief work of Hegel on Persian poetry, especially Rumi and Hafiz and found it very relevant to our discourse and not just in that context.
Owing to his genius, Hegel demonstrates an incredible appreciation of spirituality in Persian poetry, in particular in Rumi and Hafiz, while displaying a deep understanding of its essence. He sees Rumi and Hafiz as representatives of the Eastern “pantheism” that has realized the highest spiritual and hence human freedom. Comparing the works of the Persian poets with what he calls the “barbaric” people (Germanic Europeans!), he attests the former's greatness and freedom, and the latter's sentimentality and self-attachment! Essentially, in defending pantheism in Persian poetry, Hegel defends his own philosophy against the theologians. That is, by treating aesthetics as philosophy of art, he sees in Rumi and Hafiz, the realization of the absolute idea through the art of words, e.g., poetry.
Seeing himself as a follower of Rumi and Hafiz, Hegel sees the pantheism of Christian mystics in far less favorable terms compared to Persian pantheism, even though the Christian mysticism is perhaps the most important source of the Persian Sufism and Erfan. In understanding the essence of the Persian poetry and in philosophizing its art, he attempts to reinforce his viable theory of the Modern. It can be said with confidence, that Hegel sees his philosophy inline with the tradition of Persian poets. For example, when he cites Goethe’s old age poems as the highest point of artistic creation in his own country, he confidently asserts that the breeze of the Orient (Persian poetry) has made Goethe achieve his greatness and freedom."
http://www.farda.org/articles/10_updates/101100/poem_Faieq_Zarif.htm
"How, in general, would the universe self-configure? It would select itself from a set of internally-generated, internally-refined structural possibilities in order to maximize its self-defined value. In the (somewhat inadequate) terminology of quantum mechanics, this set of possibilities is called its quantum wave function or QWF, and the utility-maximizing self-selection principle is traditionally called teleology. In exploiting this self-actualization mechanism, human beings would select their specific goals from the global QWF according to their own specific self-selection principles or “teleses”. In the course of being realized, these individual teleses would interfere with teleology (and each other) in a constructive or destructive way, depending on whether they and their specific methods of implementation (modes of interference) are teleologically consistent or inconsistent. In this way, the “good”, or teleologically constructive, may be distinguished from the “bad”, or teleologically destructive. I.e., free will would give human beings a real choice between good and evil…a choice like that which we already seem to possess."
http://tinyurl.com/4gpxdk6
"Whereas ordinary computational models are informational and syntactic in character, the protocomputational nature of SCSPL requires a generalization of information and syntax. With respect to the origin or ultimate nature of perceptual reality, explanation is a reductive/inductive process that regressively unbinds constraints in order to lay bare those of highest priority and generality. This process eventually leads to the most basic intelligible descriptor that can be formulated, beyond which lies only the unintelligible."
http://www.ctmu.net
"Hology is a logical analogue of holography characterizing the most general relationship between reality and its contents. It is a form of self-similarity whereby the overall structure of the universe is everywhere distributed within it as accepting and transductive syntax, resulting in a homogeneous syntactic medium.
What is Holotheism?
Holotheism is the theological system implied by logical theology. Its fundamental premise is that the Mind of God is the ultimate reality…that is, reality in its most basic and most general form. It is thus related to panentheism, but in addition to being more refined, is more compatible with monotheism in that its "mental" characterization of God implies that divine nature is more in keeping with established theological traditions.
The All - a concept central to the spiritual philosophies of holotheism and panentheism. The diagram above illustrates the Hologic Identity between the self and the universe and the spirit. Hologic Identity is based on the CTMU principles of hology and syndiffeonesis."
http://teleologic.org/
"“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism understands God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid both isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does and identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/
"How does operant conditioning contrast with Pavlovian or classical conditioning? Classical conditioning always involves anticipatory biological responses triggered by a signal. The response is drawn out of the organism or elicited. In operant conditioning, by contrast, the animal generates the behavior on its own, as a way of achieving a goal. The behavior is emitted."
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch05_conditioning/operant_conditioning.html
emanate ~> emit
elicit ~> manifest
Image: http://boaste.deviantart.com/art/Baha-i-Ringstone-Explained-55170605
"But the question of the Real Existence by which all things exist—that is to say, the reality of the Essence of Unity through which all creatures have come into the world—is admitted by everyone. The difference resides in that which the Súfís say, “The reality of the things is the manifestation of the Real Unity.” But the Prophets say, “it emanates from the Real Unity”; and great is the difference between manifestation and emanation. The appearance in manifestation means that a single thing appears in infinite forms. For example, the seed, which is a single thing possessing the vegetative perfections, which it manifests in infinite forms, resolving itself into branches, leaves, flowers and fruits: this is called appearance in manifestation; whereas in the appearance through emanation this Real Unity remains and continues in the exaltation of Its sanctity, but the existence of creatures emanates from It and is not manifested by It. It can be compared to the sun from which emanates the light which pours forth on all the creatures; but the sun remains in the exaltation of its sanctity. It does not descend, and it does not resolve itself into luminous forms; it does not appear in the substance of things through the specification and the individualization of things; the Preexistent does not become the phenomenal; independent wealth does not become enchained poverty; pure perfection does not become absolute imperfection.
To recapitulate: the Súfís admit God and the creature, and say that God resolves Himself into the infinite forms of the creatures, and manifests like the sea, which appears in the infinite forms of the waves. These phenomenal and imperfect waves are the same thing as the Preexistent Sea, which is the sum of all the divine perfections. The Prophets, on the contrary, believe that there is the world of God, the world of the Kingdom, and the world of Creation: three things. The first emanation from God is the bounty of the Kingdom, which emanates and is reflected in the reality of the creatures, like the light which emanates from the sun and is resplendent in creatures; and this bounty, which is the light, is reflected in infinite forms in the reality of all things, and specifies and individualizes itself according to the capacity, the worthiness and the intrinsic value of things. But the affirmation of the Súfís requires that the Independent Wealth should descend to the degree of poverty, that the Preexistent should confine itself to phenomenal forms, and that Pure Power should be restricted to the state of weakness, according to the limitations of contingent beings. And this is an evident error. Observe that the reality of man, who is the most noble of creatures, does not descend to the reality of the animal, that the essence of the animal, which is endowed with the powers of sensation, does not abase itself to the degree of the vegetable, and that the reality of the vegetable, which is the power of growth, does not descend to the reality of the mineral.
Briefly, the superior reality does not descend nor abase itself to inferior states; then how could it be that the Universal Reality of God, which is freed from all descriptions and qualifications, notwithstanding Its absolute sanctity and purity, should resolve Itself into the forms of the realities of the creatures, which are the source of imperfections? This is a pure imagination which one cannot conceive.
On the contrary, this Holy Essence is the sum of the divine perfections; and all creatures are favored by the bounty of resplendency through emanation, and receive the lights, the perfection and the beauty of Its Kingdom, in the same way that all earthly creatures obtain the bounty of the light of the rays of the sun, but the sun does not descend and does not abase itself to the favored realities of earthly beings." -‘Abdu’l-Bahá
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-83.html
HYJ: {I was drawn into investigating the Baha'i Faith after noticing some striking similarities between Abdu'l-Baha's on "Divine Philosophy" and the metaphysical logic of Christopher M. Langan (once called the "Smartest Man in America") . There are some things which Mr. Langan has said which I don't fully agree with, although in his defense a lot of it I still don't fully understand yet, which is why I found the Baha'i faith as offering a less daunting approach to the same end of independently investigating truth, reality, existence. He did write some essays for controversial "Intelligent Design" movement, or what he calls "Intelligent Self-Design", which reminds me of Abdu'l-Baha's garden analogy and the skill of a gardner in bringing about harmony. The major similarities I found were in concepts on causal constitution (3 categories), attributive relativity (Sun/Mirror or Global/Local), unknowable essence ("unbound telesis") and unity-in-diversity ("Multiplex Unity"). While I'm not sure if he was already familiar with the Baha'i writings, I don't think it directly influenced his ideas, though I did find out that the person who came in 2nd place in the contest for that title and mentioned in the same magazine article happens to be a Baha'i (Steve Schussler):
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ1199-NOV_SMARTEST_MAN-2
I later noticed similarities between the CTMU's concept of a quantum protocomputational "conspansive manifold" to be similar to Chu Spaces, which are also similar to the Baha'i concept of mind as having the supraphysical power of being able to "anticipate the happenings of the future" as well as the adjoint/symmetric identity of mental/physical phenomena.
In the CTMU, the unknowable essence of God is "Unbound Telesis" or "Nothingness" or "Pure Freedom" which is completely independent of creation, and characterized as a realm in which every possibility exists in the form of "unlimited ontological (or info-cognitive or state-syntax or spatial-temporal or ordinal-stratificative) potential" or "zero informational constraint" and it is from the unitary/complementary "self-restriction" of this potential from which universe emerges. Baha'u'llah also describes God's absolute being as "exalted above all limitation"..."who from naught from hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation").
In the CTMU, the "Global Operator Definor (or Designer)" or "Primary Teleological Operator" or "Global Syntactic Unisect" or "Global Medium/Metasyntax of Reality" is also described as a "Self-Refining Entity".
Abdu'l Baha describes existence as having three degrees "God, Command (Primal Will), Creation", in the CTMU these seem to correspond to "Global, Agentive, Subordinate".
Another convergence I found are the similarity between the four forms of human knowing described by Abdu'l-Baha and the four components of the human cognitive syntax describes by Langan.
Qualio-Perceptual Syntax~Sense Perception + Logico-Mathematical Syntax~Reason + Space-Time-Object Syntax~"Traditional Interpretation" (Path Dependence) + Emo-Telic Syntax~Inspiration = Human Cognitive Syntax~Human "mirror of the sun of Reality"
Admittedly it wouldn't be obvious how Abdu'l-Baha's reference to "traditional interpretations" could be related to the interpretive dialectic of space-time-object, conspansive duality and trans-Markovian causality. However temporal feedback and a form of circularity in time is acknowledged since the universe is considered without beginning or end, in the Baha'i version the "primal will" is self-caused while in the CTMU this is described as simultaneously extrinsic/intrinsic self-determinacy...the odd thing is that when I brought this to his attention Langan didn't seem to know anything about even the basics of Baha'i philosophy/theology, and didn't really comment on my observations, although he did show concern for the persecution of Baha'is when I mentioned them...I think he doesn't want too much press as some in academia have been quite ruthless toward him for publishing his paper in a journal on Information, Complexity and Design...I really just care about his ideas; while most seem to be distracted by his IQ score and self-taught educational upbringing.
"The name literally says it all. The phrase “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” contains three main ingredients: cognitive theory, model, and universe. Cognitive theory refers to a general language of cognition (the structural and transitional rules of cognition); universe refers to the content of that language, or that to which the language refers; and model refers to the mapping which carries the content into the language, thus creating information. The way in which the title brings these three ingredients together, or “contracts” their relationship to the point of merging, reflects their perfect coincidence in that to which the title implicitly refers, i.e., reality (the physical universe plus all that is required to support its perception and existence). Thus, the CTMU is a theory which says that reality is a self-modeling universal language, or if one prefers, that the universe is a self-modeling language.
The operation of combining language, universe, and model to create a perfectly self-contained metalanguage results in SCSPL, short for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This language is “self-similar” in the sense that it is generated within a formal identity to which every part of it is mapped as content; its initial form, or grammatical “start symbol”, everywhere describes it on all scales. My use of grammatical terminology is intentional; in the CTMU, the conventional notion of physical causality is superseded by “telic causation”, which resembles generative grammar and approaches teleology as a natural limit. In telic causation, ordinary events are predicated on the generation of closed causal loops distributing over time and space. This loop-structure reflects the fact that time, and the spatial expansion of the cosmos as a function of time, flow in both directions – forward and backward, outward and inward – in a dual formulation of causality characterizing a new conceptualization of nature embodied in a new kind of medium or “manifold”.
That’s as simple as I can make it without getting more technical. Everything was transparently explained in the 56-page 2002 paper I published on the CTMU, which has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. But just in case this still doesn’t qualify as “plain English”, there’s an even easier way to understand it that is available to any reader familiar with the Bible, one of the most widely read and best-understood books ever written.
In the New Testament, John 1 begins as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (my italics). Much controversy has centered on this passage, as it seems to be saying that God is literally equivalent to logos, meaning “word”, “wisdom”, “reason”, or “truth”. Insofar as these meanings all refer to constructs or ingredients of language or to language itself, this amounts to the seemingly imponderable assertion that God, of Whom believers usually conceive as an all-powerful Entity or Being, somehow consists of language. The CTMU is precisely what it takes to validate this assertion while preserving the intuitive conception of God as the all-knowing Creator – or in non-theological terms, the “identity” or “generator” – of reality. Nothing but the CTMU can fully express this biblical “word-being duality” in a consistent logico-mathematical setting."
http://www.superscholar.org/interviews/christopher-michael-langan/
"Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess. Through a word proceeding out of the mouth of God he was called into being; by one word more he was guided to recognize the Source of his education; by yet another word his station and destiny were safeguarded. The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom. If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures, sent down from the heaven of God’s holy Will, have revealed, he would readily recognize that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded as one soul, so that the seal bearing the words “The Kingdom shall be God’s” may be stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and mercy may envelop all mankind. The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” If the learned and worldly-wise men of this age were to allow mankind to inhale the fragrance of fellowship and love, every understanding heart would apprehend the meaning of true liberty, and discover the secret of undisturbed peace and absolute composure. Were the earth to attain this station and be illumined with its light it could then be truly said of it: “Thou shall see in it no hollows or rising hills.” - Bahá’u’lláh
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-122.html
"During my visit to London and Paris last year 1 I had many talks with the materialistic philosophers of Europe. The basis of all their conclusions is that the acquisition of knowledge of phenomena is according to a fixed, invariable law,—a law mathematically exact in its operation through the senses. For instance, the eye sees a chair; therefore there is no doubt of the chair’s existence. The eye looks up into the heavens and beholds the sun; I see flowers upon this table; I smell their fragrance; I hear sounds outside, etc., etc. This, they say, is a fixed mathematical law of perception and deduction, the operation of which admits of no doubt whatever; for inasmuch as the universe is subject to our sensing, the proof is self-evident that our knowledge of it must be gained through the avenues of the senses. That is to say, the materialists announce that the criterion and standard of human knowledge is sense perception. Among the Greeks and Romans the criterion of knowledge was reason; that whatever is provable and acceptable by reason must necessarily be admitted as true. A third standard or criterion is the opinion held by theologians that traditions or prophetic statement and interpretations constitute the basis of human knowing. There is still another, a fourth criterion upheld by religionists and metaphysicians who say that the source and channel of all human penetration into the unknown is through inspiration. Briefly then, these four criterions according to the declarations of men are: First—Sense Perception; Second—Reason; Third—Traditions; Fourth—Inspiration.
In Europe I told the philosophers and scientists of materialism that the criterion of the senses is not reliable. For instance, consider a mirror and the images reflected in it. These images have no actual corporeal existence. Yet if you had never seen a mirror you would firmly insist and believe that they were real. The eye sees a mirage upon the desert as a lake of water but there is no reality in it. As we stand upon the deck of a steamer the shore appears to be moving, yet we know the land is stationary and we are moving. The earth was believed to be fixed and the sun revolving about it but although this appears to be so, the reverse is now known to be true. A whirling torch makes a circle of fire appear before the eye, yet we realize there is but one point of light. We behold a shadow moving upon the ground but 46 it has no material existence, no substance. In deserts the atmospheric effects are particularly productive of illusions which deceive the eye. Once I saw a mirage in which a whole caravan appeared traveling upward into the sky. In the far north other deceptive phenomena appear and baffle human vision. Sometimes three or four suns called by scientists “mock suns” will be shining at the same time whereas we know the great solar orb is one and that it remains fixed and single. In brief, the senses are continually deceived and we are unable to separate that which is reality from that which is not.
As to the second criterion—reason—this likewise is unreliable and not to be depended upon. This human world is an ocean of varying opinions. If reason is the perfect standard and criterion of knowledge, why are opinions at variance and why do philosophers disagree so completely with each other? This is a clear proof that human reason is not to be relied upon as an infallible criterion. For instance, great discoveries and announcements of former centuries are continually upset and discarded by the wise men of today. Mathematicians, astronomers, chemical scientists continually disprove and reject the conclusions of the ancients; nothing is fixed, nothing final; everything continually changing because human reason is progressing along new roads of investigation and arriving at new conclusions every day. In the future much that is announced and accepted as true now will be rejected and disproved. And so it will continue ad infinitum.
When we consider the third criterion—traditions—upheld by theologians as the avenue and standard of knowledge, we find this source equally unreliable and unworthy of dependence. For religious traditions are the report and record of understanding and interpretation of the Book. By what means has this understanding, this interpretation been reached? By the analysis of human reason. When we read the Book of God the faculty of comprehension by which we form conclusions is reason. Reason is mind. If we are not endowed with perfect reason, how can we comprehend the meanings of the Word of God? Therefore human reason, as already pointed out, is by its very nature finite and faulty in conclusions. It cannot surround the Reality Itself, the Infinite Word. Inasmuch as the source of traditions and interpretations is human reason, and human reason is faulty, how can we depend upon its findings for real knowledge?
The fourth criterion I have named is inspiration through which it is claimed the reality of knowledge is attainable. What is inspiration? It is the influx of the human heart. But what are satanic promptings which afflict mankind? They are the influx of the heart also. How shall we differentiate between them? The question arises, How shall we know whether we are following inspiration from God or satanic 47promptings of the human soul? Briefly, the point is that in the human material world of phenomena these four are the only existing criterions or avenues of knowledge, and all of them are faulty and unreliable. What then remains? How shall we attain the reality of knowledge? By the breaths and promptings of the Holy Spirit which is light and knowledge itself. Through it the human mind is quickened and fortified into true conclusions and perfect knowledge. This is conclusive argument showing that all available human criterions are erroneous and defective, but the divine standard of knowledge is infallible. Therefore man is not justified in saying “I know because I perceive through my senses”; or “I know because it is proved through my faculty of reason”; or “I know because it is according to tradition and interpretation of the holy book”; or “I know because I am inspired.” All human standard of judgment is faulty, finite.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-12.html
"The term "Letters of the Living" is both a title and a theological statement. The expression comprises two Arabic words: hurúf (singular: harf), meaning "letters," and hayy, meaning "the living." The combination hurúf-i-hayy is new; it does not occur in the Islamic scriptures. In His early writings, the Báb also referred to His first disciples by the word sábiqún or sábiqín (the forerunners), which stems from Islamic Traditions and texts.
The term "letter" is symbolic, as is the Báb’s use of the term Nuqtih (Point) to refer to the Manifestation or Messenger of God, who is the embodiment of the Primal Will (a concept similar to the Logos or "Word" in Christianity). According to the Báb, God created the Primal Will through the causation of the Primal Will itself and then created all things through the causation of the Primal Will; in other words, the Creator of the cosmos and spiritual civilization is the Manifestation of God. The term "Point" indicates that everything originates with the Manifestation, even as each letter and word originates with the mark made as the pen first touches paper.7 The Báb is known as "the Point of the Bayán" (referring to the title of the Báb’s two major books as well as, in general terms, all of the Báb’s writings), just as the Báb calls the Prophet Muhammad "the Point of the Qur’án."8The title "Point" may be interpreted as an indication of the two stations of the Manifestation, divine and worldly, just as the geometric point, which has no specific dimension, mediates between the physical and the nonphysical worlds.
From the point, the mark that is made as the pen touches paper, emanate the letters of the alphabet, which are the primary and basic units of written language. The whole body of knowledge is based on these units. The letters are all different, but they have a common root in the point, the first mark made by the pen; no matter how numerous, they have one background, one common source. The letter is the intermediary between the point, which is the genesis of all letters, and words and sentences, which are composed of letters. Thus the term "letters" (hurúf), when attributed to the first to believe in a Manifestation, acknowledges these souls as letters coming forth from the Point, just as the form of every letter begins with a point made on a page.
When applied to the Báb’s first disciples, the appellation "letter" may be seen to emphasize their role in inaugurating a divinely revealed religion. Likewise, the term "letter" suggests the use of familiar, universal symbols combined to revive the body of knowledge through the renewal of the vocabulary—that is, the same unchanged letters form entirely original words. The "letters" may be seen as a symbolic expression of both a new scripture and a new civilization."
http://www.bahai-encyclopedia-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65:letters-of-the-living&catid=38:history
In common interpretations, path dependence means that current and future states , actions, or decisions depend on the path of previous states, actions, or decisions.
http://dev.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Page2006.pdf
Path Dependency:
Tendency of a past or traditional practice or preference to continue even if better alternatives are available.
Path Dependence: A Foundational Concept for Historical Social Science
http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/ecohist/readings/david-pathdependent206.pdf
Conference on Path Dependence:
http://polmeth.wustl.edu/conferences/pathdep2010/pdsummary.pdf
Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present
http://books.google.com/books?id=2R0unaG1hX4C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=path-dependence+teleology&source=bl&ots=SnvUkfR0D2&sig=vSLweW44wKt44aqdh_ZnFNoFDoY&hl=en&ei=DCWjTqG6DoTmiAKkq5hi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw
Path dependence without denying deliberation— a continuous transition model connecting teleology and evolution
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/sprjoevec/v_3a17_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a45-52.htm
"An even more striking form of duality is encountered in graph theory, where the dual graph of a planar graph transforms faces to vertices and vertices to faces without disrupting its overall pattern of adjacencies. The boundary of each face is replaced by transverse edges converging on its dual vertex (and vice versa), and the adjacency relation is redefined accordingly. Where edges are given a temporal interpretation, interesting transformations can occur; e.g., circulations along facial boundaries become “vertex spins”, and motion along an edge can be characterized as an operation between the dual faces of its endpoints.
Duality principles thus come in two common varieties, one transposing spatial relations and objects, and one transposing objects or spatial relations with mappings, functions, operations or processes. The first is called space-object (or S-O, or S O) duality; the second, time-space (or T-S/O, or T S/O) duality. In either case, the central feature is a transposition of element and a (spatial or temporal) relation of elements. Together, these dualities add up to the concept of triality, which represents the universal possibility of consistently permuting the attributes time, space and object with respect to various structures. From this, we may extract a third kind of duality: ST-O duality. In this kind of duality, associated with something called conspansive duality, objects can be “dualized” to spatiotemporal transducers, and the physical universe internally “simulated” by its material contents.
M=R, MU and hology are all at least partially based on duality.
...
The Telic Principle differs from anthropic principles in several important ways. First, it is accompanied by supporting principles and models which show that the universe possesses the necessary degree of circularity, particularly with respect to time. In particular, the Extended Superposition Principle, a property of conspansive spacetime that coherently relates widely-separated events, lets the universe “retrodict” itself through meaningful cross-temporal feedback. Moreover, in order to function as a selection principle, it generates a generalized global selection parameter analogous to “self-utility”, which it then seeks to maximize in light of the evolutionary freedom of the cosmos as expressed through localized telic subsystems which mirror the overall system in seeking to maximize (local) utility. In this respect, the Telic Principle is an ontological extension of so called “principles of economy” like those of Maupertuis and Hamilton regarding least action, replacing least action with deviation from generalized utility.
...
The primary transducers of the overall language of science are scientists, and their transductive syntax consists of the syntax of generalized scientific observation and theorization, i.e. perception and cognition. We may therefore partition or stratify this syntax according to the nature of the logical and nonlogical elements incorporated in syntactic rules. For example, we might develop four classes corresponding to the fundamental trio space, time and object, a class containing the rules of logic and mathematics, a class consisting of the perceptual qualia in terms of which we define and extract experience, meaning and utility from perceptual and cognitive reality, and a class accounting for more nebulous feelings and emotions integral to the determination of utility for qualic relationships. 44 For now, we might as well call these classes STOS, LMS, QPS and ETS, respectively standing for space-time-object syntax, logico-mathematical syntax, qualio-perceptual syntax, and emo-telic syntax, along with a high-level interrelationship of these components to the structure of which all or some of them ultimately contribute. Together, these ingredients comprise the Human Cognitive-Perceptual Syntax or HCS."
http://www.ctmu.net
"On October 18, 1911, 'Abdu'l-Bahá was in Paris. He gave a brief talk that day on the subject of human thought. He began with a simple statement:
The reality of man is his thought, not his material body. The thought force and the animal force are partners. Although man is part of the animal creation, he possesses a power of thought superior to all other created beings.
('Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 17)
On the surface, He seems to be saying that our minds are what define us, not our bodies. If so, most of us would probably agree. But He went on to talk about how thought actually creates reality:
If a man's thought is constantly aspiring towards heavenly subjects then does he become saintly; if on the other hand his thought does not soar, but is directed downwards to centre itself upon the things of this world, he grows more and more material until he arrives at a state little better than that of a mere animal.
('Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 17-18)
In effect, the Master says that our destiny is in our own hands, or rather in our own minds. We can choose which direction to move, either to greater levels of spirituality or to greater depths of materiality, by focusing our thoughts in that direction. Again, most of us would probably agree that this has some validity, but we might suspect it's not quite that simple. Does merely thinking spiritual thoughts really make us spiritual?
At this point, 'Abdu'l-Bahá made a key distinction between two kinds of thought. The first is "thought that belongs to the world of thought alone" and the second is "thought that expresses itself in action." The first kind, He states, is useless. Thought's power depends upon its translation into deeds. He cites the example of a philosopher who speaks of justice but who encourages an oppressive monarch to practice tyranny. Of what use are this philosopher's thoughts on justice when he himself behaves in the opposite manner?
Bahá'u'lláh carries this a step further. Comparing those who were the Báb's followers to their persecutors, He writes:
They laid down their lives for their Well-Beloved, and surrendered their all in His path. Their breasts were made targets for the darts of the enemy, and their heads adorned the spears of the infidel. No land remained which did not drink the blood of these embodiments of detachment, and no sword that did not bruise their necks. Their deeds, alone, testify to the truth of their words. Doth not the testimony of these holy souls, who have so gloriously risen to offer up their lives for their Beloved that the whole world marvelled at the manner of their sacrifice, suffice the people of this day? Is it not sufficient witness against the faithlessness of those who for a trifle betrayed their faith, who bartered away immortality for that which perisheth, who gave up the Kawthar of the divine Presence for salty springs, and whose one aim in life is to usurp the property of others? ...
Be fair: Is the testimony of those acceptable and worthy of attention whose deeds agree with their words, whose outward behaviour conforms with their inner life? The mind is bewildered at their deeds, and the soul marvelleth at their fortitude and bodily endurance. Or is the testimony of these faithless souls who breathe naught but the breath of selfish desire, and who lie imprisoned in the cage of their idle fancies, acceptable? ... By what law or standard could men be justified in cleaving to the denials of such petty-minded souls, and in ignoring the faith of them that have renounced, for the sake of the good-pleasure of God, their life, and substance, their fame and renown, their reputation and honour?
(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitab-i-Íqán, p. 224-225)
Here, the alignment of inner life (thought) and outward behavior (deeds) is held forth as a sign of truth, whereas the gross misalignment of these two is regarded as a sign of falsehood and treachery.
This emphasizes 'Abdu'l-Bahá's point that thought not translated into action is worthless. What good is it to mentally accept the teaching that we should forgive those who harm us, for example, if in practice we seek revenge against them? Only when we accept the teaching of forgiveness and then strive to act on it do our thoughts produce good results and serve as witness to the truth. Further, we can't expect to teach others the value of the divine principles if we do not embody them ourselves:
Whoso ariseth among you to teach the Cause of his Lord, let him, before all else, teach his own self, that his speech may attract the hearts of them that hear him. Unless he teacheth his own self, the words of his mouth will not influence the heart of the seeker. Take heed, O people, lest ye be of them that give good counsel to others but forget to follow it themselves. The words of such as these, and beyond the words the realities of all things, and beyond these realities the angels that are nigh unto God, bring against them the accusation of falsehood.
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, CXXVIII, p. 277)
The Bahá'í Writings emphasize the acquisition of virtues precisely for these reasons. Acquiring virtues is usually a gradual process. Few people are transformed overnight. Yet in making the effort we attract divine confirmations that over the course of time will enable us to achieve our goal and compensate for our weaknesses. It isn't a matter of being perfect from the start, but of acquiring perfections over time.
And that process begins with thought, our reality.
http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/articles.pl?article=310
"So information can exist only in conjunction with attributive logical syntax. Because it necessarily incorporates attributive syntax, it has enough native self-processing capacity to maintain its intrinsic structure, which is precisely what it must do to qualify as “informational”.
Because cognition and generic information transduction are identical up to isomorphism – after all, cognition is just the specific form of information processing that occurs in a mind – information processing can be described as “generalized cognition”, and the coincidence of information and processor can be referred to as infocognition. Reality thus consists of a single “substance”, infocognition, with two aspects corresponding to transduction and being transduced. Describing reality as infocognition thus amounts to (infocognitive) dual aspect monism. Where infocognition equals the distributed generalized self-perception and self-cognition of reality, infocognitive monism implies a stratified form of “panpsychism” in which at least three levels of self-cognition can be distinguished with respect to scope, power and coherence: global, agentive and subordinate.
Ultimately, the conceptual shift from information to self-transducing information requires extensions of information-intensive theories including the theories of information, computation and cybernetics. The problem stems from the fact that as it is understood in these fields, information is a limited concept based on an engineering model in which the existence of senders, receivers, messages, channels and transmissive media is already conveniently given, complete with all of the structural and dynamical laws required to make them work together.
...
Unbound Telesis (UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.
...
Telic Recursion - A fundamental process that tends to maximize a cosmic self-selection parameter, generalized utility, over a set of possible syntax-state relationships in light of the self-configurative freedom of the universe. An inherently "quantum" process that reflects the place of quantum theory in SCSPL, telic recursion is a "pre-informational" form of recursion involving a combination of hology, telic feedback and recursive selection acting on the informational potential of MU, a primal syndiffeonic form that is symmetric with respect to containment.
Where perceptual reality consists of infocognition (self-transducing information), explaining the genesis and evolution of reality amounts to explaining the genesis and evolution of infocognition. Because generalized cognition (information processing) istemporal, while information locates objects or message units in attributive spaces, information and cognition are respectively spatial and temporal in nature; infocognition is analogous to spacetime, and spacetime is infocognitive. It follows that perceptual reality consists not merely of infocognition but of spacetime, and that seeking an explanation of the genesis and evolution of reality amounts to seeking an explanation of the genesis and evolution of spacetime qua infocognition…i.e., to cosmology in the context of information transduction.
Cosmology, humanity’s grand attempt to explain the origin and nature of the universe, has traditionally amounted to the search for a set of “ultimate laws” capable of explaining not only how the universe currently functions, but how it came to be. Unfortunately, even were such a set of laws to be found, the associated explanation could not be considered adequate until the laws themselves were explained, along with the fundamental objects and attributes on which they act. This gives rise to what seems like an imponderable question: how can a set of laws, objects and attributes be explained except by invoking another set of laws in the form of an explanatory syntax that would itself demand an explanation, and so on ad infinitum?
The answer is hiding in the question. Laws do not stand on their own, but must be defined with respect to the objects and attributes on which they act and which they accept as parameters. Similarly, objects and attributes do not stand on their own, but must be defined with respect to the rules of structure, organization and transformation that govern them. It follows that the active medium of cross-definition possesses logical primacy over laws and arguments alike, and is thus pre-informational and pre-nomological in nature…i.e., telic. Telesis, which can be characterized as “infocognitive potential”, is the primordial active medium from which laws and their arguments and parameters emerge by mutual refinement or telic recursion.
In other words, telesis is a kind of “pre-spacetime” from which time and space, cognition and information, state-transitional syntax and state, have not yet separately emerged. Once bound in a primitive infocognitive form that drives emergence by generating “relievable stress” between its generalized spatial and temporal components - i.e., between state and state-transition syntax – telesis continues to be refined into new infocognitive configurations, i.e. new states and new arrangements of state-transition syntax, in order to relieve the stress between syntax and state through telic recursion (which it can never fully do, owing to the contingencies inevitably resulting from independent telic recursion on the parts of localized subsystems). As far as concerns the primitive telic-recursive infocognitive MU form itself, it does not “emerge” at all except intrinsically; it has no “external” existence except as one of the myriad possibilities that naturally exist in an unbounded realm of zero constraint.
Telic recursion occurs in two stages, primary and secondary (global and local). In the primary stage, universal (distributed) laws are formed in juxtaposition with the initial distribution of matter and energy, while the secondary stage consists of material and geometric state-transitions expressed in terms of the primary stage. That is, where universal laws are syntactic and the initial mass-energy distribution is the initial state of spacetime, secondary transitions are derived from the initial state by rules of syntax, including the laws of physics, plus telic recursion. The primary stage is associated with the global telor, reality as a whole; the secondary stage, with internal telors (“agent-level” observer-participants). Because there is a sense in which primary and secondary telic recursion can be regarded as “simultaneous”, local telors can be said to constantly “create the universe” by channeling and actualizing generalized utility within it.
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
"The mystics, in general, believe that existence is limited to two conditions: one is God (al-haqq), and the other is creation. They believe that God is the inner reality of things and creation the appearance of things. As for the people of Truth, existence has three degrees: God and Command, which is the Primal Will, and creation. The Primal Will, which is the world of Command, is the inner reality of things, and all existing things are the manifestations of the Divine Will, not the manifestations of the Divine Reality and Identity. "His is the Command and the Creation" (Qur'an 7:54). As to the station of the Godhead, it is independent and sanctified from the understanding of created things, leave alone that it penetrates into their realities.
His Holiness, the Báb, may my life be a sacrifice unto Him, states that the meaning of the verse: "The sea is the same sea it hath ever been from eternity, and the created realities are its waves and images," is complete in the Primal Will, not in the Essence of God.
Moreover, the generality of the Sufis think that the indescribable Reality is like the number one and all creation is the repetition of that one. One has repeated itself and produced a second, and, similarly, one has repeated itself again and become a third. In like manner, consider all of the numbers. The numbers are a relative thing. They are established (thábit) [in the mind], yet they have no objective existence.
...
The truth is this: the reality of the Sanctified Essence cannot descend into the world of creation. For Him there is no entrance or exit, no descent or penetration, no mixture or composition. He is sanctified above all limitations. For example, it is the brilliance of the rays of the sun that shine upon the creatures of the earth All things become visible and are nourished by the light of the sun and faithfully reflect it. [Similarly,] in the height of sanctity He subsists holy and purified above all conditions, determinations, and distinctions; ever beyond the understanding of all created things. Rather it is the Primal Will, which consists of the rays of the Sun [of Reality], which is the cause of the manifestation and the appearance of beings. "This is the truth, and naught lies beyond the truth but error." Upon thee rest the glory of the All-Glorious.
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/wahdat.wujud.html
"The Bahá'í teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God. The Manifestations of God reflect divine attributes, which are creations of God made for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, onto the physical plane of existence. All physical beings reflect at least one of these attributes, and the human soul can potentially reflect all of them. Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, described God as inaccessible, omniscient, almighty, personal, and rational, and rejected pantheistic, anthropomorphic and incarnationist beliefs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_concept_of_God
"Bahá'í cosmology is the understanding of reality in the Bahá'í Faith, and for which reality is divided into three divisions. The first division is God, who is preexistent and on whom the rest of creation is contingent. The second division is God's logos, which is the realm of God's commands and grace. This realm pervades all created things. The Manifestations of God, messengers from God, are appearances of the logos in the physical world. The third division is creation, which includes the physical world. Creation is not seen as confined to the material universe, and individual material objects, such as the Earth, are seen to come into being at particular moment and then subsequently break down into their constituent parts. Thus, the current universe is seen as a result of a long-lasting process (cosmological time scales), evolving to its current state. In Bahá'í belief, the whole universe is a sign of God and is dependent on him and humanity was created to know God and to serve his purpose.
Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, also wrote of many worlds of God. In the Súriy-i-Vafa, he writes: "Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
Bahá'u'lláh distinguished five realms of existence;
1.Hahut — the realm of the unknowable essence of God
2.Lahut — the realm of divine consciousness
3.Jabarut — the realm of God acting within creation through revelation;
4.Malakut — the angelic realm
5.Nasut — the physical world, which is subdivided into the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms.
God is manifested in all five levels, the Manifestations of God in all but the first level, and humans exist between the angelic and physical realms and can choose which to live in.
Bahá'u'lláh also explained that while humans should seek knowledge, no human can understand the nature of God's creation or God himself. He stated that while God had given humans a rational mind, humans are unable to comprehend the inner reality, as they are limited by creation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_cosmology
"In sufism we see a two fold hierarchy similiar to two processes of Qur'anic creation:
Maratib-i Ilahi (Divine Ranks)
a. Ahadiyat-- Oneness
b. Wahdat-- Unity
c. Wahidiyyat-- Unity in Plurality
Maratib-i Kawni (Worldly Ranks)
a. Ruh-- Spirit
b. Mithal-- Similitudinal
c. Jism-- Body or corporeality
We can see similiarities in all these cosmological hierarchies. Ahadiyat is similiar to Huhat is similiar to Ilahiyat. Isma'iliyya Ruhaniyat is similiar to the Ruh of Sufism. In All these we can see that there is a similiar structure and function alll maintain the absolute seperateness of Allah from the other realms which are created. As well this is expressed by 'Abdu'l-Baha of the Baha'iyya school in regards to Ahadiyyat and Wahidiyyat when he writes:
"...for the worlds of God are infinite and, in each world, the Names and Attributes have a specific effect (hukm). In the World of Primal Oneness (ahadiyyat), they [objects of knowledge] are identical to the Essence. In the World of Manifested Oneness (wahidiyyat), they are distinguished. These stations of Primal Oneness and pillar of Manifested Oneness and Divinity have always remained and will continue to endure." (Effendi [Momen tr.], KM, pg. 24 )
The background and development to Sufi cosmology has it's roots in the Quran where it is recorded that there are number of heavens and dominions. In Sufi tradition the greatest of authors on these realms was Ibn 'Arabi. His students Qunawi and Qaysari have relayed an reliable picture of how Ibn 'Arabi viewed the universe. Al-Kashani summates the Sufi Penta-Reality (hazair al-ilahi) as:
"In the views of the sufis there are five worlds, each of which is a Presence within which God becomes manifest: 1. The Presence of the Essence (Huwiyat); 2. The Presence of the Attributes and names, i.e., the Presence of Divinity (Lahut); 3. The presence of the Acts, i.e., the Presence of Lordship (Jabarut); 4. The Presence of Image-Exemplars and Imagination (malakut or mulk or 'alam al-mithal); and 5. The Presence of Sense-Perception and the Visible. (In each case), the lower is an image and locus of manifestation of the higher. The highest is (the Essence or) the World of the Nondelimited Unseen, also called the 'Unseen of the Unseens.' The lowest is the World of the Visible, which is the last of the Presences (Nasut)." (Qashani, FN III)
These Presences are known as worlds in many Sufi languages.
A world (alam) "...(it) signifies that by which things are known, for God is known through it in terms of Divine Names and Attributes." (Jorjani [Nurbakhsh tr.], Ta'rifat, 188)"
http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.articles/sufi.bahai.cosmology.html
A Brief Discussion of the Primal Will in the Baha'i Writings
"Following Moojan Moment's introduction and beautiful translations of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tafsir-i-Kuntu Kanzan Makhfiyyan (Commentary upon the "Hadith-i-Qudsi": "I was a Hidden treasure and loved to be known. Therefore I created the Creation that I might be known."),[1] I would like to share some additional Tablets and comments in this area of study. In the Tafsir 'Abdu'l-Baha has comprehensively dealt with the tradition of the "Hidden treasure" by explaining the differing viewpoints of the muslim mystics and philosophers, in particular the school of Ibn al-Arabi, and presenting the Baha'i viewpoint that the real meaning of knowledge in this holy tradition is the recognition of the station of the Manifestation of God in every age and that no access is possible in attaining to a knowledge of God's reality or existence. referring to those mystics who believed that they could attain to a mystical union with the Absolute, 'Abdu'l-Baha states: "They have desired with petty, divided minds to understand stages and stations that are concealed even from the Universal Mind."[2] It is in investigating what is meant by the "Universal mind, " alias the "Primal Will" -- the metaphysical reality of the Manifestations of God -- that we may come closer to the Baha'i understanding of the oneness of existence (wahdat-i-wujud).
As is exemplified by the Baha'i ringstone symbol, Baha'is believe in three levels of existence. 'Abdu'l-Baha has explained this in His chapter on the oneness of existence in "Some Answered Questions": "The Prophets...believe that there is the world of God, the world of the Kingdom, and the world of Creation: three things."[3] Despite this truth of the Prophets, 'Abdu'l-Baha says in another Tablet: "The mystics, in general, believe that existence is limited to two conditions: one is God and the other Creation. They believe that God is the inner existence of things and Creation the appearance of things. As for the people of Truth, existence hath three degrees: God and Command, which is the Primal Will, and Creation. The Primal Will, which is the world of Command, is the inner reality of things and all existing things are the manifestations of the Divine Will, not the manifestations of the Divine Reality and Identity. As to the station of the Godhead, it is independent and sanctified from the understanding and comprehension of created things, leave alone that it penetrateth and is absorbed by the realities of things. His Holiness, the Bab, may my life be a sacrifice unto Him, sayeth that the testimony of this verse: "The Sea (of existence) is the same as it hath ever been from eternity and the accidents are (its) waves and apparitions,' is complete in the Primal Will, not in the Essence of God."[4]
The Sufis of the school of Ibn al-Arabi and the philosophers who have followed in the path of Mulla Sadra and other Muslim sages have believed fundamentally that God, the Absolute in its absoluteness, has become differentiated into the forms of the creatures, albeit through a series of mirage-like self-manifestations (tajalli). Ibn 'Arabi makes this point in his Fusus al-Hikam: "Everything you perceive is the Being of the Absolute as it appears through the archetypal essences of possible things."[5] In explaining in what manner the Sufis maintain the "oneness of God" with this apparent contradiction, 'Abdu'l-Baha says: "They believe that God has two aspects: one is the state of absolute sanctity and holiness to which nothing is comparable, the other is the state of similarity and resemblance."[6] These two aspects of God, as understood by the mystics, correspond to the stages of Ahadiyyat (primary oneness) and Wahidiyyat (unity) -- this second stage being that wherein the Divine Names and Attributes come into intelligible existence. It is this second stage wherein "God," as one of the Divine Names, is dependent upon his creatures as the objects of knowledge. The Sufis agree with the Baha'is in this respect by maintaining that God in the station of Ahadiyyat has no dependence upon the creatures; however, the difference resides in the fact that whereas the Baha'is believe these two stages to be fundamentally different, the Sufis believe them to be fundamentally the same. They believe that the "Essence" of God is the same as the "essence" of the creatures as a locus for God's self-manifestation, whereas the Baha'is believe that the Primal Will. not God, stands in this position.
The Bab is His Risaliy-i-Dhahabiyyih makes this distinction clear:
"They (Mulla Sadra and the Sufis) have been mistaken. They have taken the effulgence of the Essence upon the existences to be the very being of God. That is why they have erred when they say that the realities are fixed in the essence. And this they have said to establish the knowledge of God. They say that the Reality of existence is simple to establish the causality of the essence; and they speak of the relation between the Essence and the acts and attributes, and the unity of existence between the Creator and the created. But all this, for the people of God, is naught but absolute association...Even as God hath no need for another besides Himself, likewise He hath no need in His knowledge for the existence of objects of knowledge. In truth, the Essence hath no connection with anything. Verily, the cause of the contingent existences is one creation of God, and it is the Will. God created the Will, from itself without a fire coming to it from the Divine Essence. All of the existences were created by the intermediary of this Will, and this Will always telleth of God's own being and reflecteth nothing but Him. In the contingent existences, however, there is not a single sign which demonstrateth the essence of God, for the Reality of God alienateth all of the contingent existences from His knowledge and the Essence of God rendereth impossible comprehension by all the essences. In truth, the relation of the Will with God is like that of the House (the Ka'bih) with the with the Supreme Being. This relation is a relation of honour for the creature, but not for the essence, for God is pure."[7]
In another Tablet of the Bab, the Suriy-i-Tawhid, this question is further elucidated:
"The third question thou didst pose is about the meaning of the saying of the philosophers who say: 'From one naught can be created by one.' The essence of this saying is false when the cause referred to the eternal and the absolute essence of God. God hath no connection with anything and never does aught leave his Being. The quality of God (of not engendering and in not being engendered) is proven in all states. If the meaning of the cause is the First Remembrance, that is to say Him Whom God created Himself, then this saying becometh true. What is other than one cannot explain the action of the Essence to be unique. This is the religion of the pure Imams.
"It is in this way that God, in the Hadith-i-Quasi, summoned Jonas: 'O Jonas! Dost thou know the Will?' Jonas answered, 'No.' God said: 'The Will is the First Remembrance.' It is not possible that God create a thing from nothing except that thing be unique, for the first rank of the Remembrance is to demonstrate the unity of God. In the beginning of the degree of unity it is not possible to be other than one. Thus the saying of the philosophers that 'the cause of all the existences is the essence of God' is a falsehood. There is no connection between God and His creatures. It is not admissible that the essence of God be a place of change. To be so there must be a similitude between the cause and the effect. Therefore the truth is this: The cause of things is the First Remembrance that God created from nothing. And He made in it the cause of all the creatures. As the Imam revealeth, upon Him be blessings, 'The cause of things is the Handiwork of God and this Handiwork hath no cause."[8]
So far the terms "universal Mind," the "First Remembrance, " the "Will," and the "Command of God" have been used to designate that universal reality by which God causes the existence of all things. It has many synonyms in the Baha'i Writings. In an epistle to Muhammad Shad, the Bab declares: "I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things."[9] The term "Point," used in this sense, frequently occurs in the Persian Bayan. At the beginning of Vahid III, Bab 12, the Bab confirms that the meaning of the word "Point" is the very being of the Primal Will (gharad az dhikr-i-Nuqtih, Kaynuniyyat-i-Mashiyyat Avvaliyyih ast). The term "Primal Will" is probably more common. Baha'u'llah uses it in the Kitab-i-Iqan: "...by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible."[10] It is also referred to as "the Word of God, which is the Cause of the entire creation," and "the Command of God which pervadeth all created things."[11] In other words, these various designations all describe what 'Abdu'l-Baha, in Some Answered Questions calls "the universal reality," being "the first thing that emanated from God."[12] 'Abdu'l-Baha goes on to explain that this "First mind" or "First Will" precedes time but does not share the essential pre-existence of God, being "nothingness" in relation to God.
As in 'Abdu'l-Baha's "Commentary upon the 'Hidden Treasure" it was shown that the Manifestation of God is the focal point of knowledge, similarly the Manifestation of God is the focal point for the perfect reflection of the Primal Will. "It is the Primal Will which appeareth respondent in every Prophet and speaketh forth in every revealed Book."
http://bahai-library.com/articles/primal.will.html
"It was Keven Brown who alerted me to an important sentence in chapter 82 of Some Answered Questions (SAQ), where Abdul-Baha says: "The Prophets… believe that there is the world of God, the world of the Kingdom, and the world of Creation: three things" - as opposed to the two-world universe of the Sufis: world of God and world of creation. I wanted to find out what those worlds were exactly and how they related to the common Sufi way of dividing existence into five worlds: Hahut, Lahut, Jabarut, Malakut and Nasut. I have some preliminary results, which also draw on Moojan Momen's article in volume 5 of Kalimat's Babi and Baha'i Studies Series, "Relativism: A basis for Baha'i metaphysics", pp 190-5.
Differing kinds of existence
Although I refer to the three worlds as worlds of existence, the reality of existence in each of them is different. We have no idea what it means to say that God 'exists' in the world of God. The 'existence' that is witnessed in the worlds below the world of God is a creation of God and is specific to each world.
The world of God (Hahut)
This is the world of the Essence of God, which is beyond the understanding of the prophets as well as ourselves. All essences, archetypes, names and attributes, potentialities and things are hidden here – which means they don’t exist here.
Emanation and manifestation
All worlds below the world of God come into existence as a result of their emanation from God. The analogy usually used to explain emanation is the light that emanates from the sun. The light comes from the sun and is dispersed everywhere, but the sun itself stays separate from the light. The idea of emanation should be distinguished from the concept of manifestation. Manifestation means that a single thing changes its form, but its essence remains the same. For example, if the sun was manifested in the light, this would mean that the sun itself somehow changed form so that it took the form of the light. An example of manifestation is the ocean and the waves. The ocean itself is in the waves and the waves of the ocean move, changing the form of the ocean. Similarly, water can take the form of ice and snow. Abdu'l-Baha, in SAQ, gives the seed as an example of manifestation – it changes its form over and over and gradually becomes a tree. The principal reason it is important to distinguish between emanation and manifestation in this context is to underscore the fact that the essence of God does not make up the essence of the created worlds below it. It remains separate from them in the same way that the sun remains separate from sunshine.
The world of the Kingdom/ Primal Will/ world of Command (Lahut)
This world is the first emanation from God. It comes into existence as a result of God's will, which is why it is referred to as the Primal Will. Keven Brown translates the Bab:
"In truth, the Essence is not connected with anything, for the cause of contingent things is His very creating, which is the Will that God created by and through itself without a fire touching it from the Essence. God created the existents through this Will, and it has ever indicated its own self and pointed to its own being." (Journal article)
To understand how things work in this world, the best analogy is oneself, for Baha'u'llah says that one reason we have been created in the image of God is so that we can better understand how God works. All that you do is a result of your will, which leads you to act – for example, by thinking, speaking, or breathing. These three actions correspond to descriptions of this realm as the First Intellect, the Word, and the Breath of the Merciful respectively. As a result of the will, God, in this first emanation, is said to take on differing 'states', such as the state of thinking, speaking or breathing, and the source of these states are perfections (divine attributes) hidden in the essence. These states are said to be 'with' God but not 'in' God. I think the idea here is that just as our essence is not manifested in our thoughts, God's essence is not manifested in God's thoughts; but in both cases, the thoughts emanate from the essence and reflect the perfections/characteristics of the thinker.
The entities that come into existence in this world are the essences of things. They take on a conceptual, or immaterial, existence. Keven explains in his Journal article that the essences of things "are equivalent to natural laws". In other places, he says they are "in some sense, ontological structures of the names and attributes", and the same thing as Platonic Forms. As these descriptions indicate, the important thing about them is that they determine the composition of things in the physical world – presumably, by pulling together various combinations of form with the names and attributes. By causing these combinations to occur, these essences cause things in the physical world to be actualised. This demonstrates that the cause of things in our physical world are these immaterial essences and not God directly. Here is Keven's translation of Abdu'l-Baha:
"The Primal Will, which is the realm of Command, is the inner reality of all things, and all beings are therefore the manifestations of the Divine Will, not the manifestations of the Divine Essence and Reality itself. 'His are the realms of Command and creation'. …Rather [in our view] is it the Primal Will, which consisteth of the radiance and bounties of that Sun [of Reality], that causeth the manifestation, appearance, and visibility of all beings." (Journal article)
Something to note here: that Abdu'l-Baha clearly states that humans, along with everything else in this physical world, are manifestations – that is, not emanations – of the Primal Will. That means that the essences in the Primal Will constitute our essence. This explains the extent to which we are 'divine'.
The world of the Kingdom and its essences are an "essential creation", which means that they always existed (are eternal, without beginning or end) but are nevertheless preceded by a cause - God. In relation to the world of time, they are preexistent, for they precede the creation of things in time.
Moojan Momen (p 190) says the world of the Kingdom is referred to in the writings as the All-Glorious Horizon, the Heavenly Court. The manifestation in this world is referred to as the Lord of Lords, the Tongue of Grandeur, the Most Exalted Pen, the Primal Will, the Primal Point, the Word of God.
The world of creation
The remaining three Sufi worlds are in the world of creation.
Jabarut: Moojan (p 191) says this is "the realm of the revealed God acting within creation; the realm of 'Thou art He Himself and He is Thou Thyself'. This realm is called the paradise of conditioned oneness, the all-highest Paradise. This is the realm of God's actions and decrees". I think this must be the realm where the essences discussed above take a form in the world of creation. Here, they are a temporal creation instead of an essential creation, which means they now exist in time.
Malakut: This is the realm of similitudes (alam-i mathal); the next world. This is the spiritual world in which we experience our dreams and in which we exist after we die.
Nasut: This is the physical world. In SAQ, chapter 47, Abdu'l-Baha says that "original matter" is eternal. It may change form, but as a substratum, it is an essential creation.
Moojan (p 192) cites a passage from Baha'u'llah about these worlds and how they are interlinked:
"[Malakut] is the world of similitudes (alam-i-mithal) which existeth between the Dominion on high (jabarut) and this moral realm (nasut); whatever is in the heavens or on the earth hath its counterpart in that world. Whilst a thing remaineth hidden and concealed within the power of utterance it is said to be of the Dominion (jabarut), and this is the first stage of its substantiation (taqyid). Whenever it becometh manifest it is said to be of the Kingdom (malakut). The power and potency it deriveth from the first stage, it besotoweth upon whatever lieth below." (Lawh-i-varqa)"
This quote gives some idea of how things work in the world of creation. Essences in the Primal Will are manifest in jabarut and this constitutes their first 'substantiation' in the world of creation. When an essence is the cause of the combining of properties, realities are manifest in image form in malakut and physical form in nasut. Keven explains Abdu'l-Baha as saying (in SAQ chapter 82 regarding our general physical existence being a mental construct of man) that "'Materiality' is the product of impressions on minds resulting from the combination of attributes, properties, and symmetries deriving from a level more fundamental than 'material' things themselves." (Journal article) So the combining-type work of the essences causes materiality in the physical world and, presumably, we 'construct' that materiality in accordance with our inherent nature, which is why we experience materiality differently.
We also know from Tablet on the People's Right that all things, including deeds and characteristics, in nasut have corresponding forms in all the other worlds. "Certainly the realities of things, through different appearances and various manifestations, truth after truth, shine forth and reveal thenselves in every world." So each of us, and what proceeds from us, already has an image-form in malakut.
This is the reason why I don't go with what Moojan (p 192) says about malakut in his article - "This is the angelic realm" - leaving the impression that it is a world that only believers enter. I think the picture is more complex than that. If all humans and their characteristics and deeds already have image-forms in malakut, then we all appear in malakut now. The issue is what form we take there – a heavenly form or a hellish one. A similar principle is at work in the physical world, in keeping with the combining effect of the essences. We each live in a physical world here, but the nature of that world is determined by our inner spiritual state."
http://meditationsonbahaullah.blogspot.com/2010/10/notes-on-three-worlds-of-existence.html
"Now going back to our subject and the facts upheld by materialists. They state that inasmuch as it is proven and upheld by science that the life of phenomena depends upon composition and their destruction upon disintegration, then where comes in the need or necessity of a Creator -- the self-subsistent Lord?
For if we see with our own eyes that these infinite beings go through myriads of compositions and in every composition appearing under a certain form showing certain characteristics virtues, then we are independent of any divine maker.
597. This is the argument of the materialists. On the other hand those who are informed of divine philosophy answer in the following terms:
Composition is of three kinds.
1. Accidental composition.
2. Involuntary composition.
3. Voluntary composition.
There is no fourth kind of composition. Composition is restricted to these three categories.
If we say that composition is accidental, this is philosophically a false theory, because then we have to believe in an effect without a cause, and philosophically, no effect is conceivable without a cause. We cannot think of an effect without some primal cause, and composition being an effect, there must naturally be a cause behind it.
As to the second composition i.e., the voluntary composition. Involuntary composition means that each element has within it, as an inherent function this power of composition. For example, certain elements have flowed towards each other, and as an inherent necessity of their being they are composed. That is, it is the imminent need of these elements to enter into composition.
For example, the inherent quality of fire is burning or heat. Heat is an original property of fire.
Humidity is the inherent nature of water. You cannot conceive of H2O, which is the chemical form of water, without having humidity connected, for that is its inherent quality, inseparable and indivisible.
Now as long as it is the inherent necessity of these elements to be composed, there should not be any decomposition. While we observe that after each composite organism, there is a process of decomposition we learn that the composition of the organisms of life is neither accidental nor involuntary. Then what have we as a form of composition? It is the third, that is the voluntary composition. And that means that the infinite forms of organisms are composed through a superior will, the eternal will, the will of the living and self-subsistent Lord.
This is a rational proof, that the Will of the Creator is effected through the process of composition."
http://bahai-library.com/compilations/bahai.scriptures/7.html
"You mention Bill Dembski’s 3-way distinction between determinacy, nondeterminacy (chance) and design. In the CTMU, this distinction comes down to the 3-way distinction between determinacy, nondeterminacy and self-determinacy, the last being associated with telic recursion and the others being secondarily defined with respect to it. Telic recursion is just another term for "metacausation"; instead of simply outputting the next state of a system, it outputs higher-order relationships between state and law (or state and syntax)."
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000351-p-2.html
"Since 1997 the main task of regional Baha'i councils has been to devise and execute expansion and consolidation plans in close collaboration with the local spiritual assemblies of within their areas of jurisdiction.
...
"Regional council members are selected by a dual process of election and appointment."
http://tinyurl.com/4rtyvtv
"Persian literature has had influences on many writers and cultures outside of its boundaries. In order to avoid what E.G. Browne calls "an altogether inadequate judgment of the intellectual activity of that ingenious and talented people" (E.G.Browne, p4), many top calibre centers of academia throughout the world today from Berlin to Japan, have permanent programs for Persian studies for the literary heritage of Persia.
L.P. Elwell-Sutton, "distinguished professor" of Persian studies of The University of Edinburgh calls Persian poetry "one of the richest poetic literatures of the world"(Elwell-Sutton, pII)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_literature_in_the_West
"Such esoteric materials from northern India point in turn toward Persia, the hearth of Mughal court language, its poetry, and its varied Sufi orders. In that vein, Thoreau had mused about both ‘‘Persia, and Hindostan, the lands of contemplation.’’60
The Persian dimension in Thoreau is often rather overlooked and yet one that is quite substantive. Patri’s dismissal of such Persian (and Chinese) strands as being a ‘‘digression’’ for scholars from Thoreau’s Indian horizons is unfair given their sustained citations and use by Thoreau.61 Part of Thoreau’s Persian horizons took in Zoroaster, the ancient prophet from Eastern Iran / Central Asia but subsequently associated with Persia. Thoreau named Zoroaster one of ‘‘our [spiritual] astronomers’’ and talked of introducing Zoroaster into a great universal ‘‘literary club.’’62 Such horizons could stretch time itself, so that ‘‘the life of a wise man is most of all extemporaneous, for he lives out of an eternity which includes all time. The cunning mind travels further back than Zoroaster each instant, and comes back down to the present with its revelation.’’63 Thoreau used Zoroaster to put contemporaneous exclusivist Christianity into humbler
perspectives:
"With wisdom we shall learn liberality. The solitary hired man on a farm in the outskirts of Concord, who has had his second birth and peculiar religious experience, and is driven as he believes into the silent gravity and exclusiveness by his faith, may think it is not true; but Zoroaster, thousands of years ago, travelled the same road and had the same experience; but he, being wise, knew it to be universal, and treated his neighbors accordingly, and is even said to have invented and established worship among men. Let him humbly commune with Zoroaster then, and through the liberalizing influence of all the worthies, with Jesus Christ himself, and let ‘‘our church’’ go by the board.64""
http://www.thescotties.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/thoreau-asia-galleyproof.pdf
"I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels blest; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones, To Him we shall return."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rumi
Divine Philosophy
"Divine philosophy is a term used most recently in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and associated with the maturity of the human race which can trace the progress back through the world's religions in history with incremental stages of progressive revelation. The most important principle of divine philosophy is the oneness of the world of humanity, the unity of mankind, the bond conjoining east and west, the tie of love which blends human hearts (`Abdu'l-Bahá, p. 244). The compound word is more than the two words that make it up. The word divine and the word philosophy have their own meaning but the understanding of divine philosophy is best understood by looking at the progress of religion from the dawn of recorded history. Divinity and divine (sometimes 'the Divinity' or 'the Divine'), are broadly applied but loosely defined terms, used variously within different faiths and belief systems — and even by different individuals within a given faith — to refer to some transcendent or transcendental power, or its attributes or manifestations in the world. The root of the words is literally 'Godlike' (from the Latin 'Deus,' closely related to Greek 'Zeus'), but the use varies significantly depending on the underlying conception of God that is being invoked. This article outlines the major distinctions in the conventional use of the terms. Philosophy is a field of study in which people question and create theories about the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as whether or not God(s) exist, what is the nature of being and the universe, what is truth, what is consciousness, and what makes actions right or wrong. The fundamental method of western philosophy is the use of reasoning to evaluate arguments. However, the methodology of philosophy is itself debated, and varies according to the philosophical and cultural traditions of people all over the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeff3000/DP
What is Logical Theology?
"Theology is ordinarily understood as the study of God and the relationship of God to the world, usually in the context of a specific theological system and a related body of theological opinion. It is considered to embrace the investigation of spirit, the human soul, teleology and divine qualities such as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.
Traditionally, its preferred methods of inquiry have been rational rather than empirical, and have thus relied on a combination of faith and logic rather than observation. Logical theology shifts theological inquiry in the direction of logic and mathematics, seeking to reposition it within the domain of modern analytical tools including model theory, the theory of formalized systems, and the logical theory of reality.
Whereas standard theology takes the existence of God as axiomatic and then attempts, often naively, to characterize the relationship between its assumed definition and a more or less concrete model of reality, logical theology explores a logical formulation of ultimate reality for any divine properties that might naturally reveal themselves; given that divine law (if it exists) would necessarily incorporate the laws of logic and mathematics on a basic level, it seeks evidence of divinity in the context of a reality-theoretic extension of logic, the CTMU. The implied convergence of theology, mathematics and science yields a reality-based theological framework with the strength and capacity to support realistic solutions to various real-world problems."
http://www.teleologic.org/
The following is Abdu'l Baha's explanation of His evolution diagram:
"As the world follows a circle, so human beings travel in cycles." "This illustration represents the cycle of man. All existence is created by the Infinite Essence. Man starts with God and first attains the mineral condition which is only matter, but this condition contains a latent power from God. Then he attains the vegetable kingdom which is also matter but which possesses the power of growth which the mineral kingdom lacked. Next he arrives In the animal kingdom which possesses the united powers of those preceding, but with a third power, that of sensation (the five senses)."
"At birth he enters the human kingdom. This progression is simply through the power of God. Souls are not created independently of bodies. The germ of the child grows by the power of God in the human body, just as the seed of the tree grows to be a tree through the power of the sun. The human being has the power of all the other conditions and has attained the furthest point and the most distant from God. He has passed through all the conditions of the material side of the circle by the hidden power of God. The first or descending circle is the natural or material circle, the second or ascending circle is the spiritual. The first half is the night, the second half is the day. The human world is the point furthest away from God, but the rays of God shine directly on man. The world is in darkness and obscurity reigns always before the dawn, and on the side of the ascending circle light appears. Thus the world is the worst condition for the soul if that soul lives in that condition, because it is the point furthest from God. It is a worse condition than the kingdoms of the mineral, the vegetable or animal because it is the furthest point from God. But if a man desires the light, he may receive the Rays powerfully and directly, while the other kingdoms receive only the indirect rays of the Holy Spirit. If he does not desire the Light, man's condition is worse than all the others. Thus, the Manifestation of God appears always in human form, because the Sun of Truth shines directly on that Manifestation and he thus receives the entire power of God."
"The soul leaves God and if it enters the spiritual world, it returns to God."
"There are three births, first the material birth; second to be born of the water; third to be born of the Spirit. When man enters the spiritual world he is born of the water of truth and of the knowledge of God. He should become as a little child, detached from the world; without jealousy, without hate, without envy, without the love of money or earthly desires."
"To be born of the Spirit means to renounce all earthly desires, to aspire to the qualities of God and to begin to ascend the second half of the circle. The spiritual grades have infinite degrees and conditions ever ascending upward. It is possible in one step to leave the lowest condition and to enter the highest. The Blessed Perfection, Baha'u'llah, said that the believers will go directly to God, but that all will not be in the same condition, each one will have his degree in accordance with his spiritual progress. When we die we can see those who are in the same condition as ourselves and we can understand those who are in a lower degree, but we cannot understand those who are in conditions above us."
If a soul journeys through the cycle, can it return and begin again? Will it return to the mineral kingdom? "This is not be possible, but the spirit can return."
"Each nation has awaited the re-incarnation of its greatest Prophet in accordance with its religious belief. The Jews await the return of Moses as the Messiah; the Christians, Christ; the Mohammedans, Husein, son of Fatima and the twelve Imams. They awaited the return of the soul and of the personality. When they asked if John the Baptist was Elijah he answered, "Yes"; and when they interrogated John Baptist, he replied "No". Both replies were the truth. The reply of Christ was spiritual, that is John the Baptist returned in the same spirit of God, but not in the same soul, but John the Baptist meant that his soul and his body were not the same as those of Elijah.
All human beings have two stations, the one of the body, the other of the soul. Neither the body nor the soul will return to this world, but the spirit of God in them may return, and thus it is with all the Prophets: the same spirit is speaking in Baha'u'llah today as in Christ; all the Prophets of God were Manifestations of God. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and the Bab were the four greatest prophets, because they reflect the light of God in a higher degree than others and left Books to guide the people in the path of God."
Let us suppose that the mirror represents the Prophet, the sun represents God and the rays of the sun the Holy Spirit. The mirror of Adam was dim, because the people were not sufficiently advanced at that time to receive the greater rays than the mirror of Adam reflected; consequently God caused the light to reflect from a dim mirror. The mirror of Moses was more brilliant and could thus receive greater rays because the people of that time of Moses were more advanced than the people in the time of Adam. The mirror of Jesus was absolutely clear and could reflect the full light of the Sun. He was the Perfect Image of the sun. This is the significance of the words of Jesus, "The Father is in Me. I and the Father are one." But when the Manifestation of God (Baha'u'llah) came, He was a magnifying mirror who received all the rays of the sun as did Jesus, but received also its heat to shed upon the world. The Blessed Perfection was like a fine glass of crystal filled with wine. The crystal was so perfect that the glass was not visible and one beheld only the precious wine. Thus the Manifestation of God was so perfect that by itself alone the Holy Spirit was seen in Him.
In the study of this subject, as illustrated in the chart, the thought to realize is that the human station has its limitations the same as the Mineral, the Vegetable or Animal kingdoms. It is not possible to transcend our human station without a plus quality, the same as seen in previous stations of the chart. For instance, on page 55 of PUP., Abdu'l-Baha states, "It (the human station) cannot comprehend the phenomena of the kingdom transcending the human station, for it is captive of powers and life forces which have their operation upon its own plane of existence and it cannot go beyond that boundary."
http://bahai-library.com/visuals/evolution.txt.html
"There is a nested hierarchy of soul functions or activities (413a23).
Growth, nutrition, (reproduction)
Locomotion, perception
...Intellect (= thought)
This gives us three corresponding degrees of soul:
Nutritive soul (plants)
Sensitive soul (all animals)
Rational soul (human beings)
These are nested in the sense that anything that has a higher degree of soul also has all of the lower degrees. All living things grow, nourish themselves, and reproduce. Animals not only do that, but move and perceive. Humans do all of the above and reason, as well. (There are further subdivisions within the various levels, which we will ignore.)"
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
"Question.—After the body is put aside and the spirit has obtained freedom, in what way will the rational soul exist? Let us suppose that the souls who are assisted by the bounty of the Holy Spirit attain to true existence and eternal life. But what becomes of the rational souls—that is to say, the veiled spirits?
Answer.—Some think that the body is the substance and exists by itself, and that the spirit is accidental and depends upon the substance of the body, although, on the contrary, the rational soul is the substance, and the body depends upon it. If the accident—that is to say, the body—be destroyed, the substance, the spirit, remains.
Second, the rational soul, meaning the human spirit, does not descend into the body—that is to say, it does not enter it, for descent and entrance are characteristics of bodies, and the rational soul is exempt from this. The spirit never entered this body, so in quitting it, it will not be in need of an abiding-place: no, the spirit is connected with the body, as this light is with this mirror. When the mirror is clear and perfect, the light of the lamp will be apparent in it, and when the mirror becomes covered with dust or breaks, the light will disappear.
The rational soul—that is to say, the human spirit—has neither entered this body nor existed through it; so 240 after the disintegration of the composition of the body, how should it be in need of a substance through which it may exist? On the contrary, the rational soul is the substance through which the body exists. The personality of the rational soul is from its beginning; it is not due to the instrumentality of the body, but the state and the personality of the rational soul may be strengthened in this world; it will make progress and will attain to the degrees of perfection, or it will remain in the lowest abyss of ignorance, veiled and deprived from beholding the signs of God."
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-66.html
“The first condition is absolute love and harmony amongst the members of the assembly. They must be wholly free from estrangement and must manifest in themselves the Unity of God,...Should harmony of thought and absolute unity be non-existent, that gathering shall be dispersed and that assembly be brought to naught. The second condition:-They must when coming together turn their faces to the Kingdom on High and ask aid from the Realm of Glory. They must then proceed with the utmost devotion, courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their views...The honoured members must with all freedom express their own thoughts, and it is in no wise permissible for one to belittle the thought of another,...” -Abdu’l-Baha
“Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving consultation. ...They should never be led to suppose that they are the central ornaments of the Cause, intrinsically superior to others...” -The Guardian
http://www.bci.org/bahaistudies/courses/consult_principles.htm
"The Bahá'í International Community believes that it is unrealistic to imagine that the vision of the next stage in the advancement of civilization can be formulated without a searching re-examination of the attitudes and assumptions that currently underlie approaches to social and economic development. At the most obvious level, such rethinking will have to address practical matters of policy, resource utilization, planning procedures, implementation methodologies, and organization. As it proceeds, however, fundamental issues will quickly emerge, related to the long-term goals to be pursued, the social structures required, the implications for development of principles of social justice, and the nature and role of knowledge in effecting enduring change. Indeed, such a re-examination will be driven to seek a broad consenus of understanding about human nature itself. (Introduction, para. 4) We are being shown that, unless the development of society finds a purpose beyond the mere amelioration of material conditions, it will fail of attaining even these goals. That purpose must be sought in spiritual dimensions of life and motivation that transcend a constantly changing economic landscape and an artificially imposed division of human societies into "developed" and "developing." (Introduction, para. 8, line 5-10)
The bed-rock of a strategy that can engage the world's population in assuming responsibility for its collective destiny must be the consciousness of the oneness of humankind. (Chapter I, para. 1, line 1-3) The human species is an organic whole, the leading edge of the evolutionary process. That human consciousness necessarily operates through an infinite diversity of individual minds and motivations detracts in no way from its essential unity. Indeed, it is precisely an inhering diversity that distinguishes unity from homogeneity or uniformity. What the peoples of the world are today experiencing, Bahá'u'lláh, the Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, said, is their collective coming- of-age, and it is through this emerging maturity of the race that the principle of unity in diversity will find full expression. (Chapter I, para. 3, line 2-9) Justice is the one power that can translate the dawning consciousness of humanity's oneness into a collective will through which the necessary structures of global community life can be confidently erected. (Chapter II, para. 1, line 1-3)
At the group level, a concern for justice is the indispensable compass in collective decision making, because it is the only means by which unity of thought and action can be achieved. Far from encouraging the punitive spirit that has often masqueraded under its name in past ages, justice is the practical expression of awareness that, in the achievement of human progress, the interests of the individual and those of society are inextricably linked. To the extent that justice becomes a guiding concern of human interaction, a consultative climate is encouraged that permits options to be examined dispassionately and appropriate courses of action selected. In such a climate the perennial tendencies toward manipulation and partisanship are far less likely to deflect the decision-making process. (Chapter II, para. 3)
The implications for social and economic development are profound. Concern for justice protects the task of defining progress from the temptation to sacrifice the well-being of the generality of humankind -- and even of the planet itself -- to the advantages which technological breakthroughs can make available to privileged minorities. In design and planning, it ensures that limited resources are not diverted to the pursuit of projects extraneous to a community's essential social or economic priorities. Above all, only development programs that are perceived as meeting their needs and as being just and equitable in objective can hope to engage the commitment of the maBsses of humanity, upon whom implementation depends. (Chapter II, para. 4, line 1-10)
What Bahá'u'lláh is calling for is a consultative process in which the individual participants strive to transcend their respective points of view, in order to function as members of a body with its own interests and goals. In such an atmosphere, characterized by both candor and courtesy, ideas belong not to the individual to whom they occur during the discussion but to the group as a whole, to take up, discard, or revise as seems to best serve the goal pursued. Consultation succeeds to the extent that all participants support the decisions arrived at, regardless of the individual opinions with which they entered the discussion. (Chapter III, para. 5, line 1-9) Viewed in such a light, consultation is the operating expression of justice in human affairs. So vital is it to the success of collective endeavour that it must constitute a basic feature of a viable strategy of social and economic development. (Chapter III, para. 6, line 1-4)
Universal education will be an indispensable contributor to (this) the process of capacity building, but the effort will succeed only as human affairs are so reorganized as to enable both individuals and groups in every sector of society to acquire knowledge and apply it to the shaping of human affairs. (Chapter IV, para. 1, line 5-8)
Throughout recorded history, human consciousness has depended upon two basic knowledge systems through which its potentialities have progressively been expressed: science and religion. Through these two agencies, the race's experience has been organized, its environment interpreted, its latent powers explored, and its moral and intellectual life disciplined. (Chapter IV, para. 2, line 1-5) It is, therefore, in the context of raising the level of human capacity through the expansion of knowledge at all levels that the economic issues facing humankind need to be addressed. (Chapter V, para. 1, line 1-3) Instruments of social and economic change so powerful must cease to be the patrimony of advantaged segments of society, and must be so organized as to permit people everywhere to participate in such activity on the basis of capacity. (Chapter IV, para. 4, line 2-5)
Moreover, as the experience of recent decades has demonstrated, material benefits and endeavors cannot be regarded as ends in themselves. Their value consists not only in providing for humanity's basic needs in housing, food, health care, and the like, but in extending the reach of human abilities. The most important role that economic efforts must play in development lies, therefore, in equipping people and institutions with the means through which they can achieve the real purpose of development: that is, laying foundations for a new social order that can cultivate the limitless potentialities latent in human consciousness. (Chapter V, para. 1, line 3-11)"
http://www.hrusa.org/advocacy/community-faith/bahai1.shtm
"The International Society for Science & Religion was established in 2002 for the purpose of the promotion of education through the support of inter-disciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.
The Society took shape after a four-day conference in Granada, Spain, which until the late 15th century was the center of peaceful discourse between scholars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam."
http://www.issr.org.uk/index.asp
"The purpose is to emphasize the statement that consultation must have for its object the investigation of truth. He who expresses an opinion should not voice it as correct and right but set it forth as a contribution to the consensus of opinion, for the light of reality becomes apparent when two opinions coincide. A spark is produced when flint and steel come together. Man should weigh his opinions with the utmost serenity, calmness and composure. Before expressing his own views he should carefully consider the views already advanced by others. If he finds that a previously expressed opinion is more true and worthy, he should accept it immediately and not willfully hold to an opinion of his own. By this excellent method he endeavors to arrive at unity and truth. Opposition and division are deplorable. It is better then to have the opinion of a wise, sagacious man; otherwise, contradiction and altercation, in which varied and divergent views are presented, will make it necessary for a judicial body to render decision upon the question. Even a majority opinion or consensus may be incorrect. A thousand people may hold to one view and be mistaken, whereas one sagacious person may be right. Therefore, true consultation is spiritual conference in the attitude and atmosphere of love. Members must love each other in the spirit of fellowship in order that good results may be forthcoming. Love and fellowship are the foundation.
The most memorable instance of spiritual consultation was the meeting of the disciples of Jesus Christ upon the mount after His ascension. They said, "Jesus Christ has been crucified, and we have no longer association and intercourse with Him in His physical body; therefore, we must be loyal and faithful to Him, we must be grateful and appreciate Him, for He has raised us from the dead, He made us wise, He has given us eternal life. What shall we do to be faithful to Him?" And so they held council."
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-6-6.html
"The essential meaning of the koinonia embraces concepts conveyed in the English terms community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy. Koinonia can therefore refer in some contexts to a jointly contributed gift. The word appears 19 times in most editions of the Greek New Testament. In the New American Standard Bible, it is translated “fellowship” twelve times, “sharing” three times, and “participation” and “contribution” twice each.
In the New Testament, the basis of communion begins with a joining of Jesus with the community of the faithful. This union is also experienced in practical daily life. The same bonds that link the individual to Jesus also link him or her with other faithful. The New Testament letters describe those bonds as so vital and genuine that a deep level of intimacy can be experienced among the members of a local church.
The first usage of koinonia in the Greek New Testament is found in Acts 2:42-47, where we read a striking description of the common life shared by the early Christian believers in Jerusalem:
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the communion, to the breaking of bread and to prayer...All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need…They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. ”
Communion itself was the breaking of bread and the form of worship and prayer. It was in the breaking of the bread that the Apostles "recognized" Christ and it was in the breaking of bread, called Communion, that they celebrated Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection in obedience to his Last Supper instruction: "Do this in memory of me.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia
"The uses and abuses of numerological mysticism are endlessly fascinating, and it is no surprise that Martin Gardner has come upon the uses made of the number 19 in religion. Because cabalistic numerological meanings can be and have been widely misused as sources for an odd mixture of bizarre beliefs, it is tempting to toss all such uses into a single basket labeled "superstition." One may thus miss the metaphorical possibilities of such symbolism.
It seems to me, in any investigation of such topics, that we would do well to be skeptical of all facile analysis. I am both a skeptic, and a Baha'i. I like to think of myself as combining the possibilities of skeptical reason and of reasonable faith. It is clear from Mr. Gardner's discussion of the Baha'i religion and its early Babi phase, that he may not have a close relationship with a knowledgeable Baha'i who can place the numerological symbolism of Baha'i in context. There are also some errors of fact in his column. I would like to address several points, if I may.
First, I would note that the significance of 19 as a mystical representation of physical creation and of divine "revelation" is not based upon some superstitious magical notion. In some strands of Islamic mysticism, the entire Qur'an (or Koran) is believed to be enfolded in the first chapter of that book. That first chapter is likewise believed to be contained in the first verse. The first verse - bismi'llah al-rahman al-rahim "In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful!" - is composed of 19 letters in Arabic. That first verse is believed to be contained in the letter "B" ( ) at the beginning of the verse, and that letter "B" is believed to be contained in the dot or point beneath the letter. The mystical significance is that the initial "B", the "19 letters of the first verse", the first chapter, and the entire Qur'an were generated from the first point. In the realm of physical creation, the universe began from a single point, generating all the galaxies, stars, solar systems and living organisms. In the realm of spiritual creation, the unknowable divine reality we term God created a first will from which all things were created; the embodiments of that divine will are the inspired personages known as Messengers, Prophets or Manifestations of God, who generate holy books and civilizations, transforming societies according to new principles. The Bab (the "Gate", 1819-1850), was titled "the Primal Point," in honor of that point from which the universe and the Qur'an were generated. I can think of no better illustration of the Baha'i principle of the harmony of true science and true religion than this notion of all created things emerging from a single point. It accords with scientific understanding, and it has a powerful symbolic significance in religious terms.
Mr. Gardner gives a somewhat distorted significance to Baha'i numerological symbolism that very few Baha'is would even recognize. The use of the number 9 is often believed by many non-Baha'is, and some Baha'is, to stand for 9 Manifestations of God (as Mr. Gardner states on p. 18 of his article). In fact, its significance is that 9 is the highest single digit in the decimal system, and thus is seen by Baha'is to "contain" all the other digits. It is a useful metaphor for universality and unity. It is also the numerical equivalent to Baha'u'llah's name in the Arabic system of letter-for-number symbolism.
It is true, as Mr. Gardner notes, that the Baha'i community has nine-member elected institutions at the local, national and international levels. It should be noted, however, that Baha'u'llah has made nine the minimum number of members of these institutions, but they can (and probably will in time) have more members. There is no dogmatic adherence to the membership level of nine. The international council, called the Universal House of Justice, is elected by the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies, of which there are currently 175. The Universal House of Justice has never been elected by a body of 27 "custodians." These "custodians", who were termed Hands of the Cause of God, guided the Baha'i community from 1957 to 1963, between the death of Shoghi Effendi (Guardian of the Baha'i Faith), and the election of the Universal House of Justice. There happened to be 27 of them at the time of the death of Shoghi Effendi, but when the Universal House of Justice was elected, there were fewer.
The calendar devised by the Bab was indeed complex, and numerologically rich. Baha'is confine their use of the calendar to the 19-month annual cycle, with four intercalary days (five in leap years). The other cycles of years and mutiples of years are simply not significant in modern Baha'i usage. Years have cardinal numbers (the current year beginning 21 March 1997 is 154). The Bab stated specifically that his entire religious culture was intended to signify the identity of the expected Messenger. Thus the inclusion of references to 9 and 19 were not so much talismanic or ritualistic or superstitious as they were simply intended to indicate the identity of Baha'u'llah.
Mr. Gardner characterizes the Bab as a "new 'manifestation' of Allah." I have generally found that when Americans use "Allah" in articles relating to religion in the Middle East, it can tend to carry a tone of disparagement, and serves to differentiate Islam from Christianity or at least from Western thinking. "Allah" is the Arabic word for God. If the Baha'i Faith had originated in France, I doubt that articles would refer to someone as a "new 'manifestation' of Dieu." In the Arabic translations of the Christian Bible, the word for God is Allah. The Baha'i sacred texts translated into English, and Baha'is in the West, use the word God. "Allah" is not a name; it signifies a Being Who is called God in English, Dieu in French, Dios in Spanish, and so on.
There are a few other corrections, clarifications and amplifications that I would note. The Bab was executed in 1850, not 1856. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned for more than nine months. He was imprisoned first in Tehran in 1852 for a lengthy period. He was then exiled to Baghdad, Constantinople (Istanbul), Adrianople (Edirne), and finally to the Ottoman penal colony of Akko in Palestine in 1868. In the latter place, he was imprisoned for more than two years in foul and pestilential conditions. When 'Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'u'llah's son, visited North America in 1912, the Baha'i Faith did not spread like wildfire. It certainly gained ground, and was widely appreciated because of 'Abdu'l-Baha's fine qualities. It grew most quickly in its early days in the United States between 1894 and 1900, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The number of Baha'is in the United States is currently about 130,000 - a very small number compared with other religious groups in the United States. This is not the largest group outside Iran. Iran has over 300,000. There are two million Baha'is in India, and communities in the 100,000+ range in a few other countries. The total number of Baha'is worldwide is approaching six million.
Baha'u'llah taught a principle of religious evolution called "progressive revelation." It is the notion that God reveals teachings according to humanity's need in given times and places; that all the world's great religions are part of this overarching process of revealing a single "religion of God"; and that humankind has reached a stage where a universal Messenger to the world is possible. While Baha'is acknowledge Baha'u'llah as that universal Messenger, it is fundamental to Baha'i thinking that religious revelation has not ended, and that in a few centuries there will be yet another revelation through another of God's Manifestations. According to the Baha'i writings, "Religious truth is not absolute but relative."
Joseph Campbell, the renowned scholar of mythology, wrote: "Whenever a myth has been taken literally its sense has been perverted. . . [and] whenever it has been dismissed as a mere priestly fraud or sign of inferior intelligence, truth has slipped out the other door." Baha'is state explicitly and without apology that science and religion must go hand in hand. There is room for mythology and for realism, for poetry and for mathematics, for the metaphorical and the literal, for faith and for skepticism. 'Abdu'l-Baha, when he visited the United States, spoke frequently about science. His unequivocal statement was: "Any religion that is not in accord with established science is superstition." The Babi and Baha'i usage of 9 and 19, while mythological, is not generally taken by Baha'is so literally as to become magical. Yet it is also not dismissed as meaningless superstition. The question is whether the usage of numerological symbols enriches a larger community of people in its understanding of deeper spiritual meanings, or is simply the bizarre distortion of perverse individuals whose intention is to separate and antagonize. My experience is that the Baha'i usage is the former.
I am skeptical of placing all numerological usage in the "superstition" basket. The significance we give to numbers can lend meaning to highly abstract cosmological concepts, such as the Baha'i concept of spiritual and material creation originating from "the first point." Sorting out the wheat from the chaff in such discussions can be daunting, particularly when involving Babism, which is obscure to the general audience. I hope that Mr. Gardner will study some of the more challenging philosophical works by Baha'is regarding science, religion and mysticism."
http://bahai-library.com/essays/nineteen.response.html
“Everybody has seen an image of enfoldment: You fold up a sheet of
paper, turn it into a small packet, make cuts in it, and then unfold
it into a pattern. The parts that were close in the cuts unfold to be
far away. This is like what happens in a hologram. Enfoldment is
really very common in our experience. All the light in this room comes
in so that the entire room is in effect folded into each part. If your
eye looks, the light will be then unfolded by your eye and brain. As
you look through a telescope or a camera, the whole universe of space
and time is enfolded into each part, and that is unfolded to the eye.
With an old-fashioned television set that's not adjusted properly, the
image enfolds into the screen and then can be unfolded by adjustment.”
...
In the book, The Holographic Universe the writer Michael Talbot
integrated Bohm’s vision of two kinds of order with the work of Karl
Pribram, a famed neurophysiologist who also became interested in
holographic photography as a means of explaining the mysteries of
human memory. Talbot also suggests the whole universe is a hologram.
He writes:
"Just as every portion of the hologram contains the image of the
whole, every portion of the universe enfolds the whole. This means
that if we knew how to access it we could find the Andromeda galaxy in
the thumbnail of your left hand. We could also find Cleopatra meeting
Caesar for the first time, for in principle the whole past and
implications for the whole future are also enfolded in each small
region of space and time. Every cell in our body enfolds the entire
cosmos. So does every leaf, every raindrop, every dust mote…"
http://everythingforever.com/
"Yet the Logos is not an origin, a foundation,or telos of truth, but a process of transformation. This is the truth that has emerged from the experience of Fragment 101—‘I have searched out myself. And with notable exceptions it is this divine horizon which eludes modern metaphysical appropriations of Heraclitus (for example where Hegel refiguresthis process as the self-development of the Idea: Being or phusis transfigured into the self-development of the Begriff. In the process, Heraclitus’ uniquely reflexive discourse is lost. In place of a reflexive encounter with his thought,we have a metaphysical narrative of the dialectics of Spirit. And in the light of this we should perhaps redraft Hegel’s maxim to read: ‘There is no thought of Heraclitus which I have incorporated in my Logic.’"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48250930/37/INTERPRETATIONS-OF-THE-LOGOS-CONCEPT-IN-HERACLITUS
"The process of looking back, revising, and going "on some new enlightened steps," is necessary because truths can contain facets of other truths, and truths can be enfolded within other truths, just as fractals are "images of the way things fold and unfold, feeding back into eachother and themselves." The peroratio of Areopagitica thus reiterates the fact that the process of discovering Truth must be as multidimensional and complex as the composition of Truth. As Ali Bulet Cambel maintains, "looking at complexity as a heirarchical sequence implies the evolution of complexity." For Milton, the evolution toward Truth is the evolution of complexity. The process of constructing Truth, though not necessarily linear or even chronological, renders "dissimilitudes" generative and productive, and Milton's emphasis, like that of fractal geometry, is on the process of productivity and change.
The central notion of fractal geometry, that diversity yields multidimensionality, is often also illustrated with images of lightning, root systems, or a tree branching into leaves whose patterns are increasingly intricate but interrelated. Yet, "regardless of the scale of magnification, structure is apparent."
http://tinyurl.com/4v9235e
"Fractals inspire independent and interdependent temporal and spatial actions that each operate as if it were the ‘whole’, a ‘oneness’ in connection and aspiration that allows collaborations to manifest and self-organise according to the individualistic dynamics of time and space. Fractals have a unity of purpose with diversity in action at different scales of focus according to the specific temporal and spatial circumstances."
http://www.soulintheworkplace.com/resources/anztsr_paper2004.pdf
Plotinus:
All shapelessness whose kind admits of pattern and form, as long as it remains outside of Reason and Idea, is ugly by that very isolation from the Divine-Thought. And this is the Absolute Ugly: an ugly thing is something that has not been entirely mastered by pattern, that is by Reason, the Matter not yielding at all points and in all respects to Ideal-Form.
But where the Ideal-Form has entered, it has grouped and coordinated what from a diversity of parts was to become a unity: it has rallied confusion into co-operation: it has made the sum one harmonious coherence: for the Idea is a unity and what it moulds must come to unity as far as multiplicity may.
And on what has thus been compacted to unity, Beauty enthrones itself, giving itself to the parts as to the sum: when it lights on some natural unity, a thing of like parts, then it gives itself to that whole. Thus, for an illustration, there is the beauty, conferred by craftsmanship, of all a house with all its parts, and the beauty which some natural quality may give to a single stone. Ennead (1.6.1)
http://tinyurl.com/4opgqmf
"564. All the religions are revealed for the sake of good fellowship. The fundamentals, the foundations, of all are fellowship, unity and love. The heavenly books were revealed and divine love bestowed to bring about peace. What has man made of religion? He has made it the cause of bloodshed and strife; enmity and hatred. Religion was destined to be a remedy for the sickness of humanity; an illumination for the darkness of uncertainty. Have we then forgotten the divine teachings, cast aside the heavenly books, created imaginary thoughts and illusions and made them the basis of rancor and strife? The Bible commands the practice of peace and justice. God desires love. In the Gospel we find the golden statement that man should be expressive of love even unto his enemy; he should be expressive of love to his ill-wishers; he should be expressive of love to all his fellowmen. He must have an eye to pardon: he must have an eye to benevolence. All the divine books invite men to these teachings. All the divine prophets suffered that man might realize these teachings. Consider what His Holiness Christ endured, how many vicissitudes he underwent, every day tasting a new poison, finally sacrificing his own life, so that the tent of love and concord might be raised over the world of humanity so that this dark world might be invested with divine light. Alas! that all the travail of these holy souls and sanctified prophets should be wasted. The world of humanity is in a stupor of sleep and it cannot grasp the realities. The horizons of the minds are still beclouded and the hearts are occupied with phantasmal longings. We seem never to think of the reason of creation; never to strive to proclaim those principles which enlighten humanity. In the sea of materialism we are sinking and of the Kingdom of God we know nothing. We are not living in accord with those precious teachings of God.
565. Nearly sixty years ago when the horizon of the Orient was in a state of the utmost gloom, warfare existed and there was enmity between the various creeds; darkness brooded over the children of men and foul clouds of ignorance hid the sky -- at such a time His Highness Bahá’u’lláh arose from the horizon of Persia like unto a shining sun. He boldly proclaimed peace, writing to the kings of the earth and calling upon them to arise and assist in the hoisting of this banner. In order to bring peace out of the chaos, he established certain precepts or principles:
Investigation of Truth
566. The first principle Bahá’u’lláh urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” he said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.”
The Oneness of Mankind
567. The second principles of Bahá’u’lláh proclaims the oneness of the human race. He states that humanity constitutes the sheep of God. God is the real shepherd. When this shepherd is compassionate and kind, why should the sheep quarrel amongst themselves? Addressing all humanity, Bahá’u’lláh says, “Ye are the fruits of one tree and the leaves of one branch. All the nations, peoples and tongues are the branches, leaves, blossoms and fruits of this great tree of humanity.” God created all; protects all; provides for all and is kind to all; why should you be unkind? If God had not loved humanity he would not have created it. Creation presupposes love. God is the real father; all are his children. All the creatures are equal in this one family of God save whosoever is more kind, more compassionate -- he is nearer to God.
International Peace
568. The third principles of the religion of Bahá’u’lláh is in regard to international peace. There must be peace between the fatherlands; peace between the religions. In this period of evolution the world of humanity is in danger. Every war is against the good pleasure of the Lord of mankind. Man is the edifice of God. War destroys the divine edifice. Peace is the stay of life; war the cause of death. If an active, actual peace is brought about the human world will attain to the utmost serenity and composure. Wolves will be transformed into lambs; devils into angels and terrors into divine splendors in less than the twinkling of an eye.
Religion must Conform to Science and Reason
569. The fourth principle declares that religion must be in conformity to science and reason. If a religion does not agree with the postulates of science nor accord with the regulations of reason it is a bundle of superstitions; a phantasm of the brain. Science and religion are realities, and if that religion to which we adhere be a reality it must needs conform to the fundamental reality of all things.
Prejudice must be Forever Banished
570. The fifth principle of Bahá’u’lláh is this: that religious, racial, political and patriotic prejudice are the destroyers of human society. As long as these prejudices last the world of humanity will not attain to poise and perfection. As long as these threatening clouds are in the sky of humanity, the sun of reality cannot dawn.
Equality of Sexes
571. The sixth principle of Bahá’u’lláh regards the equality of men and women. The male and female of the human kingdom are equal before God. God is no respecter of gender. Whosoever practices more faith, whosoever practices more humanitarianism is nearer to God; but between the male and female there is no innate difference because they share in common all the faculties. The world of humanity has two wings, one the male; the other the female. When both wings are reinforced with the same impulse the bird will be enabled to wing its flight heavenward to the summit of progress. Woman must be given the same opportunities as man for perfecting herself in the attainments of learning, science and arts. God has created the man and the woman equal, why should she be deprived of exercising the fullest opportunities afforded by life? Why should we ever raise the question of superiority and inferiority? In the animal kingdom the male and female enjoy suffrage and in the vegetable kingdom the plants all enjoy equal suffrage. In the human kingdom, which claims to be the realm of brotherhood and solidarity, why should we raise this question?
The Social Plan
572. The seventh teaching suggests a plan whereby all the individual members may enjoy the utmost comfort and welfare. The degrees of society must be preserved. The farmer will continue to till the soil, the artist pursue his art, the banker to finance the nation. An army has need of its general, captain, and private soldiers. The degrees varying with the pursuits are essential. But in this Bahá’í plan there is no class hatred. Each is to be protected and each individual member of the body politic is to live in the greatest comfort and happiness. Work is to be provided for all and there will be no needy ones seen in the streets.
The Parliament of Man
573. The eighth principle declares that there must needs be established the parliament of man or court of last appeals for international questions. The members of this arbitral court of justice will be representatives of all the nations. In each nation the members must be ratified by the government and the king or ruler, and this international parliament will be under the protection of the world of humanity. In it all international difficulties will be settled.
Universal Education
574. The ninth admonition is in regard to education. All the children must be educated so that there will not remain one single individual without an education. In cases of inability on the part of the parents through sickness, death, etc., the state must educate the child. In addition to this widespread education, each child must be taught a profession or trade so that each individual member of the body politic will be enabled to earn his own living and at the same time serve the community. Work done in the spirit of service is worship. From this universal system of education misunderstandings will be expelled from amongst the children of men.
Universal Language
575. The tenth principles is the establishment of a universal language so that we shall not have to acquire so many languages in the future. In the schools they will study two, the mother tongue and the international auxiliary language. The use of an international auxiliary language will become a great means of dispelling the differences between nations.
576. There are many other teachings. I have given you but a few. Praise be to God! that day by day we are advancing and every day we see some new blessing descending. Let all of us render thanksgiving to our generous Lord that He may bless our eyes with sight and give unto our hearts understanding. May we become resuscitated with the breath of the Holy Spirit. May we be enabled to leave behind the world of matter in beholding the bounties of God. The divine table is spread, the heavenly illumination is all-encircling; eternal life is provided for all; divine food is prepared for all! Therefore let us practice the divine essence of love and love each other from our very hearts and souls so that the East and West shall embrace each other and realize that all are the sheep of God. God is the good shepherd -- then shall we gather under the tabernacle of His mercy!
Clifton, England
January 16, 1913.
...
608. As to the coming of the Great Master. His appearance is dependent upon the realization of certain conditions. Investigate the reality, and in whomsoever those conditions are fulfilled, know ye of a certainty that He is the Great Master.
First. The Great Master will be the educator of the world of humanity.
Second. His teachings must be universal and confer illumination upon mankind.
Third. His knowledge must be innate and spontaneous, and not acquired knowledge.
Fourth. He must answer the questions of all the sages, solve all the difficult problems of humanity, and be able to withstand all the persecutions and sufferings heaped upon Him.
Fifth. He must be a joy-bringer and the herald of the Kingdom of happiness.
Sixth. His knowledge must be infinite and His wisdom all-comprehensive.
Eighth. Sorrows and tribulations must not vex Him. His courage and conviction must be godlike. Day by day, He must become firmer and more zealous.
Ninth. He must be the establisher of universal civilization, the unifier of religions, the standard-bearer of universal peace and the embodiment of all the highest and noblest virtues of the world of humanity.
Wherever you find these conditions realized in a human temple, turn to Him for guidance and illumination.
Theosophical Society
Budha Pesth
April 12, 1913.
...
" 683. Every subject presented to a thoughtful audience must be supported by rational proofs and logical arguments. Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense-perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration. That is to say there are four criterions or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions.
We will first consider the criterion of the senses. This is a standard still held to by the materialistic philosophers of the world. They believe that whatever is perceptible to the senses is a verity, a certainty, and without doubt existent. For example they say “here is a lamp which you see, and because it is perceptible to the sense of sight you cannot doubt its existence. There is a tree; your sense of vision assures you of its reality, which is beyond question. This is a man; you see that he is a man -- therefore he exists.” In a word, everything confirmed by the sense is assumed to be as undoubted and unquestioned as the product of five multiplied by five: it cannot be twenty-six nor less than twenty-five. Consequently the materialistic philosophers consider the criterion of the senses to be first and foremost.
But in the estimation of the divine philosophers, this proof and assurance is not reliable; nay, rather, they deem the standard of the senses to be false because it is imperfect. Sight, for instance, is one of the most important of the senses, yet it is subject to many aberrations and inaccuracies. The eye sees the mirage as a body of water -- regards images in the mirror as realities when they are but reflections. A man sailing upon the river imagines that objects upon the shore are moving, whereas he is in motion and they are stationary. To the eye, the earth appears fixed while the sun and stars revolve about it. As a matter of fact the heavenly orbs are stationary and the earth turning upon its axis. The colossal suns, planets and constellations which shine in the heavens appear small, nay infinitesimal to human vision, whereas in reality they are vastly greater than the earth in dimension and volume. A whirling spark appears to the sight as a circle of fire. There are numberless instances of this kind which show the error and inaccuracy of the senses. Therefore the divine philosophers have considered this standard of judgment to be defective and unreliable.
The second criterion is that of the intellect. The ancient philosophers in particular considered the intellect to be the most important agency of judgment. Among the wise men of Greece, Rome, Persia and Egypt, the criterion of true proof was reason. They held that every matter submitted to the reasoning faculty could be proved true or false, and must be accepted or rejected accordingly. But in the estimation of the people of insight this criterion is likewise defective and unreliable, for these same philosophers who held to reason or intellect as the standard of human judgment have differed widely among themselves upon every subject of investigation. The statements of the Greek philosophers are contradictory to the conclusions of the Persian sages. Even among the Greek philosophers themselves there is continual variance and lack of agreement upon any given subject. Great difference of opinion also prevailed between the wise men of Greece and Rome. Therefore, if the criterion of reason or intellect constituted a correct and infallible standard of judgment, those who tested and applied it should have arrived at the same conclusions. As they differ and are contradictory in conclusions, it is an evidence that the method and standard of test must have been faulty and insufficient.
The third criterion or standard of proof is traditional or scriptural, namely that every statement or conclusion should be supported by traditions recorded in certain religious books. When we come to consider even the Holy Books -- the Books of God -- we are led to ask: “Who understands these books? By what authority of explanation may these books be understood?” It must be the authority of human reason, and if reason or intellect finds itself incapable of explaining certain questions, or if the possessors of intellect contradict each other in the interpretation of traditions, how can such a criterion be relied upon for accurate conclusions?
The fourth standard is that of inspiration. In past centuries many philosophers have claimed illumination or revelation, prefacing their statements by the announcement that “this subject has been revealed through me,” or “thus do I speak by inspiration.” Of this class were the philosophers of the Illuminati. Inspirations are the prompting or susceptibilities of the human heart. The prompting of the heart are sometimes satanic. How are we to differentiate them? How are we to tell whether a given statement is an inspiration and prompting of the heart through the Merciful assistance or through the satanic agency?
Consequently it has become evident that the four criterions or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions are faulty and inaccurate. All of them are liable to mistake and error in conclusions. But a statement presented to the mind accompanied by proofs which the senses can accept, which the faculty of reason can accept, which is in accord with traditional authority and sanctioned by the promptings of the heart, can be adjudged and relied upon as perfectly correct, for it has been proved and tested by all the standards of judgment and found to be complete. When we apply but one test there are possibilities of mistake. This is self-evident and manifest."
http://bahai-library.com/compilations/bahai.scriptures/7.html
"1) The CTMU is a theory of reality as mind, not "the universe as a computer". The latter analogy was given advisedly as a conceptual aid and as a means by which to apply mechanistic and computational formalisms to the model. It does not encapsulate the whole theory.
2) The components of the CTMU are not all new. The idea as a whole is new. Technically, there are no new ideas, just new combinations of old components. The CTMU is more deeply rooted in analytical philosophy and the foundations of mathematics than in practical computer science, which nonetheless plays a large part in it.
3) I know of the late physicist Richard Feynman. But who is Ed Fredkin, and where can his ideas be sampled? If Chris means to give him credit for the CTMU, where are the applications? Given the current mania for computer simulation of natural processes, it would be incredible if no writers or scientists had latched onto the general notion of a computational universe. However, we don't give those who make mathematical conjectures automatic credit for proving (hem as theorems, we don't give Michelson, Morley, or Lorentz credit for Special Relativity, and we don't give Jules Verne credit for the deep-sea submarine. Credit is reserved for those who display greater understanding of the ideas in question--for example, by application to problems like Newcomb's paradox, quantum wave-function collapse, and logical and empirical induction. Those are the rules; I'm only following them.
4) Anyone who thinks I'm an "incautious thinker" has a responsibility to point out some specific flaw in my reasoning. No matter how "general" my reasoning is, it is either right or wrong, and if it is wrong, then it contains an identifiable flaw. This group has had a standing invitation to locate such a flaw, but has not done so. For example, if my reasoning is too general to solve the (very general, but very important) problems I claim to have solved with it, such a fact is demonstrable; my claim could be falsified.
5) The CTMU is a theory of the codeterminate relationship between reality and the intellect. The empirical evidence offered so far includes the many experiments now confirming EPR-Bell quantum non-locality and Heisenberg uncertainty. These are hard, physical facts which were fundamentally unexplained prior to the CTMU. The logical evidence presented in favor of the CTMU has been nothing short of overwhelming. Resolutions of paradoxes are evidence for logical theories as surely as predictions and explanations of anomalies are evidence for physical theories. Because physical theories necessarily have logical structures, logic has priority. A single unresolved paradox of the general form x = -x invalidates the entire logical system containing it, and thus every semantical theory formulated within that system; it renders determinations of truth and falsity impossible for every statement the system and theory contain. In principle, I can thus claim every confirming instance of every logically consistent scientific theory as evidence of the CTMU, making it the best-confirmed theory in history. In point of fact. this is precisely what I've already done.
6) Even if CTMU were a definition rather than a theory, definitions are necessary components of theories. There is an inclusory relation, not a total distinction, between the two. In fact, the CTMU can be characterized as a THEORY of how the mind DEFINES and IS DEFINED by the universe. If you must, re-read Noesis 46 and 47.
...
"Anything less is just theology" is a statement which I find impenetrable. Your past experiences and disappointments with what has traditionally passed for theology have nothing whatever to do with the CTMU. which realizes Kant's dream of a "theology" derivable from the union of mind and reality. If you mean to challenge that, you'd better gear up for a whole new game. CTMU "theology" owes nothing to the history of religion, and whatever arguments you use against it had better not either. That includes any idea you might have that the theological implications of the CTMU arc "unverifiable" or mere "wishful thinking"."
http://www.megasociety.com/noesis/58/05.htm
"Offering one of the first initiatives of reconciliation between the analytic and continental philosophical traditions, this important collection of original essays offers a new perspective on Hegel’s philosophy within the context of some of the themes central to current discussion.
Placing Hegel at the intersection between continental and analytic philosophy, the book presents an indispensible guide to the most current contemporary debates and to an emerging topic within Hegel studies. Analytic philosophy has long been held to consider Hegel its bête noir. Yet in fact Hegel and analytic philosophy converge on some crucial issues, which suggests that, although analytic philosophy initially declared its anti-Hegelianism, it is in fact nourished of Hegelian themes and defended through Hegelian concepts.
The essays in this volume address this apparent paradox, offering ‘analytic’ readings of Hegel, Hegelian readings of the analytic tradition, historical explorations of Hegel’s confrontation with Kant and of the analytic tradition’s debt to Hegel, and new interpretations of Hegelian texts."
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=134365&SearchType=Basic
"To perceive one and the same reality, human beings need a kind of "absolute knowledge" wired into their minds and nervous systems. The structure and physiology of their brains, nerves and sense organs provide them, at least in part, with elementary cognitive and perceptual categories and relationships in terms of which to apprehend the world. This "absolute" kind of knowledge is what compels the perceptions and logical inferences of any number of percipients to be mutually consistent, and to remain consistent over time and space. Without the absoluteness of such knowledge - without its universality and invariance - we could not share a common reality; our minds and senses would lie and bicker without respite, precipitating us into mental and sensory chaos. Time and space, mind and matter, would melt back into the haze of undifferentiated potential from which the universe is born.
Given the fact that absolute knowledge is a requisite of our collective ability to sustain a perceptually consistent universe, it is nothing short of astonishing that there are people who react with incredulity or derision at any mention of its possible existence. Their attitude seems to be that the very idea smacks of "hubris", being nothing but an empty pretense exceeding the capacity of the small and overly-challenged human mind. The truth, however, is that hubris is nowhere more evident than among those holding irrational opinions in contempt of logic, and denying the existence of absolute knowledge is a case in point. In fact, the entire history of philosophy and science can be characterized as an undying quest for absolute knowledge...a timeless attempt to comprehensively extend the a priori and analytical into the realm of the apparently a posteriori and synthetic. This quest includes the efforts of researchers from many fields, from physics and cosmology to philosophy and computer science.
The Holy Grail of this quest is known as the TOE, or Theory of Everything. A TOE purports to be absolute truth by an implicit reductio ad absurdum: if it does not constitute absolute truth, then its truth can be relativized to a partial context within reality at large, in which case it is not a theory of everything. Thus, if a TOE exists, it falls squarely under the heading of absolute knowledge. But unfortunately, the proper method for constructing such a theory has not been entirely obvious, particularly to theorists steeped in the ambiguities and paradoxes of four centuries of post-Cartesian science and philosophy. As science has advanced and philosophy has wearily tried to keep pace, their once-stentorian claims of absolute truth have been all but extinguished, and the mainstream search for a TOE has lately been pursued without a clear understanding of what is being sought.
The apparent absence of a TOE notwithstanding, has any kind of absolute knowledge ever been scientifically formulated? Yes, in the form of logical tautologies. A tautology is a sentential relation, i.e. a formula consisting of variables and logical connectives, with the property that it is true for all possible assignments of Boolean truth values (true or false) to its variables. For example, the statement "if x is a sentence, then either x or not-x (but not both) must be true" is a tautology because no matter which truth values are consistently applied to x and not-x, the statement is unequivocally true. Indeed, tautologies comprise the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic itself, and because all meaningful theories necessarily conform to 2-valued logic, define the truth concept for all of the sciences. From mathematics and physics to biology and psychology, logical tautologies reign supreme and inviolable.
That a tautology constitutes absolute truth can be proven as follows. First, logic is absolute within any system for which (a) the complementary truth values T (true) and F (false) correspond to systemic inclusion and exclusion, a semantic necessity without which meaningful reference is impossible; and (b) lesser predicates and their complements equal subsystemic inclusion and exclusion. Because a tautology is an axiom of 2-valued logic, violating it disrupts the T/F distinction and results in the corruption of informational boundaries between perceptual and cognitive predicates recognized or applied in the system, as well as between each predicate and its negation. Thus, the observable fact that perceptual boundaries are intact across reality at large implies that no tautology within its syntax, or set of structural and functional rules, has been violated; indeed, if such a tautology ever were violated, then reality would disintegrate due to corruption of the informational boundaries which define it. So a tautology is "absolute truth" not only with respect to logic, but with respect to reality at large."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/OnAbsoluteTruth.html
"The Idea, the Absolute, God, are to be regarded as strictly synonymous terms used by Hegel interchangeably, and with no shade of distinction in their meaning. In the exposition of Hegel’s system be endeavors to show that the world of knowledge unfolds by the inner constraint of its own dialectic from the simplest beginnings through more arid more complex stages until it reaches complete fulfilment in the all-embracing Absolute. But though the Absolute is the consummation of the process as a whole, nevertheless the Absolute, as the creative and sustaining principle of reason itself must be both the beginning of the process, and must underlie every succeeding stage of the process as well. Therefore every crosssection, as it were, of this process of evolution reveals some phase of the Absolute, incomplete it is true, and, therefore, if taken by itself misleading, but so far forth it remains an unmistakable manifestation of the divine reason which is its ground and justification, Thus Hegel defines the Absolute as the essence of all being in general; as cause, and as law in the physical universe; as consciousness, purpose, beneficence, justice, etc., in the realm of mind. From this point of view Hegel’s system may be characterized is the progressive revelation of God. Hegel’s method of exposition in general may be summarized, therefore, as an attempt to show the various stages of development in the manifestation of the principle of reason as a growing revelation of the Absolute in such a manner that every stage by itself is partial and therefore involves its own contradiction; but that these contradictions contain, nevertheless, common elements by which, from a higher point of view, obey maybe reconciled and combined."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48503243/Hegel-s-Logic-an-Essay-in-Interpretation
"Like many categorical constructions, the terminal object is fixed only up to isomorphism: any two one- element sets are isomorphic, and any of them can serve as a terminal object. Nonetheless, one speaksof the terminal object."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.4003
German Idealist Foundations of Durkheim's Sociology and Teleology of Knowledge
This article explores Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge with a focus on his teleological theory that human thought undergoes a process of “universalization” which reaches toward an apprehension of an objective cosmopolitan “truth,” and compares Durkheim’s epistemological concepts to those of Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel.
Introduction
To appropriate Emile Durkheim’s ideas to positivist and synchronic analyses of social integration, sociologists tend to minimize or ignore the idealistic and metaphysical underpinnings of his work (Knapp, 1985: 1-2). Durkheim’s relationship to German idealist traditions consequently receives little attention. Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge, however, is grounded in Kantian concepts and problems. In Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Durkheim presents his concept of the collective representation as a solution to a basic problem of Kantian epistemology – the problem of the origin of the categories of understanding. In the conclusion of Elementary Forms, Durkheim also presents a concept of universalization which, like the historical outlook of Kant’s Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View, envisions a progressive integration of relations among societies. For Durkheim, as for Kant, this process is conditional to the efflorescence of human reason; for Durkheim, an objective cosmopolitan “truth” is unveiled through the process of universalization (1965: 493). Kant’s ethics are as pertinent to Durkheim’s epistemology as Kant’s historical teleology; Durkheim conceives of collective representations as bases for rules of conduct which are felt by people, in effect, as categorical imperatives, compelling people to act in accord with the collective moral exigencies of society. For Durkheim, the moral authority of collective representations is essential to social consensus and a stable social order. Durkheim’s concepts of the collective representation and the process of universalization, then, correspond to Kantian concepts, and Durkheim acknowledges the relevance of Kantian philosophy to his epistemological and moral considerations (1965: 494).
Kant’s influence on Durkheim is traced to the French neo-Kantians, Emile Boutroux and Octave Hamelin, but principally to Charles Renouvier, who rejected Kant’s a priori transcendental deduction of the categories. Renouvier argued that the categories are derived from experience and that will and moral choice are implicated in their construction. Renouvier also rejected Kant’s distinction between phenomena and numina; the phenomenal and the real are, for Renouvier, virtually identical. Further, he rejected Kant’s distinction between speculative and practical reason, or between knowledge and moral belief. As Renouvier wrote, “La sé paration kantienne de la raison spé culative et de la raison pratique est une illusion” (1906: 164). For Renouvier, all knowledge depends upon a “will to believe.” By elaborating upon these various arguments, Durkheim concluded that the categories are socially determined and that they are objective “presentations” (Lukes, 1973: 54-58). Consistent with Renouvier’s conflation of speculative and practical reason, Durkheim also concluded that collective representations are bases for ethics as well as cognition.
G. W. F. Hegel’s monumental system, in which material nature is conceptualized as an objectification of infinite reason, manifests a teleological vision of history (1956, 1977). Consistent with many Western metaphysical cosmologies dating back to ancient Greece, it tells a story of the descent of spirit from and return back to its intrinsic perfection. In Hegel’s view, the development of human thought in history manifests a progressive self-realization of the essential unity of absolute spirit or Geist. In the self-realization of Geist in human consciousness, phenomenal contradictions or tensions are progressively reconciled in higher syntheses of thought. The notion that human history moves toward a reconciliation of tensions appeared earlier in Kant’s concept of the “cosmopolitan condition” and reappears in Durkheim’s concept of universalization. Although Durkheim ostensibly repudiated theories which reconstruct the world as it should be, in accord with Renouvier’s rejection of deterministic doctrines of progress (Gunn, 1922: 185-204; Logue, 1993: 100-116), teleological imperatives of human history are incorporated into Durkheim’s epistemology beneath a social scientific guise.
http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol003.001/tekiner.html
The Logic of Life: Hegel’s Philosophical Defense of Teleological Explanation of Living Beings
"Hegel accords great philosophical importance to Kant's discussions of teleology and biology in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, and yet also disagrees with Kant's central conclusions there. More specifically, Kant argues for a generally skeptical view of teleological explanation of living beings; Hegel responds that Kant should instead defend such explanation - and that the defense of teleology should have led Kant to different conclusions throughout his theoretical philosophy. To be sure, Kant's view is not entirely skeptical. Kant actually argues that we necessarily conceive of living beings in irreducibly teleological terms. But we cannot know that living beings themselves truly satisfy the implications of teleological judgment. We cannot know whether teleology truly explains anything in biological cases. And this skepticism requires Kant to carefully limit his positive claims about teleology: it is subjectively necessary we conceive of living beings in teleological terms, and this conception is legitimate when employed not as an explanation but as a heuristic aid for scientific inquiry. Hegel's response in his Science of Logic and Encyclopedia is by no means entirely critical. Hegel frequently praises a distinction central to Kant's analysis of teleology - the distinction between “external” and “inner purposiveness” [innere Zweckmä Bigkeit]. On the one hand, there is the concept of a complex system, like a pocketwatch with many parts, which satisfies the implications of teleological judgment in virtue of the work of a separate or external intelligent designer. Here the parts of the system are means to the external ends or purposes [Zwecke] of a designer (e.g., reliable indication of the time)."
http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol9780521831673_CCOL9780521831673A014
"Along with J. G. Fichte and F. W. J. von Schelling, Hegel (1770–1831) belongs to the period of German idealism” in the decades following Kant. The most systematic of the post-Kantian idealists, Hegel attempted, throughout his published writings as well as in his lectures, to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic ontology from a “logical” starting point. He is perhaps most well-known for his teleological account of history, an account which was later taken over by Marx and “inverted” into a materialist theory of an historical development culminating in communism. For most of the twentieth century, the “logical” side of Hegel's thought had been largely forgotten, but his political and social philosophy continued to find interest and support. However, since the 1970s, a degree of more general philosophical interest in Hegel's systematic thought has also been revived."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
Hegel's assimilation of Aristotelian teleology: Hegel after Darwin
"Philosophical theories seldom get conclusively refuted. The notion that nature is goal directed, however, seems a likely candidate for polite dismissal. In the dissertation I examine what Aristotle does, and does not, mean by teleology. I then carefully demonstrate that Hegel specifically and self-consciously incorporates Aristotle's model of teleology by invoking purposive structures that yield beings of ever greater unity and complexity that are irreducible to their lower conditional levels. At this point, I examine the rejection of teleological explanations by Darwin and some Neo-Darwinians. In particular, I examine the mechanistic model often employed by biologists that reduces the living organism to a mere vehicle for the gene to make more copies of itself. Such models, I argue, are not philosophically innocent, and they buy their scientific respectability only with a metaphysical purchase. The upshot of this is that a metaphysics of some sort is unavoidable. Our choice then, is not between a respectable empiricism and an indecent metaphysics, but rather it is between good and bad metaphysics, each with different commitments and explanatory power. At this juncture, I canvass the biologists and philosophers of biology who accept some form of ineliminable teleological and holistic structures in biological organisms. In the final section I attempt to show that a hierarchical scale of forms in nature is still a viable idea and that analysis must proceed in terms of overlapping wholes and not reductive parts. I argue here that Hegel has given us the best idea of what such a system would look like. In other words, with some modifications, especially concerning the origin of Geist, we can be respectable Hegelians today, despite the apparent wholesale scientific rejection of teleology."
http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations/AAI9717059/
"Hegel differentiates between external and internal teleology.
The "Teleology" chapter of the SL gives a detailed account of external
teleology. Basically external teleology has to do with Aristotle's four
causes. So, for instance, if you want to build a house, then the materials
used are the material cause, the workers and their tools are the efficient
cause, the architectural plans are the formal cause, and the house itself is
the final cause.
With internal teleology the formal cause and the final cause are the same.
Internal teleology takes three forms as set out in "Section Three: The Idea"
of the SL.
The first is organic life in which the form of an organic being is
immediately given to it. This being's purpose, its final cause, is to
maintain, preserve and reproduce this form.
The second kind of internal teleology, where the final cause is the formal
cause, has to do with the true and the good--with Spirit's efforts in the
world. In this case the form is not immediately given but is, rather, made
or posited by Spirit.
And finally I'll just quote:
"Thirdly, spirit cognizes the Idea as its absolute truth, as the truth that
is in and for itself; the infinite Idea in which cognition and action [the
true and the good] are equalized, and which is the absolute knowledge of
itself." (SL page 760)
It's hard to tell exactly what all that means. But perhaps in this third
case not only is the final cause the formal cause but also, one might say,
there are no material or efficient causes. Or perhaps better, maybe the
final cause is not only the formal cause but also the material and efficient
causes as well.
And perhaps also, if the second idea has to do with truth and goodness, then
perhaps the third idea, the Absolute Idea, in which truth and goodness are
equalized, could be called "beauty". Usually, at any rate, truth, goodness
and beauty go together. It is odd that Hegel refers only to the first two
and not the third. Of course if the Absolute Idea is "Beauty" then that
would put Hegel's philosophy in line with that of many of his contemporaries
such as Schiller and many others."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hegel/message/3468
"This book consists in a series of chapters that trace the development of a distinctively Hegelian approach to metaphysics and certain central metaphysical issues. It begins with an introduction that considers this theme as a whole, followed by a section of chapters on Hegel himself, concerning his idealism, his theory of truth, and his claim concerning the rationality of the actual in the Preface to the Philosophy of Right. The following chapters then focus on the way in which certain key metaphysical ideas in Hegel's system, such as his doctrine of the ‘concrete universal’ and his conception of truth, relate to the thinking of the British Idealists on the one hand, and the American Pragmatists on the other. The chapter concludes by examining a critique of Hegel's metaphysical position from the perspective of the ‘continental’ tradition, and in particular Gilles Deleuze."
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/9780199239108/toc.html
"Absolute idealism is an ontologically monistic philosophy attributed to G. W. F. Hegel. It is Hegel's account of how being is ultimately comprehensible as an all-inclusive whole. Hegel asserted that in order for the thinking subject (human reason or consciousness) to be able to know its object (the world) at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and being. Otherwise, the subject would never have access to the object and we would have no certainty about any of our knowledge of the world. To account for the differences between thought and being, however, as well as the richness and diversity of each, the unity of thought and being cannot be expressed as the abstract identity "A=A". Absolute idealism is the attempt to demonstrate this unity using a new "speculative" philosophical method, which requires new concepts and rules of logic. According to Hegel, the absolute ground of being is essentially a dynamic, historical process of necessity that unfolds by itself in the form of increasingly complex forms of being and of consciousness, ultimately giving rise to all the diversity in the world and in the concepts with which we think and make sense of the world.
The absolute idealist position was dominant in the nineteenth century in Germany, Britain, and, much less so, the United States. The absolute idealist position should be distinguished from the subjective idealism of Berkeley, the transcendental idealism of Kant, or the idealisms of Fichte and Schelling.
...
The aim of Hegel was to show that we do not relate to the world as if it is other from us, but that we continue to find ourselves back into that world. With the realisation that both the mind and the world are ordered according to the same rational principles, our access to the world has been made secure, a security which was lost after Kant proclaimed the 'Ding an sich' to be ultimately inaccessible.
...
Schopenhauer noted that Hegel created his absolute idealism after Kant had discredited all proofs of God's existence. The Absolute is a non-personal substitute for the concept of God. It is the one subject that perceives the universe as one object. Individuals share in parts of this perception. Since the universe exists as an idea in the mind of the Absolute, absolute idealism copies Spinoza's panentheism in which everything is in God or Nature.
...
Particularly the works of William James and F.C.S. Schiller, both founding members of pragmatism, made lifelong assaults on Absolute Idealism. James was particularly concerned with the monism that Absolute Idealism engenders, and the consequences this has for the problem of evil, free will, and moral action. Schiller rather attacked Absolute Idealism for being too disconnected with our practical lives, and that its proponents failed to realize that thought is merely a tool for action rather than for making discoveries about an abstract world that fails to have any impact on us.
Absolute idealism has greatly altered the philosophical landscape. Paradoxically, (though, from a Hegelian point of view, maybe not paradoxically at all) this influence is mostly felt in the strong opposition it engendered. Both logical positivism and grew out of a rebellion against Hegelianism prevalent in England during the 19th century. Continental phenomenology, existentialism and post-modernism also seek to 'free themselves from Hegel's thought'. Martin Heidegger, one of the leading figures of Continental philosophy in the 20th century, sought to distance himself from Hegel's work. One of Heidegger's philosophical themes was "overcoming metaphysics"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism
"Though much more variegated than some commentaries would seem to suggest, British idealism was generally marked by several broad tendencies: a belief in an Absolute (a single all-encompassing reality that in some sense formed a coherent and all-inclusive system); the assignment of a high place to reason as both the faculty by which the Absolute's structure is grasped and as that structure itself; and a fundamental unwillingness to accept a dichotomy between thought and object, reality consisting of thought-and-object together in a strongly coherent unity.
...
On its political side, the British idealists were largely concerned to refute what they regarded as a brittle and "atomistic" form of individualism, as espoused by e.g. Herbert Spencer. In their view, humans are fundamentally social beings in a manner and to a degree not adequately recognized by Spencer and his followers. The British Idealists did not, however, reify the State in the manner that Hegel apparently did; Green in particular spoke of the individual as the sole locus of value and contended that the State's existence was justified only insofar as it contributed to the realization of value in the lives of individual persons.
The hold of British idealism in the United Kingdom weakened when Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, who were educated in the British idealist tradition, turned against it. Moore in particular delivered what quickly came to be accepted as conclusive arguments against Idealism. At that point British philosophy in general revolted once more against metaphysics in general. The later work of R. G. Collingwood was a relatively isolated exception."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism
"The fame of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) is partly due to his discovery in 1901 of the paradox named after him. No one who, like me, feels some kind of Platonic love of logic and mathematics, can be wholly indifferent to it. The challenge has been and still is, to lay bare its root and to find as natural a solution as possible.
Indeed, Russell never disqualified the rather complicated way out he proposed together with Whitehead in Principia Mathematica (1910-1913), namely the Ramified Theory of Types. But, as appears from his book My Philosophical Development (1959), that solution could not completely satisfy him, at least not emotionally. In the short, but remarkable chapter The Retreat from Pythagoras (which of course is also meant to be a retreat from Plato), the 87 years old Russell says:
Mathematics has ceased to seem to me non-human in its subject-matter. I have come to believe, though very reluctantly, that it consists of tautologies. I fear that, to a mind of sufficient intellectual power, the whole of mathematics would appear trivial, as trivial as the statement that a four-footed animal is an animal. (…) The solution of the contradictions mentioned in an earlier chapter (i.e. the different version of the paradox, H.B.) seemed to be only possible by adopting theories which might be true but were not beautiful. I felt about the contradictions much as an earnest Catholic must feel about wicked Popes.
An historical approach to the paradox may – that is the main point I hope to make clear – be valuable to a systematic discussion about its nature. Consequently, my lecture will consist of two parts. Firstly I’ll discuss the two main turning points in Russell’s philosophical development: a) the great revolutionary change from neo-Hegelian holistic idealism to unrestricted Platonic realism and pluralism, that took place about 1899 and b) the discovery in 1901, of the contradiction on occasion of an attempt to refute what at first seemed to be a minor point in Cantor’s mathematical theory of the infinite. I hope to show the ‘internal relation’ between these two landmarks. They demarcate two sides of one and the same thing, namely the beginning and the end of the short-lived, but very influential “intellectual honeymoon” of Russell’s unrestricted Platonism. Secondly, on the base of this historical analysis, I’ll put forward some suggestions concerning the root and possible solution of the paradox.
0.2 Perspective
Before going into these two parts, I want to say something about the rather peculiar philosophical outlook that is presupposed in my attempt to combine, of course without confusing them, historical exegesis with criticism. It may be summarized in the following two points:
a) Oppositions are of general importance. They play a prominent role everywhere, both in human life and outside it, both in language, in human relationships, in human conflicts, in personal development, in society, history, art, religion, philosophy, all the sciences (including logic and mathematics) and in their subject matter. Because they are to be found everywhere, it is impossible to define oppositions as such or to reduce them to something else. A vantage point outside their realm cannot be found. For if it existed, it would be, in virtue of that, be opposed to oppositions.
b) We are acquainted with them. Every child knows that great is opposed to small, warm to cold, even to odd, inside to outside and yes to no. Nevertheless it is difficult to understand oppositions as such, especially those we are involved in. This difficulty is subjective. There is nothing problematic about oppositions themselves. The problem is ours. And its source is our unwillingness to acknowledge it. That is the main point of my philosophical orientation: I am opposed to the widespread view that as a matter of course we do understand oppositions.
As far as I can see, this illusion is mainly due to ignoring that antipoles are counterparts. As such, i.e. in virtue of their being opposed to each other, they must have something in common. Making their opposition possible, this something cannot be outside the antipoles. For example: the journey from A to B is opposed to the journey from B to A; even more so if the very same road is followed. But the different journeys cannot be opposed to each other, unless the road is such, that it can be travelled in two opposite directions. Or, to give a similar example, heads and tails are opposite sides of one and the same coin. There must be something, different from the two sides, that has them both. Nevertheless, it is impossible to isolate the coin from the two sides it has.
...
2.5 Reflexivity as an internal opposition
In ordinary language, reflexivity appears as a predicate containing words like “re”, “auto”, "sui", or “self”. In mathematical and logical symbolism, reflexivity appears in a different way: as a repetition of the same symbol, such as “a”, in “aRa” or “F” in “F({x׀Fx})”. That the same symbol occurs twice, is made possible by its relation to one or more other symbols that are not repeated. The symbol “a” stands to the left and to the right of “R”, the symbol “F” outside and inside the brackets and the bound variable.
This spatial difference in position vis-à-vis the symbol that itself is not repeated, also means something. It means an internal opposition, a formal difference that is not annihilated by numerical identity. When someone writes a book about someone else’s life, there is an evident difference between the describer and the described. But when someone writes an autobiography, this difference remains, although the describer and the described happen to be one and the same person. Reflexivity can only be fully acknowledged , if it is accepted that, although it is impossible for something or someone to be something or someone else, it is possible for something or someone to be different from itself. Russell’s final refusal to accept reflexivity is intimately connected with his refusal to accept such an internal difference.
In connection with the paradox, it is quite important to acknowledge that in symbolism reflexivity is expressed by one and the same symbol, occurring twice in different positions relative to a symbol symbolizing that in which the reflexive is reflexive. It is important because it forbids imitating ordinary language in trying to express reflexivity (or its opposite) by means of a one-place predicate. As soon as this is accepted, it is, as far as I can see, impossible to symbolically express the paradox.
Such an analysis is based on the Aristotelian principle that the more universal only exists in its less universal specifications. A ‘generic’ universal such as ‘coloured’ is supposed to have no other being than being embodied in specific ways of being coloured, such as being red. This principle is denied by Russell. See Russell 1903 a, p.138: “Redness, in fact, appears to be (when taken to mean one particular shade) a simple concept, which, although it implies colours, does not contain colour as a constituent.”"
http://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/Boukema2.pdf
"The word tautology was used by the ancient Greeks to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice, a pejorative meaning that is still used for rhetorical tautologies. Between 1800 and 1940, the word gained new meaning in logic, and is currently used in mathematical logic to denote a certain type of propositional formula, without the pejorative connotations it originally possessed.
In 1800, Immanuel Kant wrote in his book Logic:
"The identity of concepts in analytical judgments can be either explicit (explicita) or non-explicit (implicita). In the former case analytic propositions are tautological."
Here analytic proposition refers to an analytic truth, a statement in natural language that is true solely because of the terms involved.
In 1884, Gottlob Frege proposed in his Grundlagen that a truth is analytic exactly if it can be derived using logic. But he maintained a distinction between analytic truths (those true based only on the meanings of their terms) and tautologies (statements devoid of content).
In 1921, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed that statements that can be deduced by logical deduction are tautological (empty of meaning) as well as being analytic truths. Henri Poincaré had made similar remarks in Science and Hypothesis in 1905. Although Bertrand Russell at first argued against these remarks by Wittgenstein and Poincaré, claiming that mathematical truths were not only non-tautologous but were synthetic, he later spoke in favor of them in 1918:
"Everything that is a proposition of logic has got to be in some sense or the other like a tautology. It has got to be something that has some peculiar quality, which I do not know how to define, that belongs to logical propositions but not to others."
Here logical proposition refers to a proposition that is provable using the laws of logic.
During the 1930s, the formalization of the semantics of propositional logic in terms of truth assignments was developed. The term tautology began to be applied to those propositional formulas that are true regardless of the truth or falsity of their propositional variables. Some early books on logic (such as Symbolic Logic by Lewis and Langford, 1932) used the term for any proposition (in any formal logic) that is universally valid. It is common in presentations after this (such as Kleene 1967 and Enderton 2002) to use tautology to refer to a logically valid propositional formula, but to maintain a distinction between tautology and logically valid in the context of first-order logic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
"So we have three definitions of "tautology". In order of strength:
1. The self-referential sentential tautologies of 2VL;
2. Less general analytic statements like "daisies are flowers";
3. Any statement that is repetitive or redundant.
The extreme generality of propositional logic usually makes it inadequate as a theoretical formalism. Most scientific theories are sets of objectively-interpreted predicates making qualitative and quantitative attributions with respect to objectively-interpreted object variables. It would thus be useful to "relax" the prepositional definition of tautology so as to extend its applicability to predicate logic. This can be done in a self-referential way through the well-known distinction between autologous ("the word short is short") and heterologous ("the word illegible is not illegible") predicates. Unfortunately, this distinction involves a nongeneral assumption that we cannot usually make: that predicates are being typographically interpreted, or that predicate logic is being used only in reference to how it is written. So we must suspend the self-reference criterion. This, of course, leaves us with definition (2) above.
The self-referentiality of sentential tautology owes to the fact that these tautologies can only be expressed as things of the kind to which they refer…i.e., logical formulae. But this is rarely the case. For example, we sometimes make general statements about contexts which contain neither the statements themselves nor their objective images. These statements then comprise a "metalanguage" formulated in a context which properly includes that to which they refer...i.e., in a semantically context including a theoretical object language and its object universe, or referent context. Examples of statements requiring metalinguistic formulation are those attributing truth or falsity to sets of semantically interpreted object-level expressions. In these and other such cases, we will be using the term "tautology" in reference to any universal generalization over the referent context something "repeated" for everything in that context, but not necessarily for itself.
But first, a preliminary note. A non-self-referential tautology always implies a restriction of its referent context with respect to reality as a whole. Otherwise, there would be no place left to formulate it in which it could avoid referring to itself. There is just one obvious context which cannot be restricted in this way: reality as a whole. This, of course, is the universe of any theory of metaphysics. Like propositional logic, a metaphysical theory must be formulated within the context to which it refers. So, given our "relaxed" definition of tautology, it will be understood that tautology becomes self-referential by necessity at the "metaphysical limit" of predicate-logical theorization.
Note also that the cognitive syntax of the human mind - the time-invariant aspect of human mental functionabi1ity - qualifies as a tautology in the same self-referential sense as does metaphysics. Whatever it considers - itself and everything else - it must consider within its own definitive constraints. In other words, it can consider its own structure and operation only within its own structure and by its own operation, and everything else (all which is outside or beyond it) only as an externalized potentialization of itself (i.e., as that which can be considered within it). If the phrase "itself and everything else" seems suspiciously close to the phrase "reality as a whole" - the "universe of metaphysics" mentioned above - then you already glimpse what must follow.
Any nominal tautology (or "tautological theoretical framework") is of one of two kinds. Either it is analytic over the entire domain of definition of its argument, or it isn't; either it covers its entire universe, or it doesn't. In the former case, it is a valid tautology with respect to the given application. In the latter it is not, and if it is nevertheless tautologically applied, we call it an artificial tautology or a pseudotautology. Artificial tautology is the worst bane of inductive and empirical reasoning; it pretends to yield a kind of information it cannot yield, and to describe things completely which it actually describes partially, not at all, sometimes, or never. Most supposed "metaphysical" theories are of this variety (e.g., the Pepper theory of metaphysics, whose root concept is tautological only with respect to behavioral psychology and not reality in general).
Artificial tautology is especially insidious when, in indeterminate contexts with undescribed contents, it becomes "self-implying" in a manner which parodies true logical analycity...e.g., when the rules of inference of the theory in which it is misplaced ignore the ordinal distinction between its "antecedent" and "consequent". As widespread examples, take such notorious prejudices as "those defendants who most cleverly deny guilt are always guilty". In any court holding this belief, no hapless innocent can be clever in his own defense without "proving himself guilty"! This statement's claim to generality resides in the supposed exhaustivity of the domain of definition of its antecedent (the universally-quantified set of defendants from which "the cleverest" are taken) and the universal quantification ("always") of its synthetic consequent. In empirical contexts, this is a blueprint for disaster.
Another example, paraphrased from Noesis 73: "Those theorists most certain of their theories are necessarily dogmatic (and insane and stupid to boot)." Even though demagogues, who prey on the ignorance and prejudice of their audiences, are marked by just this kind of cynical reliance on artificial tautology, the wider definition of "demagogue" - which involves "leadership" - prohibits us from saying that the author of this particular one is "necessarily a demagogue". All we can say on its basis alone is that he's doing a transparent and rather sorry impression of one.
However, it's just as clear that any valid tautology, by virtue of its applicability over specific distinctions within its universe, must be general in a sense often confused with uninformative. This confusion is only natural for those preoccupied with seeking various kinds of specific information. If we want to cure an ill, it isn't enough to know that we need "a medicine"; we must know the specific kind of medicine we need.
If the story ended here, we'd be in big trouble. To get specific information, we need to use deductive reasoning. But we can only do so by starting with generalities and "working inwards". This means that without general info, there can be no specific info. In other words, we can't call the fact that we need "a medicine" "worthless information", since without it, we can't even begin to find the specific medicine we need. Generalities - and the inductive reasoning which produces them - are absolute prerequisites of "interesting" deductive theories.
Generalities reflect a general truth: not all of them are created equal. Tautology, as the very broadest kind of generality, is the most necessary prerequisite for informative theories. Thus, if Godel had ever said anything like "tautological systems cannot generate interesting results", he'd either have to draw some fast qualifications, or we'd have to rip the officer's stripes from his "genius" uniform and bust him down to privatdocent. Systems consisting only of tautologies may be informationally impoverished, but that's only because we haven't yet developed their primary advantages: their tautological structures relative to their data-universes .
All informative systems must have tautological bases relative to their universes i.e., must come from premises (or axiomatic sets of premises) that are true for all things under all circumstances describable within them. Any system which does not is founded on premises which exclude some aspect of its universe, and is useless for arguments involving it. Where this excluded aspect is unknown, we cannot identify the arguments for which the system is or is not useful. This, of course, eviscerates the entire system from an informational standpoint, on the other hand, if the excluded aspect is known, then adjoining this info to the system in a way allowing it to interact with info already there extends the system to cover it. and there must now exist a tautological basis of the system with respect to its whole universe.
Notice what this says about the plight of pre-CTMU theories. The validity of any of them must be relativized to those aspects of the universe for which its basic premises are tautological; whatever information it contains exists only for them. Wasn't it too bad that the info in particular pre-CTMU theories was inapplicable to the contexts of other such theories i.e., that all specific-theories couldn't be combined to amplify information about the contexts of each of them in least within logical constraints up-plying to relationships among the universes themselves?
Information is not an absolute quantity. It exists relative to the contexts in which it is applicable. If you know that apples are edible, but you have no apples, then you have no useful information on how to feed yourself, hut if you have an endless supply of apples, you have quite a bit of info indeed. On the other hand, no number of apples can alone make "apples are edible" yield info on how to fix your TV. Unfortunately, standard information theory just wasn't equipped to deal with these and other aspects of its titular subject matter. While Shannon-style information was a sufficiently powerful concept to promote the development of modern communication and computation systems, it had its limitations. The CTMU was invented partially to rescue the world from these limitations by redefining information in a more powerful way.
As readers of Noesis will recall, this crucial redefinition begins with a mutual, recursive interdefinition of information and cognition within a "reified tautology" called a quantum transducer. The quantum transducer, being paradoxiform by direct analogy with tautologically-based inference, models the way subjectively-tautological cognitive syntaxes transduce information in time. The universality of this model allows reality to be reduced to it, and thus to (cognitive) information. "Information" is the objective aspect of the quantum transducer for itself and for all others; it is cognition-for-cognition, equating generalistically to a cognitive identity relation on that part of reality to which it corresponds (i.e., the part containing all the transducers playing active and passive roles in it).
As you suggested in Noesis 73, my "certitude" regarding the CTMU rests on its tautological structure relative to all humanly-comprehensible reality (I seem to recall mentioning something to this effect during one of our two conversations) and a few related "tricks" like paradox-distributivity. Formulating reality as a tautology was an obvious move. The reason no one succeeded before me is that doing so required a basic (and rather counterintuitive) restructuring of our perceptions and conceptions of reality.
A primary effect of this restructuring was to eliminate certain barriers existing among various submetaphysicaI disciplines. Every field of human inquiry contains valuable information, but it has always been difficult to transfer this information across interdisciplinary boundaries. Thus, the elimination of these boundaries - the construction of a "universal formalism" - opens various realms of inquiry to relevant but otherwise-inaccessible information once "hidden" in the alien formalisms of other realms. The "liberated" information is then free to combine in synergistic (or even chaotic) ways to reveal new insights.
I know you remain skeptical of certain implications of the CTMU, largely because you're unfamiliar with the logical and model-theoretic criteria for proof. Hut you must at least know that they involve conjunctions like type theory and probability theory, and the theories of physics, computation and decision. Furthermore, these conjunctions are used to solve problems which cannot otherwise be solved, at least with any amount of ease. Your skepticism notwithstanding, it is obvious that this kind of "informational chain-reaction" can he a powerful generator of insight.
There is one problem in particular that cannot be solved without a CTMU-style tautology and its attendant informational explosion: that of providing a general, logically consistent picture of the universe. This owes to the fact that the basis (root concept) of any correct theory of metaphysics must be tautological relative to all conceivable aspects of reality. Because the "metaphysical universe" is so all-encompassing that it exceeds the set of all self-inclusive sets, where "self-inclusion" is synonymous with the kind of self-description on which (prepositional) tautology is defined, it must reduce (or regress inductively) to the broadest and most powerful tautology the human mind can formulate.
There is only one such "universal tautology", and therefore only one correct basis for metaphysical theorization. To convince you of this, I offer the following informal and highly simplified "proof". For the purposes of this proof, think of "information" as that by which transducers distinguish among objects or ideas. The phrase "T excludes d" means that the theory T contains neither the info d nor a deductively heritable generalization of it. The point of exclusion is to excuse us from differentiating between two theories, one of which is either a notational variant or deductive evolution of the other. Such theories pass as virtually identical; "different" theories have different tautological bases."
http://www.megasociety.net/noesis/76/05.htm
Naming, Name Worshipping, and Mathematics
"The idea that a "name" has more in itself than the mere word assigned is very old and goes back at least to Plato's Cratylus; the concept has reappeared many times in succeeding centuries. After all, logos is a central concept in Western culture[2]. In Russia this idea merged with another mystic tradition and became the belief that by naming God and Christ, and also by praying through different techniques, the believer could attain union with God, or get as close to the divine as humanly possible. The modern theory of functions initiated by Baire and Lebesgue after the introduction of set theory led Lebesgue to inquire into a precise extension of the notion of functions, extending the explicit analytic expressions (polynomial, trigonometric) of earlier mathematics, but ones that could still be described or named (nommées). In doing so, Lebesgue and the French school were asking questions that would find a satisfactory framework only twenty years later with the theory of recursivity. But by putting such a strong emphasis on "naming," Lebesgue stimulated Russian mathematicians with an awareness of the religious tradition of Name Worshipping to consider the analogous question when they discovered a new hierarchy of subsets of the continuum that emerged after 1916.
In concluding that mysticism helped Russian mathematics in the development of descriptive set theory, we have to overcome our own natural predispositions."
http://tinyurl.com/4vpnfbb
"The 20th century history of Imiaslavie started in 1907 with the publication of the book On the Caucasus Mountains by a revered starets, Schema-monk Illarion. In his book, Illarion told of his spiritual experience with the Jesus Prayer as a proof that 'The name of God is God Himself and can produce miracles'. The book became extremely popular among the Russian monks on Mount Athos in Greece. Many of them argued that, since according to Plato, "the name of an object exists since before the object itself does," so the name of God must pre-exist before the world was created, and that it (the Name) cannot be anything but God Himself. Among other things, this was thought to mean that knowledge of the secret name of God alone allows one to perform miracles (a similar concept exists in Kabbalah)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imiaslavie
"For the authors of the Hindu scriptures of the Upanishads, the syllable Aum, itself constituting a mantra, represents Brahman, the godhead, as well as the whole of creation. Kūkai suggests that all sounds are the voice of the Dharmakaya Buddha — i.e. as in Hindu Upanishadic and Yogic thought, these sounds are manifestations of ultimate reality, in the sense of sound symbolism postulating that the vocal sounds of the mantra have inherent meaning independent of the understanding of the person uttering them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantra
"Allah-u-Abha" is an Arabic phrase meaning "God the All-Glorious". It is a form of the Greatest Name of God (see note 137). In Islam there is a tradition that among the many names of God, one was the greatest; however, the identity of this Greatest Name was hidden. Bahá'u'lláh has confirmed that the Greatest Name is "Baha"...The greeting "Allah-u-Abha" was adopted during the period of Bahá'u'lláh's exile in Adrianople. The repetition of "Allah-u-Abha" ninety-five times is to be preceded by the performance of ablutions (see note 34)."
http://www.upliftingwords.org/writings/Aqdas/Notes29.htm
Feeling and Facial Efference: Implications of the Vascular Theory of Emotion
"Is facial muscular movement capable of altering emotional state? Facial feedback theories answer this question in the affirmative but do not specify the intervening process. Cognitive appraisal theories do not address this question at all. The vascular theory of emotional efference (VTEE) holds that facial muscular movement, by its action on the cavernous sinus, may restrict venous flow and thereby influence cooling of the arterial blood supply to the brain. Subjective reactions resulting from facial action (phonetic utterance), resembling but unrelated to emotional efference, were found to differ in hedonic quality and to produce correlated changes in forehead temperature. Direct tests that introduced air into the nasal cavity revealed that cooled air was pleasurable, whereas warm air was aversive. It is conjectured that variations in cerebral temperature might influence the releaseand blocking of emotion-linked neurotransmitters—a consequence that would explain, in part, why some experiences are felt subjectively as pleasant and others as unpleasant."
http://tinyurl.com/4dt4gqs
Searle on Speech Acts and Meaning:
"An acoustic blast that comes out of my mouth can be said to be a statement, a question, an explanation, a command, an exhortation, an order, a promise, and so on, or a very large number of other possibilities. Furthermore, what comes out can be said to be true or false or boring or uninteresting or exciting or original or stupid or simply irrelevant. Now, the remarkable thing is that we get from the acoustic blast to these amazing semantic properties, which include no only rhetorical and linguistic phenomena but even political, literary, and other sorts of cultural phenomena. How does it work? How do we get from the physics to the semantics?"
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wbstarr/teaching/210/11_17.pdf
"Philosophers, cognitive scientists and artificial intelligence researchers who study embodied cognition and the embodied mind believe that the nature of the human mind is largely determined by the form of the human body. They argue that all aspects of cognition, such as ideas, thoughts, concepts and categories are shaped by aspects of the body. These aspects include the perceptual system, the intuitions that underlie the ability to move, activities and interactions with our environment and the native understanding of the world that is built into the body and the brain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
"Biosemiotics sees the evolution of life and the evolution of semiotic systems as two aspects of the same process. The scientific approach to the origin and evolution of life has, in part due to the success of molecular biology, given us highly valuable accounts of the outer aspects of the whole process, but has overlooked the inner qualitative aspects of sign action, leading to a reduced picture of causality. Complex self-organized living systems are also governed by formal and final causality —- formal in the sense of the downward causation from a whole structure (such as the organism) to its individual molecules, constraining their action but also endowing them with functional meanings in relation to the whole metabolism; and final in the sense of the tendency to take habits and to generate future interpretants of the present sign actions. Here, biosemiotics draws also upon the insights of fields like systems theory, theoretical biology and the study of complex self-organized systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics
"John 1:1 is the first verse in the Gospel of John. The King James Version of the verse reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". The phrase "the Word" (a translation of the Greek word "Logos") refers to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter. This verse, and the continuation of the ideas introduced in it throughout Johannine literature, connected the Christian understanding of Jesus to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature, and set the stage for later developments in Trinitarian theology and Christology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1
"The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.
The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity." ~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 114
"This expression is the keynote and theme of the entire gospel. Λόγος is from the root λεγ, appearing in λεγω, the primitive meaning of which is to lay: then, to pick out, gather, pick up: hence to gather or put words together, and so, to speak. Hence λόγος is, first of all, a collecting or collection both of things in the mind, and of words by which they are expressed. It therefore signifies both the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself, the Latin oratio and ratio: compare the Italian ragionare, "to think" and "to speak."
As signifying the outward form it is never used in the merely grammatical sense, as simply the name of a thing or act (επος, ονομα, ρημα), but means a word as the thing referred to: the material, not the formal part: a word as embodying a conception or idea. See, for instance, Matthew 22:46; 1 Corinthians 14:9, 19. Hence it signifies a saying, of God, or of man (Matthew 19:21, 22; Mark 5:35, 36): a decree, a precept (Romans 9:28; Mark 7:13). The ten commandments are called in the Septuagint, οἱ δέκα λόγοι, "the ten words" (Exodus 34:28), and hence the familiar term decalogue. It is further used of discourse: either of the act of speaking (Acts 14:12), of skill and practice in speaking (Ephesians 6:19), or of continuous speaking (Luke 4:32, 36). Also of doctrine (Acts 18:15; 2 Timothy 4:15), specifically the doctrine of salvation through Christ (Matthew 13:20-23; Philippians 1:14); of narrative, both the relation and the thing related (Acts 1:1; John 21:23; Mark 1:45); of matter under discussion, an affair, a case in law (Acts 15:6; 19:38).
As signifying the inward thought, it denotes the faculty of thinking and reasoning (Hebrews 4:12); regard or consideration (Acts 20:24); reckoning, account (Philippians 4:15, 17; Hebrews 4:13); cause or reason (Acts 10:29).
John uses the word in a peculiar sense, here, and in ver. 14; and, in this sense, in these two passages only. The nearest approach to it is in Revelation 19:13, where the conqueror is called the Word of God; and it is recalled in the phrases Word of Life, and the Life was manifested (1 John 1:1, 2). Compare Hebrews 4:12. It was a familiar and current theological term when John wrote, and therefore he uses it without explanation."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html
"Can you sketch the CTMU — in plain English — for our readers?
The name literally says it all. The phrase “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” contains three main ingredients: cognitive theory, model, and universe. Cognitive theory refers to a general language of cognition (the structural and transitional rules of cognition); universe refers to the content of that language, or that to which the language refers; and model refers to the mapping which carries the content into the language, thus creating information. The way in which the title brings these three ingredients together, or “contracts” their relationship to the point of merging, reflects their perfect coincidence in that to which the title implicitly refers, i.e., reality (the physical universe plus all that is required to support its perception and existence). Thus, the CTMU is a theory which says that reality is a self-modeling universal language, or if one prefers, that the universe is a self-modeling language.
The operation of combining language, universe, and model to create a perfectly self-contained metalanguage results in SCSPL, short for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This language is “self-similar” in the sense that it is generated within a formal identity to which every part of it is mapped as content; its initial form, or grammatical “start symbol”, everywhere describes it on all scales. My use of grammatical terminology is intentional; in the CTMU, the conventional notion of physical causality is superseded by “telic causation”, which resembles generative grammar and approaches teleology as a natural limit. In telic causation, ordinary events are predicated on the generation of closed causal loops distributing over time and space. This loop-structure reflects the fact that time, and the spatial expansion of the cosmos as a function of time, flow in both directions – forward and backward, outward and inward – in a dual formulation of causality characterizing a new conceptualization of nature embodied in a new kind of medium or “manifold”.
That’s as simple as I can make it without getting more technical. Everything was transparently explained in the 56-page 2002 paper I published on the CTMU, which has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. But just in case this still doesn’t qualify as “plain English”, there’s an even easier way to understand it that is available to any reader familiar with the Bible, one of the most widely read and best-understood books ever written.
In the New Testament, John 1 begins as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (my italics). Much controversy has centered on this passage, as it seems to be saying that God is literally equivalent to logos, meaning “word”, “wisdom”, “reason”, or “truth”. Insofar as these meanings all refer to constructs or ingredients of language or to language itself, this amounts to the seemingly imponderable assertion that God, of Whom believers usually conceive as an all-powerful Entity or Being, somehow consists of language. The CTMU is precisely what it takes to validate this assertion while preserving the intuitive conception of God as the all-knowing Creator – or in non-theological terms, the “identity” or “generator” – of reality. Nothing but the CTMU can fully express this biblical “word-being duality” in a consistent logico-mathematical setting.
The CTMU is not just a theory; it is logical model theory applied to metaphysics, and as much a logical necessity as any branch of mathematics or philosophy. One can no more escape from it than from X=X or 1+1=2. But when it comes to something that packs this combination of scope and power, many people, including certified academics, committed atheists, and even some religious believers, are apparently afraid to stare X=X in the face.
Little wonder. After all, once one has beheld the metaphysical structure of reality, there is no longer any such thing as plausible deniability or defense by ignorance; it’s the end of innocence, so to speak. Understandably, many people find that a little scary.
What are you trying to accomplish with the CTMU?
As a general theory of reality – or if one prefers, the general framework of such a theory – the CTMU has potential applications in virtually every field of human inquiry and endeavor.
Human knowledge is a veritable Tower of Babel. Various theories of science, mathematics, and philosophy centering on various parts and aspects of reality are couched in diverse formalisms and vocabularies that often bear little resemblance to each other and exhibit no obvious connections. The situation is reminiscent of a disorderly range of mountains; one can get from one valley to another by climbing the mountains, but by the time one gets to the next valley, the last is no longer visible. Worse, the inhabitants speak a different tongue with no discernable connection to the languages spoken in other valleys.
Theoretical compartmentalization creates the impression that certain parts or aspects of reality are indefinitely related to each other or not related at all, causing rifts and false divisions to appear in our conceptual and perceptual topography, fracturing and fragmenting our worldview. Sometimes, this leads to scientific crises; for example, relativity theory is seemingly impossible to unite with quantum theory. Some rifts may even be seen as mutual irrelevancies; for example, science and theology are often considered to be separated by an unbridgeable gulf, and thus mutually irrelevant.
This is hardly an ideal situation. In a reality where the physical world is held accountable to empirical or mathematical science, any scientifically irrelevant theology is implicitly displaced. This makes theological systems untouchable by science and vice versa, depriving science of moral guidance and encouraging the revelatory creation of different metaphysical realities associated with conflicting promises and instructions involving the physical world. (These metaphysical realities include not just overtly religious frameworks, but the random materialism embraced by many scientists and followers of science.) The resulting disagreements cause, or provide pretexts for, real-world conflicts.
In order to unify and make sense of our knowledge, we must have a universal foundational language in which the special-purpose languages of science can be consistently expressed and interpreted. The fact that this foundational language controls the interpretation of physical theories demands that it be metaphysical; it must refer to science “from above”. Yet, in order to do its job, it must also be necessarily true, which requires that it be a mathematically verified ingredient of science.
In other words, the required metalanguage is that through which science, including both mathematics and empirical applications of mathematics, becomes self-referential and self-normative…the “bootstrapping” of ordinary mathematical-scientific discourse to a higher verificative level of discourse spanning science in its entirety. This requirement leads directly to the CTMU and SCSPL, exactly as described in this interview and elsewhere.
Among the benefits of such a language are these: properly developed and applied, it can synergistically unite the various fields of science; it can remove false conceptual divisions, reconciling science with philosophy and theology, mathematics with physics, and physics with metaphysics; it can promote a general understanding of reality, so that people cannot be so easily cheated of meaning by those wishing to create an illusion of amorphous “relativism” in order to exploit the attending moral vacuum; and it can serve as the basis of an overarching worldview capable of modeling all lesser theories and creeds up to mutual consistency, thereby promoting intellectual accord and conducing to peace and harmony on earth."
http://www.superscholar.org/interviews/christopher-michael-langan/
Translation of Baha'u'llah's Rashh-i Ama (The Mist of Unknown)
"Our charm bids waft the Mist of Unknown
Mystery of fidelity thus flows from Our tone
The east wind, musk-laden, from Cathay whirls
Its scent so sweet streams forth from Our curls
The ornamented sun from the True One hath risen
Mystery of reality from Our visage doth blazon
The sea of purity roars from waves of rapture
This gift bestowed from His essence We capture
Love's treasures lie hid in the bosom of Fars
Out this treasure-trove Pearls of Fidelity pours
Delight of wine evinced when All was manifested
To songs of providence this Sublime Token attested
A blast on the trumpet, the attraction divine
These two in one blow flow from the Exalted Clime
Confessed Our face to the cycle of: "I am He"
Baha is brimming with the epoch of: "He is He"
The river of life shimmers in the closet of the heart
This sweet wine the ruby lips of Baha doth part
The day of God by the Lord's effulgence is complete
The warbling in Tehran from these novel words is replete
Glory overflowing, behold! Misty unknowing, behold!
All this from one melody thy Lord doth sing, behold!
Lo! The immortal Perfect Mystic, the Pristine Dawn
The Pure Breast from the Highest Throne out drawn
Lo! The Tree of Paradise, heark the Nightingale's song
This Glorious warbling from the Light of Purity hath sprung
Hearken the Persian melody, the Arabian tambourine
Hearken the 'No' rhythm from the Hand of Divine
See dawning of the Godhead, the Maid of Paradise
How mystery of Unknown from earthly appearance doth arise
Lo! Remnant's Countenance, Cupbearer's Face
Lo! The translucent glass pouring out from Our Chalice
Behold the Burning Bush, see the Hand so white
Behold Mount Sinai radiating from the Palm so bright
Hear his intoxicated moans, see the mystic ecstatic
In the precincts of rapture all living beings are charismatic
From His peek, observe the amorous glance of Baha
From His reed, hearken the Farsi melody of Baha
Emergence of Revelation 'tis, Effusion of Purity 'tis
Warbling of Nightingales 'tis, that pours out of Nothingness!"
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/rashh-ama.html
“The Faith standing identified with the name of Bahá'u'lláh disclaims any intention to belittle any of the Prophets gone before Him, to whittle down any of their teachings, to obscure, however slightly, the radiance of their Revelations, to oust them from the hearts of their followers, to abrogate the fundamentals of their doctrines, to discard any of their revealed Books, or to suppress the legitimate aspirations of their adherents. Repudiating the claim of any religion to be the final revelation of God to man, disclaiming finality for His own Revelation, Bahá'u'lláh inculcates the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth, the continuity of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of religious experience. His aim is to widen the basis of all revealed religions and to unravel the mysteries of their scriptures. He insists on the unqualified recognition of the unity of their purpose, restates the eternal verities they enshrine, coordinates their functions, distinguishes the essential and the authentic from the nonessential and spurious in their teachings, separates the God-given truths from the priest-prompted superstitions, and on this as a basis proclaims the possibility, and even prophecies the inevitability, of their unification, and the consummation of their highest hopes.”
--Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 107
“A student of the modern methods of the higher criticism asked 'Abdu'l-Bahá if he would do well to continue in the church with which he had been associated all his life, and whose language was full of meaning to him. 'Abdu'l-Bahá answered: "You must not dissociate yourself from it. Know this; the Kingdom of God is not in any Society; some seekers go through many Societies as a traveller goes through many cities till he reach his destination. If you belong to a Society already do not forsake your brothers. You can be a Bahá'í-Christian, a Bahá'í-Freemason, a Bahá'í-Jew, a Bahá'í-Muhammadan. The number nine contains eight, and seven, and all the other numbers, and does not deny any of them. Do not distress or deny anyone by saying 'He is not a Bahá'í!' He will be known by his deeds. There are no secrets among Bahá'ís; a Bahá'í does not hide anything."
--Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 97
"I have never heard of Bahá'u'lláh," said a young man. I have only recently read about this movement, but I recognize the mission of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and desire to be a disciple. I have always believed in the brotherhood of man as the ultimate solvent of all our national and international difficulties."
"It makes no difference whether you have ever heard of Bahá'u'lláh or not," was the answer, "the man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh is already a Bahá'í. On the other hand a man may call himself a Bahá'í for fifty years and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá'í.”
--Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 105
"[Abdu’l-Baha] bids us all be real and true in what we profess to believe; and to treasure above everything the Spirit behind the form."
--Professor Michael Sadler, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 34
"…it matters not what name each calls himself – The Great Work is One…Christ is ever in the world of existence. He has never disappeared out of it…Rest assured that Christ is present. The Spiritual beauty we see around us today is from the breathings of Christ."
--Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 41
"A Baha’i denies no religion; he accepts the Truth in all, and would die to uphold it. He loves all men as his brothers, of whatever class, of whatever race or nationality, of whatever creed or colour, whether good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or hideous."
--Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 56
"Religions are like the branches of one Tree. One branch is high, one is low and one in the centre, yet all draw their life from the one stem. One branch bears fruit and others are not laden so abundantly. All the Prophets are lights, the only differ in degree…"
--Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 62-63
“The spirit and intelligence of man is essential, and that is the manifestation of divine virtues, the merciful bestowals of God, the eternal life and baptism through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, be it known that color or race is of no importance. He who is the image and likeness of God, who is the manifestation of the bestowals of God, is acceptable at the threshold of God -- whether his color be white, black or brown; it matters not. Man is not man simply because of bodily attributes. The standard of divine measure and judgment is his intelligence and spirit.
Therefore, let this be the only criterion and estimate, for this is the image and likeness of God. A man's heart may be pure and white though his outer skin be black; or his heart be dark and sinful though his racial color is white. The character and purity of the heart is of all importance. The heart illumined by the light of God is nearest and dearest to God, and inasmuch as God has endowed man with such favor that he is called the image of God, this is truly a supreme perfection of attainment, a divine station which is not to be sacrificed by the mere accident of color.” --Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 70
"Pragmatism is a philosophical movement in the early 20th Century (the first quarter) which had wide influence on the academic and professional way of thinking especially in the United States. It was even said that this movement must have been the States' prime contribution to philosophy. However, like all movement, it is difficult to pin down what pragmatism generally means and stands for. This is because we have no way of defining the ideas of pragmatism in a way that would satisfy all of its proponents. Each pragmatic thinker would conceive of pragmatism in a different way--and would handle the problematic of the movement uniquely. We know, for one, that the term "pragmatism" was first used by Charles Pierce to refer to a kind of method of looking at reality. He was concerned on how we can be able to discern what is true and what is false. (1 - Actually, he was more concerned about fixation of belief. Where should we ground belief so as not to fall in doubt when it is threatened? In this, he conceived of belief as the state of stability where one is comfortable in what one believes. However, when belief is threatened, doubt ensues. His concern was the grounding of this belief such as that we not be threatened and fall into doubt on the threat of belief; this he calls the fixation of belief. There are many methods that fix belief, however, science--for him--has an advantage over others because it helps us arrive at beliefs which is reasonably true. Other methods run with the spirit of modern philosophy--the concern for meaning (how reality appears before MY consciousness)--that suspends the concern for Truth (what reality really IS). Pierce definitely had this in mind when he thinks of science as having an advantage over methods. This is much important in taking into consideration of how other pragmatists conceive a vision of religion as an "endlessly self-correcting community of inquiry.") What he needed was a theory of meaning. (2 - For this, he managed to come up with a method of deciding and ruling upon the meaning of beliefs, ideas, and uses of language. He proposed to ascertain and formulate the distinct empirical consequences that result from using, experimenting, and/or acting on a given idea in certain circumstances. Whatever these results are, these are to be considered the whole of what one knows of that idea (i.e., its meaning). This he calls the "pragmatic significance" of an idea.) This summarises Pierce's pragmatic thought. Scholars of pragmatism usually associate the development of a theory of meaning in the movement on Pierce while a theory of truth on William James. Moreover, it was through James that the world came to know pragmatism--systematically. However, what interests us in William James (taking aside the critique of his pragmatism as unfaithful to what Pierce first conceived it to be) is a shift in focus (3 - While Pierce concerned himself of a theory of meaning--the explication of ideas and its proper place in the general schema and formulae of possible action, James concerned himself with the function of ideas in experience. For this, he shifted pragmatism not only to focus on the distinct contributions of ideas in specific human actions. Thus, it was experiential or (more precisely) sensational experience. Pierce summarises this difference in this quote: "[James] in defining pragmatism, speaks of it as referring ideas to experiences, meaning evidently the sensational side of experience, while I regard concepts as affairs of habit or disposition, and of how we should react."). Along with this is the understanding of pragmatism (4 - Pierce invoked the Kantian difference between the practical and the pragmatic while James used the Greek conception of the pragma in that the Greek term eventually refers to "action" and "practice." James did not only thought of pragmatism as a method of clarifying ideas and a theory of meaning but also a theory of truth (i.e., how ideas bring influence to what is and not only how action makes ideas clear and distinct). Moreover, he turned pragmatism towards the description of the actual process of much of our thinking--thus, it was then necessary for pragmatism to look into its psychological foundations. This brings James into the confrontation with his general theory of thought and action. Hence, he conceives the mind as always aiming towards ends (teleological). For him, the emotional and practical interests "are the real a priori elements of cognition."). We have just encountered two proponents of pragmatism. So, what then is pragmatism. Now we realise the problem we were just talking about previously. We find the difficulty of pinning down pragmatism. We see two proclaimed pragmatists in their own right and yet, two totally different strains of thought. What makes pragmatism what it is? Fortunately for us, the answer lies deeply buried and intertwined with the problematic of modern philosophy--the concern on the tension between scientific knowing and moral values."
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/ph103herm/history.html
"In his discussion of "Spirit" in his Encyclopedia, Hegel praises Aristotle's On the Soul as "by far the most admirable, perhaps even the sole, work of philosophical value on this topic".[18] In his Phenomenology of Spirit and his Science of Logic, Hegel's concern with Kantian topics such as freedom and morality, and with their ontological implications, is pervasive. Rather than simply rejecting Kant's dualism of freedom versus nature, Hegel aims to subsume it within "true infinity", the "Concept" (or "Notion": Begriff), "Spirit", and "ethical life" in such a way that the Kantian duality is rendered intelligible, rather than remaining a brute "given."
The reason why this subsumption takes place in a series of concepts is that Hegel's method, in his Science of Logic and his Encyclopedia, is to begin with ultra-basic concepts like Being and Nothing, and to develop these through a long sequence of elaborations, including those mentioned in the previous paragraph. In this manner, a solution that is reached, in principle, in the account of "true infinity" in the Science of Logic's chapter on "Quality", is repeated in new guises at later stages, all the way to "Spirit" and "ethical life", in the third volume of the Encyclopedia.
In this way, Hegel intends to defend the germ of truth in Kantian dualism against reductive or eliminative programs like those of materialism and empiricism. Like Plato, with his dualism of soul versus bodily appetites, Kant pursues the mind's ability to question its felt inclinations or appetites and to come up with a standard of "duty" (or, in Plato's case, "good") which transcends bodily restrictiveness. Hegel preserves this essential Platonic and Kantian concern in the form of infinity going beyond the finite (a process that Hegel in fact relates to "freedom" and the "ought"[19]), the universal going beyond the particular (in the Concept), and Spirit going beyond Nature. And Hegel renders these dualities intelligible by (ultimately) his argument in the "Quality" chapter of the Science of Logic." The finite has to become infinite in order to achieve reality. The idea of the absolute excludes multiplicity so the subjective and objective must achieve synthesis to become whole. This is because, as Hegel suggests by his introduction of the concept of "reality",[20] what determines itself--rather than depending on its relations to other things for its essential character--is more fully "real" (following the Latin etymology of "real": more "thing-like") than what does not. Finite things don't determine themselves, because, as "finite" things, their essential character is determined by their boundaries, over against other finite things. So, in order to become "real", they must go beyond their finitude ("finitude is only as a transcending of itself"[21]).
The result of this argument is that finite and infinite—and, by extension, particular and universal, nature and freedom—don't face one another as two independent realities, but instead the latter (in each case) is the self-transcending of the former.[22] Rather than stress the distinct singularity of each factor that complements and conflicts with others--without explanation--the relationship between finite and infinite (and particular and universal, and nature and freedom) becomes intelligible as a progressively developing and self-perfecting whole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
"10) The Existence of Potentials
The ontological necessity for the existence of potentials is supported by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá ’s assertion that “nonexistence is only relative and absolute nonexistence inconceivable”[83] and that “no sign can come from a nonexisting thing”[84] lead to the conclusion that in Bahá’í ontology there is another kind of non-being – ‘being- not-yet.’ If “[a] thing which does not exist, can . . . give no sign of its existence,”[85] then it follows that everything which has come into existence must have existed as a potential, as a ‘being-not-yet’ or potential before it is actualized. Otherwise it would have come from absolute nothing – and that is not allowed.
The existence of potentials within all things (processes) has a number of significant implications for Bahá’í ontology. First, it suggests that there is a conceptual distinction between a thing or process and its potentials which are the aspects of an entity that express both possibilities and limitations to which it is subject. They define it, both in relationship to itself and in relationship to others. However, albeit it only conceptually and not actually, the reality of potentials also suggests that every entity or process is di-polar in regards to its present state of actualized potentials and its future state of unactualized potentials. Moreover, insofar as all things strive to actualize their future potentials, all things are subject to a dynamic tension, which, in effect, defines them as they entity they are. This dynamic tension reflects the fact that
Everything is either growing or declining, all things are either coming from non-existence into being, or going from existence into non-existence.[86]
Both in growing and declining things are actualizing new, hitherto unrealised, possibilities. (Lest there be any confusion, it should be noted that “non-existence” and “existence” are relative terms and must not be understood as absolutes.[87]) It is worth noting that inasmuch as all things strive to actualise their potentials, they strive, in effect, to be more, which is to say, they endeavour to be other or not-themselves as they currently are. They seek self-transcendence. This, too, creates, tensions within them because they are always involved, to one extent or another, in a struggle against themselves as they are. In short, they are making themselves new at all times. This leads to the conclusion that they are characterized by what Hegel calls an “inherent unrest”[88]; in other words, self-dissatisfaction is a universal metaphysical principle inherent in all things, although only humankind is consciously aware of it.
11) The Ultimate “Object of Desire”
It should be noted however, that potentials, the future identity, is only the proximate motive for an entity to struggle forward. The ultimate motive is, of course, the return to God, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes clear in the following quotation: “From this same God all creation sprang into existence, and He is the one goal, towards which everything in nature yearns.”[89] God, as Aristotle said, God is “the object of desire” [90] of all things. Insofar as God is the ultimate motive for cosmic restlessness, we cannot help but conclude that return to God which all things desire is one of the principles according to which the cosmos is organised.
To emphasise the ubiquitous influence of this motive principle, we draw attention to the fact that even matter is not exempt from it. Although apparently ‘dead’ or unchanging to us, such is not really the case as noted by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:
As to the existence of spirit in the mineral, it is indubitable that minerals are endowed with a spirit and life according to the requirements of that stage.[91]
Elsewhere he says,
This world is full of seeming contradictions; in each of these kingdoms (mineral, vegetable and animal) life exists in its degree; though when compared to the life in a man, the earth appears to be dead, yet she, too, lives and has a life of her own.[92]
The fact that all things are alive to their own degree supports the view that all things without exception strive to actualize their potentials and to return to God.
12) Hegel, Dialectic and the Writings
One more aspect of the nature of change needs to be covered, namely whether or not the process undergone by every thing or process is a dialectic in the Hegelian sense. In other words, we must determine whether or not the transformative process which constitutes the being of every thing and process, is driven by the power of negation or contradiction. As Hegel says, “Contradiction is the moving principle of the world.”[93] According to Hegel, negation or contradiction is the means by which the static identity of things is dissolved and they take on a new identity as a dynamic entities striving towards completion or ‘wholeness.’ As Hegel writes,
by Dialectic is meant the indwelling tendency outwards by which the one-sidedness and limitation of the predicates of understanding is seen in its true light, and shown to be the negation of them. For anything to be finite is just to suppress itself and put itself aside.[94]
In other words, by means of dialectic, things or our understanding of things overcome their own limitations or “one-sidedness,” as they struggle to become more complete or comprehensive. In Hegel’s view, nothing that can be grasped by human understanding is exempt from this dialectical process: “Dialectic is the very nature and essence of everything predicated by mere understanding — the law of things and of the finite as a whole.”[95] As Hegel puts it, “Wherever there is movement, wherever there is life, wherever anything is carried into effect in the actual world, there Dialectic is at work.”[96] This means that nothing is exempt from dialectic and that dialectic occurs in every moment so that there is, in fact, no time at which a thing is not involved in dialectical change in which it strives to complete and transcend itself.(One might think of this self-transcending as the ‘return’ to God mentioned in the Writings.) The dissolution of the static identity of things is inevitable because each thing contains its own ‘contradictory’, that is, its own ‘other’, opposite or differentiation or antithesis within itself, thereby continuously undermining or negating its identity. In the words of Hegel,
Everything finite, instead of being stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than what it is, is forced beyond its own immediate or natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite.[97]
Each thing strives to overcome this opposition by including the opposite in a new, more expansive version of itself – a process often described as the triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.[98] In this change an entity becomes something new, that is, something that it was not, or as Hegel says, “its opposite.” Consequently, identity is never something static but rather dynamic:
Identity, instead of being in its own self-truth and absolute truth is consequently they very opposite: instead of being the unmoved simple, it is the passage beyond itself into the dissolution of itself.[99]
However, this transcendence or “passage beyond itself” does not mean that an entity ceases to be or loses itself; indeed, the exact opposite is the case according to Hegel who writes, “the finite in its ceasing-to-be, in this negation of itself has attained its being-in-itself, is united with itself . . . in going beyond itself, therefore, it equally unites with itself.”[100]
12.1) Dialectic in the Writings
Let us now examine which aspects of Hegel’s work are confirmed by the Bahá’í Writings, which contradict the Writings and which can be harmonized with them and to what degree. The key to understanding any possible similarity is the concept of potentials, which, as we have already seen, are inherent in all things. We may permit ourselves one quotation to refresh our memories: ”But the whole of the great tree is potentially latent and hidden in the little seed. When this seed is planted and cultivated, the tree is revealed.”[101] What this means is that when the potentials are actualized – “planted and cultivated” – the tree comes into existence or is “revealed” to the world. In other words, there is a transition from potential to actual, a view with which Aristotle and Hegel would also agree.
12.2) Actuality and Potentiality
This means in effect, that according to the Writings, all things are constituted by a formal distinction between an entity’s actuality and its potentiality. The difference between actuality and potentiality is objectively real, but the two cannot really be separated from one another: they are absolute correlates which is to say that wherever we find one, we find the other as with two sides of a coin. The formal distinction between an entity’s present actuality or state and its potentials suggests that according to the Writings, all entities have a complementary nature, with two real, but absolutely correlated aspects. They are wholes, but differentiated wholes, not undifferentiated wholes. From this it follows that only God is a perfect unity or one, which is perhaps why ‘Abdu’l-Bahá refers to God as the “Lord of Unity.”[102] Only God is, ontologically speaking, really and completely one. In other words, God has no potentials for future development because the possession of such potentials indicates the imperfection of incompleteness. This cannot be because “God is pure perfection.”[103]
12.3) Self-Transcendence
Let us now examine the concept of potentials more closely. To say that a thing has a particular potential is, in effect, to say that it is, relative to what it could be, incomplete and unfinished, that it has a transitional perfection but no final perfection. It is not yet fully itself inasmuch as there is, in Hegel’s language, an internal contradiction between its actual existence and its essence which is all of its potentials. The fact that human evolution is endless and continues after death suggests that this internal contradiction is constitutional: as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says, “human perfections are infinite.”[104] However, from the perspective of the Writings, all things are in the condition of changing, growing and declining, so that in effect, this internal contradiction between what they are and what they could be constitutes all things. They are all striving to transcend themselves. However, only humankind is conscious of this fact as a part of its experience of existence.
12.4) Potentials and Contradiction
In any case, the infinity of potentials or possible perfections means that neither humankind nor any other entities can ever actualise all their potentials; unrealised potentials will always remain and this means that no thing is ever completely and fully itself although it continuously struggles to attain this completed state. Actualising one potential means only to be confronted by another, which is to say, that all entities, including humankind, are constantly confronted by a new possibility, an ‘other’, a negation of themselves as they currently are, a not-self or antithesis.[105] By virtue of their potentials, things are not self-identical relative to what – theoretically or ideally – they could be. In Hegel’s terminology, all entities including humankind are constitutionally alienated or estranged from themselves, suffering an internal contradiction which they must strive to overcome. In the case of humankind, Hegel calls this condition the “Unhappy Consciousness [which] is the consciousness of self as a dual natured, merely contradictory being.”[106] Because it desires to more than a “merely contradictory being”, the unhappy consciousness seeks to overcome this situation. Once again we see how “Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world.”[107]
12.5) Hegel, the Unhappy Consciousness and Manifestations
Of particular interest to Bahá’í ontology is that according to Hegel, the Unhappy Consciousness can only overcome its alienated condition by surrendering its will to an intermediary with God, that is, a minister or priest. For Baha’is, of course, this is impossible since the Faith has no clergy of any sort, but no great effort is required to replace a clergyman with the Manifestation of God. Once this change is made, what Hegel writes harmonizes well with the Writings. For example, before the Manifestation, the self “renounces its will.”[108]
Through these moments of surrender, first of its right to decide for itself, then of its property [sacrificial giving] and enjoyment, and finally of practicing what it does not understand, it truly and completely deprives itself of the consciousness of inner and outer freedom, of the actuality in which consciousness exists for itself. It has the certainty of having truly divested itself of its ‘I’ . . . Only through this actual sacrifice could it demonstrate this self-renunciation. [109]
Only with such complete renunciation of everything pertaining to self and the illusion of independence from God can the self “obtain[] relief from its misery”[110] because it has positively put its will at the disposal of the “universal will.”[111] What this renunciation demonstrates is that the individual understands that, in the words of the Writings, “the existence of beings in comparison with the existence of God is but illusion and nothingness.”[112]
At this point it is important to draw special attention to an important difference between the Bahá’í Writings and Hegel: the Writings could never agree to such a complete surrender of self to anyone but a Manifestation of God and certainly not to any clergyman, priest, monk, mullah or rabbi. This concern for our dignity before other human beings is reflected in the prohibition of confession of sins either to a priest or in public because “such confession before people results in one’s humiliation and abasement.”[113] This surrender of self can be made only to God.
How, it may be asked, can the surrender of one’s will to God alleviate the “unhappy consciousness”? Certainly it will not suddenly lose all its inherent potentials and thus will still suffer contradiction and alienation. However, at least from the Bahá’í perspective, those contradictions will be re-contextualised as a “healing medicine.”[114]
O Thou Whose tests are a healing medicine to such as are nigh unto Thee, Whose sword is the ardent desire of all them that love Thee, Whose dart is the dearest wish of those hearts that yearn after Thee, Whose decree is the sole hope of them that have recognized Thy Truth![115]
By re-contextualizing the challenges of alienation and internal contradictions as part of our healing or becoming whole, the Bahá’í Writings show us that these contradictions need not necessarily be emiserating since they are necessary to our healing. Seen in this way, the Writings put Writings put a positive light on Hegel’s theory of alienation because alienation is necessary for growth and development.
...
16) A Cautionary Note
At this point several remarks are in order. First, a cautionary note that we do not intend to claim that the Bahá’í Writings somehow reflect the entire dialectical ontology of Hegel. They do not. For example, the Bahá’í Writings cannot accept Hegel’s belief that God, or Spirit, becomes conscious of Itself through natural and human history. Second, the Writings do not present us with a fully developed dialectical ontology such as we see in Hegel. However, they do, in fact, provide the basis for a dialectical ontology through the philosophy of potentials and the necessity of change and motion. Third, the Writings provide a corrective to Hegel because they see the love of God, not contradiction or negativity, as the ultimate motive power for cosmic evolution. Internal contradiction and alienation are only the means by which the love of God makes itself felt within creation; they are only the conditions that make possible the eternal movement of love towards God. Thus, they are a necessary but not sufficient condition for the evolution of nature and human consciousness. A greater, all-transcendent positive Attractor is needed to motivate things to overcome their internal contradictions in order to reach It. Moreover, by the same token, there must be an innate desire for God in all things – which makes desire an important aspect of the dialectic. Of course, this desire is only conscious in humankind.
17) Social Dialectic
There is one other place where a dialectical ontology appears in the Bahá’í Writings. According to Abdu’l-Bahá,
all souls [must] become as one soul, and all hearts as one heart. Let all be set free from the multiple identities that were born of passion and desire, and in the oneness of their love for God find a new way of life.[193]
Bahá’u’lláh writes,
He Who is your Lord, the All-Merciful, cherisheth in His heart the desire of beholding the entire human race as one soul and one body.[194]
Here, too, we see the outlines of a dialectical philosophy at work. In this dialectic, the self encounters the other, the stranger, as a negation or contradiction to its own being. In order to overcome this estrangement, the self may ‘incorporate’ the other in some way such as by having power over it – a strategy which risks unleashing a power struggle – and, according to Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Spirit, inevitably does.[195] Either by incorporating or being incorporated, either by being a master or a slave, a new synthesis is formed. However, neither Hegel nor the Writings regard this situation as desirable, so there is a third option, which, according to the Writings involves the sacrifice of one’s various Attributes or identities “born of passion and desire”[196] and seek a higher unity – and, through that, a higher identity – in “their love for God.”[197] In effect, this refocusing on God, short-circuits the earthly dialectic of self and other, of master and slave[198] or self and contradiction, by setting up the love for God as the catalyst for a spiritual synthesis in which the self would be recontextualised by God’s love and sublimated or reconstituted in a higher form.
It is important to emphasise that the individual is not lost in this higher synthesis, but rather maintains his identity in a higher form by overcoming the otherness of his negation, which is to say, by seeing the light of the one-ness of God, or the Manifestation in the other person as suggested by the following:
If any differences arise amongst you, behold Me standing before your face, and overlook the faults of one another for My name’s sake and as a token of your love for My manifest and resplendent Cause.[199]
In this way, the individual also re-discovers himself in the other, he discovers his own spiritual potentials in another and thus, by uniting with the other in the higher synthesis of Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation and its community, regains himself in a higher, sublimated form. Paradoxically he retains his identity at a higher level by losing it at a lower level: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”[200] Because the process we have described is, goes on continuously it also challenges us to take our identity at least in part from this very process of constantly re-discovering ourselves through others in the higher synthesis of the Bahá’í revelation and its community. To put it succinctly, our identity is not a destination but a journey."
http://www.bahaiphilosophystudies.com/articles/?p=19
"Both the existence and nature of the soul are another key area of agreement between the Baha’i Writings and Aristotle. However, before we explore this subject, it is important to clarify the Baha’i usage of some terminology. We must understand that according to Baha’u’llah, “spirit, mind, soul, hearing and sight are one but differ through differing causes.” 118 In other words, the mind, the rational soul, the power of sight and hearing are all the operations of a single power – spirit – through different instruments. Abdu’l-Baha confirms this when he says, “It is the same reality which is given different names according to the different conditions wherein it is manifested . . . when it governs the physical functions of the human body, it is called the human soul; when it manifests itself as the thinker, the comprehender, it is called mind; And when it soars into the atmosphere of God, and travels to the spiritual world, it becomes designated as spirit.”119 Aristotle expresses a similar view as the mind as a power of the soul when he writes, “by mind I mean that whereby the soul thinks and judges.”120 As Julio Savi writes, “These words enable us to understand the fundamental one-ness of the spirit beyond the multiplicity of its expressions. The instruments of the soul (or spirit of man) should not, therefore, be viewed as independent entities, but as different aspects of the same reality in its different functions.”121 It is essential not to lose sight of this fact if we wish to make clear sense of what would otherwise be a confused and self-contradictory jumble in the Writings.
The significance of the equation ‘spirit = mind = soul’ is that it is in fundamental agreement with Aristotle’s own views. As in Baha’u’llah’s statement, Aristotle, too, maintains that the soul controls such bodily functions as movement122, nutrition and reproduction123 and possesses the powers of sight124, touch125, sensation and, most significantly in light of Baha’u’llah’s statement, thinking.126 Thinking is an activity of the mind, or, what Aristotle calls the ‘active reason’ or ‘active intellect’. As we shall see, it is explicitly identified with the soul’s higher, specifically human functions for Aristotle, like the Baha’i Writings, also divides the human soul into two parts, the lower, that is, animal bodily functions and the higher, specifically human function of reason which he calls “divine.”127 Moreover, in complete agreement with the Baha’i Writings,128 he makes it clear that sickness, old age and death are not a diminishing of the soul itself but rather of its bodily “vehicle.”128
We have already seen explicit agreement on the existence of a vegetable, animal and human soul each including the powers of the one below it and adding its own essentially unique powers.129 Soul is the essence or form which “corresponds to the definitive formula of a thing’s essence.”130 Soul, in other words, is the “essential ‘whatness of a body’.”131 This, in turn, makes soul the “substance”132 as well as the “actuality”133 of a body – a point on which it is absolutely necessary to note that ‘substance’ does not necessarily mean ‘matter’ in Aristotle. That said, let us see just how similar Aristotle’s views and the Writings. I shall first present a list of items on which Aristotle and the Writings share congruent views on the soul, and then focus on two in particular: the immateriality of the mind and the immortality of the soul.
3.1) Rational Soul as Humankind’s Essential Attribute
The first similarity between the Writings and Aristotle’s concept of the soul is both the Baha’i Writings and Aristotle see the rational soul as the essential attribute that distinguishes humankind from the rest of nature. Abdu’l-Baha, for example identifies the “rational soul”134 with the “human spirit”135 and describes the “station of the rational soul”136 as “the human reality.”137 Elsewhere he asserts “The human spirit which distinguishes man from the animal is the rational soul, and these two names – the human spirit and the rational soul – designate one thing.”138 For his part Aristotle shows his agreement with Abdu’l-Baha by saying that “Without reason man is a brute.”139 He also asserts that “happiness is activity in accordance with virtue”140 and that the highest virtue – both in the sense of the highest good and the highest power in humankind – is contemplation.141 He writes, “Happiness, therefore, must be some form of contemplation142 and adds that since “reason is divine”143, “he who exercises his reason and cultivates it seems to be both in the best state of mind and most dear to the gods.”144 Although Aristotle himself never uses the scholastic term “rational soul”, clearly in his view, reason distinguishes humankind distinct from the rest of nature145 and it is by virtue of rationality that humankind partakes of the divine, or, at any rate partakes of it in a fuller measure than the rest.”146
...
3.4) Mind / matter- Mind / body Dualism
The concept that the “spirit or human soul”166 can exist separately from the body inescapably commits Aristotle168 and the Baha’i Writings to some form of what is called mind / matter dualism but which could just as well be termed soul / matter dualism. Aristotle says bluntly that “the body cannot be the soul”169 and Abdu’l-Baha states,
The spirit, or the human soul, is the rider; and the body is only the steed. . . The spirit may be likened to the lamp within the lantern. The body is simply the outer lantern. If the lantern should break the light is ever the same . . .170
Elsewhere he tells us “the reality of man is clad in the outer garment of the animal.”171 Clearly evident in these statements is an actual not merely intellectual distinction between the “human soul” or the specifically human powers of the soul and our animal bodies. This supported by the fact that Abdu’l-Baha often and approvingly quotes Christ’s statement that what is born of flesh or matter is flesh, and what is born of spirit is spirit.172 Clearly, spirit and matter are two essentially different things.
It may be objected that the oneness of reality precludes any form of dualism but such is not the truly case. The following quotation is often produced to support some kind of monism in the Baha’i Writings:
It is necessary, therefore, that we should know what each of the important existences was in the beginning– for there is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one, and that one matter appeared in different aspects in each element. Thus various forms were produced, and these various aspects as they were produced became permanent, and each element was specialized. But this permanence was not definite, and did not attain realization and perfect existence until after a very long time. Then these elements became composed, and organized and combined in infinite forms; or rather from the composition and combination of these elements innumerable beings appeared.173
In the first place, both this passage and its context, refer to matter rather than spirit or soul and assert no more than that originally, matter was one and that gradually various forms of matter evolved or broke symmetry from this initial supersymmetry. There is not the slightest suggestion here that soul, spirit or mind are somehow forms of matter albeit very subtle ones. Moreover, even if one chose to ignore its obvious reference to matter alone, and read this passage as implying that spirit and matter were all originally one, the situation does not change for us as we are today. The passage clearly indicates that matter, and by supposed implication, spirit, have by now evolved into different forms so that whatever unity they may have once had, no longer exists now. Whatever the situation may have been in the past, we now live in a world that shows a clear and essential distinction between matter and spirit. Thus, if there is a monism in the Baha’i Writings, it is at best a ‘historical monism’ which is no longer functional.
I would suggest that the following understanding of Abdu’l-Baha’s statements is more consistent with the Writings than the ‘monist’ interpretation. His statement that “The organization of God is one: the evolution of existence is one: the divine system is one”174 does not mean all parts of the organization or system are the same and that differences are unreal. Indeed, Abdu’l-Baha rejects that concept when he says that humankind is truly and essentially separate and distinct from nature, that we possess powers not found in nature itself, that, in effect, the phenomenal universe, though one insofar as it is a coherent and unified system dependent on God, is also divided in two insofar as we possesses powers not found in the rest of nature.175 This constitutes a radical division or differentiation within nature though it does not, of course, deny the oneness of the overall system of reality. Furthermore, according to the Writings, things differ in their capacity to reflect the divine Names or bounties176 and those differences of degree are real, essential and permanent.177 Just as we can never evolve into gods, so stones can never evolve into humans; these stations are fixed because “inequality in degree and capacity is a property of nature.”178 These inequalities and differences are real because they are divinely ordained as part of God’s system. Nor can they be crossed.179 The issue can, of course, be explained using Aristotelian terminology: there are many kinds of unity – unity of matter or material, unity of substance or essence, unity of form, unity of purpose, unity of logical relationship such as dependence and so on. “The organization of God”180, the single divine system 181 has a formal and purposive unity, which is different from and must not be confused with as a material and / or substantial unity. Because all things are unified does not mean they are all fundamentally the same. In other words, the dualism of mind-soul-spirit and physical body does not contradict the organizational or systematic unity of creation.
3.5) The Body / Soul Connection
Given their distinctness, it is natural to ask how body and soul are connected. According to Abdu’l-Baha, the mediator between the outer, bodily senses and our inner mental senses such as memory and imagination is the “common faculty” which “communicates between the outward and inward powers and thus is common to the outward and inward powers.”182 Aristotle’s views on this matter are not directly addressed to the mind / body issue as we understand it now, so we must infer his views from other writings to related topics. For example, he mentions the “common sense”183 that allows the presentation of events perceived outwardly to be recollected inwardly. In effect, this “common sense” mediates between the physical senses or the body and the intellectual senses or the remembering mind. He also sees it as deriving general, that is, abstract ideas from the physical data supplied by the senses. Here too it operates as a mediator between body and mind.184 He does not, however, consider it a separate sixth sense.
In continuing to explore the subject of how the soul is related to the body, we must be sure to divest ourselves of the notion that the soul somehow resides inside the body like a seed in a pot. Neither Aristotle nor the Baha’i Writings see the soul as a ‘foreign entity’ that somehow enters the body. As Abdu’l-Baha tells us, “the rational soul, meaning the human spirit, does not descend into the body–that is to say, it does not enter it, for descent and entrance are characteristics of bodies, and the rational soul is exempt from this. The spirit never entered this body.”185 Aristotle holds a similar view, criticizing as “absurdity”186 those theories that would “join the soul to a body, or place it in a body.”187 This, of course, leaves us with the question of the soul’s relationship to the body, a relationship described by Abdu’l-Baha as follows resembling the relationship of light to a mirror: “When the mirror is clear and perfect, the light of the lamp will be apparent in it, and when the mirror becomes covered with dust or breaks, the light will disappear.”188"
...
However, if creation is, in itself, perfect, what is evil and how does it originate? Put into Aristotelian terms, evil is the failure to properly develop the appropriate potential perfections that are latent in all created things. It is, to continue Abdu’l-Baha’s analogy, the shadow of a good that should have been actualized but is not. In other words, evil is a “by-product” 423 insofar as it happens when, for whatever reason, created things fail to actualize their potentials properly. It is a misdevelopment whose occurrence depends on the universal potency for good but either stops short and / or twists (perverts) that good away from its intended, natural end. Obviously, evil cannot apply to the Divine since It is not subject to the process of actualization.
This view of evil as a diversion from a sought for good makes itself felt throughout the Baha’i Writings. For example, it provides a rational explanation for the Bab’s prayer that “All are His servants and all abide by His bidding”: in Aristotelian terms, all created things do seek the good, that is, “abide by [God’s] bidding” in seeking to actualize their potentials, though, of course, all do not do so in the way intended. This is especially true of humans who are capable of ‘sin’, that is, consciously and knowingly seeking their own, lesser good over the greater good demanded by God. Relative to God’s greater good, the lesser good is ‘evil’ which means that even wrong-doers, while subjectively intending the good as such, pursue the lesser good by deficient means. This view of evil is also the rational basis of the “world-embracing”424 vision for which Baha’is strive since the wide diversity of actions and beliefs are often no more than different means of gaining universal goals. This Aristotelian perspective on evil obviously also provides a foundation for belief in the eventual unification of humankind in a commonwealth which will reconcile universal agreement on ends with a wide diversity of means.
The concept of evil as a failure of actualization leads, naturally, to the concept of a universal natural morality and a universal natural law, two concepts integral to the establishment of a truly unified global commonwealth. Any ethical system that allows us to actualize our specific potentials as human beings is thereby ‘natural’ and ‘moral’. Moreover, because human nature or human essence is universal, it is possible to devise a single moral code of goals applicable to all human beings in all times and places. Since this code is based on our universal human essence bestowed on us by God, it can also become the basis of a system of global natural laws and rights. Whatever interferes with this actualization is not only morally evil but should also be illegal for being contrary to the natural law of our being.
7.6) Agreement on Particular Virtues
Given such far-reaching foundational similarities in their ethical systems, it is not surprising that Aristotle and the Baha’i Writings agree on the importance of a wide variety of particular virtues. For example, Aristotle and the Writings place an enormous premium on justice as one of the essential virtues. Baha’u’llah tells us that “O Son of Spirit! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice.”425 Furthermore, Abdu’l-Baha specifically writes about “industrial justice”426 emphasized by Aristotle as ‘distributive justice’427 which distributes goods and other rewards according to merit so that proper proportion will not be lost and some will have excess while others have not enough. As Aristotle says, “injustice is excess and defect.”428 The concept of distributive justice remarkably resembles Baha’u’llah’s Teaching that there should be no extremes of wealth and poverty, that is, wealth and poverty should be properly proportionate.429
Aristotle also believes that “rectificatory”430 justice “restores equality”431 which reflects the close association in the Baha’i Writings between justice and equality.432 Both also agree on the importance of temperance and moderation 433; liberality or generosity434; honor and nobility435 and proper leisure, that is, leisure appropriate to our specifically human nature.436 The range of specific agreements between the two is enormously wide as shown by the following samples: the importance of music in character education437; the importance of suppressing swearing and foul language438; rational liberty439 or “true liberty”440; majority rule limited by considerations of fairness441; equality of all citizens442 and the primacy of good character. 443 As Aristotle says, “a good man may make the best even of poverty and disease and the other ills of life.”444
In other words, poverty or adverse circumstances are no excuse for unworthy behaviors, an idea expressed by Baha’u’llah when He says,
Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor, and look upon him with a bright and friendly face. Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer of the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment, and guarded in thy speech. Be unjust to no man, and show all meekness to all men. Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression. Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts.445
http://www.bahaiphilosophystudies.com/articles/?p=7
"In category theory, a concept is (half-jokingly) said to be evil if it involves equations between objects, or more generally if it distinguishes between isomorphic objects. More precisely:
A property of categories is non-evil if when it holds for a category C, it also holds for any category C' that is equivalent to C.
A property of functors is non-evil if when it holds for a functor F, it also holds for any functor F' that is naturally isomorphic to F.
By rigorously avoiding equations between objects, we can ensure that the properties we define are non-evil. (This should be made more precise, to become a theorem in the foundations of mathematics.)
The ideas here generalize in many directions. For example not only properties, but also constructions involving categories and functors, can be evil or non-evil. The idea also generalizes to n-categories and to objects, morphisms etc. internal to n-categories.
...
The terminology ‘evil’ was originally intended as a joke and has not been used in any published paper. It arguably also puts the emphasis on the wrong place, since what matters is what is not evil. Other possibilities which have been proposed are:
...
A precise term for use in higher category theory is ‘invariant under equivalence’ (as the definition suggests). One can make various versions of this, such as ‘equivalence-invariant’ or a portmanteau such as ‘equinvariant’. Of course, only properties are actually invariant; non-evil structure must actually be covariant. One might argue that simply saying ‘covariant’ for ‘non-evil’ has the correct meaning and connotations in all cases."
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/evil
Solutions for the Problems of Free Will, Good and Evil, Consciousness and God:
http://www.scribd.com/Christopher-Michael-Langan-The-Art-of-Knowing-Expositions-on-Free-Will-and-Selected-Essays/d/31783507
“The mind which is in man, the existence of which is recognized—where is it in him? If you examine the body with the eye, the ear or the other senses, you will not find it; nevertheless, it exists. Therefore, the mind has no place, but it is connected with the brain.” Abdu’l-Baha
http://bahaicoherence.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-identity.html
"In the Western religions, the highest reality is called God. In these religions, God is the creator of all that is. He is the Lord of all, who intervenes in human affairs and sends His prophets to bring laws and teachings to humanity. The duty of human beings is to recognize the prophet and to lead their lives according to these laws and teachings.
In the religions of the East, the highest reality has different characteristics. Whether we consider Nirvana or the Dharma in Theravada Buddhism, Shunyata in Mahayana Buddhism, the Tao in Taoism, or Brahma in Advaita Hinduism, the highest reality in these Eastern religions does not have the personal characteristics of God in the Western religions; it is impersonal in the sense that it does not exercise a will, and does not intervene in human affairs. Rather this highest reality is seen as the Absolute Reality of which our worldly reality is an aspect. If human beings could see things as they really are, they would recognize that their reality and the Absolute Reality are one and the same. This is expressed by various formulae in these religions, such as the truth that Atman (the individual soul) is Brahman (Absolute Reality) in Advaita Hinduism, or that Samsara (the contingent world) is Nirvana (the Absolute) in Buddhism.
Bahá'u'lláh's teaching about the highest reality starts with the basic statement that an absolute knowledge of this reality is impossible for human beings to achieve. The finite nature of the human mind cannot grasp and comprehend the infinite.
So perfect and comprehensive is His creation that no mind or heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence . . .(1)
Since no absolute knowledge of the highest reality is available, all descriptions, all schemata, all attempts to portray the highest reality are necessarily limited by the point of view of the particular person making them. They are limited, relative truths only.
All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded, nor can they ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man's finite mind hath been strictly subjected. To whatever heights the mind of the most exalted of men may soar, however great the depths which the detached and understanding heart can penetrate, such mind and heart can never transcend that which is the creature of their own thoughts. The meditations of the profoundest thinker, the devotions of the holiest of saints, the highest expressions of praise from either human pen or tongue, are but a reflection of that which hath been created within themselves. (Bahá'u'lláh - emphasis added)(2)
Therefore, although the religions of the East and West have widely differing concepts of the highest reality, Bahá'u'lláh maintains that this does not mean that there is a difference in the reality that is being described. Rather the religions differ because they are each looking at that reality from different viewpoints. They have each constructed concepts and ideas from their own perspective. The source of the differences lies, therefore, not in what is being observed; rather it lies in the fact that those who have written on these subjects have each had a particular cultural or personal background that predetermines the way that they have looked at these matters:
The differences among the religions of the world are due to the varying types of minds. (`Abdu'l-Bahá)(3)
`Abdu'l-Bahá has summarized this teaching by saying that whatever it is that all peoples, whether of the East or the West, have conceptualized, it is a product of their own minds and therefore limited by their minds. It can therefore never encompass the infinite and unlimited nature of God or Absolute Reality.
This people, all of them, have pictured a god in the realm of the mind, and worship that image which they have made for themselves. And yet that image is comprehended, the human mind being the comprehender thereof, and certainly the comprehender is greater than that which lieth within its grasp; for imagination is but the branch, while mind is the root; and certainly the root is greater than the branch . . . Thus are the people worshipping only an error of perception.
But that Essence of Essences, that Invisible of Invisibles, is sanctified above all human speculation, and never to be overtaken by the mind of man. Never shall that immemorial Reality lodge within the compass of a contingent being. His is another realm, and of that realm no understanding can be won. No access can be gained thereto; all entry is forbidden there. The utmost one can say is that Its existence can be proved, but the conditions of Its existence are unknown. (emphasis added)(4)
Bahá'u'lláh also asserts that nothing can be said about God or Absolute Reality. Any description that we try to make of Him or It is completely inadequate.
To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men.(5)
The only connection that human beings have with this highest reality, the essence of God or the Absolute Reality, is through the prophet-founders of the world religions. These persons although they appear in human form, are, in reality, intermediaries between the Absolute Reality/God and humanity. It is only through them that we can come to know anything at all about the highest reality.
The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days being thus closed in the face of all beings, the Source of infinite grace . . . hath caused those luminous Gems of Holiness to appear out of the realm of the spirit, in the noble form of the human temple, and be made manifest unto all men, that they may impart unto the world the mysteries of the unchangeable Being, and tell of the subtleties of His imperishable Essence.(6)
Bahá'u'lláh does not, therefore, condemn the various concepts of God or Absolute Reality held by the religions of East and West. He states that they are true but are only limited and relative truths.
Regarding the Western concept of God described above, for example, Bahá'u'lláh asserts that the Essence of God is "beyond every human attribute."(7) Where the scriptures of the Western religions appear to give God human attributes (such as being angry with one people and being pleased with another; or coming and going; or speaking; or having parts of the human body such as a face or hands or back), these are not references to the Essence of God, the unknowable Godhead. In fact all these are references to the spiritual reality of the prophet-founders of the world religions. Because these prophet-founders of the world religions perfectly reflect all of the names and attributes of God, Bahá'u'lláh calls them the Manifestations of God. These exalted beings stand for God in this world.
[God] hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God . . . They are the Manifestations of God amidst men, the evidences of His Truth, and the signs of His glory.(8)
Since human beings can have no direct knowledge or understanding of God, these Manifestations of God are all that human beings can know of God in this world. All of the attributes of God recorded in the scriptures can best be conceptualized through the person of these Manifestations.
. . . viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been, and are applicable to those Essences of Being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of Divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of Divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the Divine Being. (Bahá'u'lláh)(9)
With regard to the conceptualization of the Absolute Reality in the Eastern religions, Bahá'u'lláh again does not condemn this view. On the contrary, he affirms that it is in some senses true. For example he states that "Absolute existence is strictly confined to God,"(10) and nothing else can be said to exist in any absolute sense apart from God.(11)
Regarding the conceptualization in the eastern religions of the Absolute Reality as identical with the human reality, Bahá'u'lláh makes many similar statements, for example:
Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.(12)
Just as with the Western religious concepts of God, however, these statements hold true at the level of the manifestation of God. All of the divine names and attributes are manifested in the human being. In that sense, then, there is an identity between the human being and the Absolute, but it is an identity of attributes not of essence.
In brief then, Bahá'u'lláh takes the concepts of both Eastern and Western religions and asserts that those who hold these views are both wrong and right. They are wrong if they maintain that these views are the absolute truth about the essence of the highest reality (for human beings have no access to that truth); but they are right in that these views do express the truth from a limited viewpoint (they represent the truth about the Absolute Reality/God in the way that it manifests itself in this world). This is all the truth that human beings can comprehend. The fact that the various expressions of this truth have been different and even sometimes contradictory is due to the limitations of the human mind and the fact that we are only able to view these truths from a particular limited viewpoint."
http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/bahai/intro7.htm
"...[I]n His approach to authority, freedom, and the relation of religion to the state, Baha'u'llah advocates neither the modern Western conception of a complete separation of church and state -- especially its American form -- nor the premodern idea of their absoute identity....Baha'u'llah's teachings on this question...are irreducible to the binary discourse of secularism versus theocratism in either the traditional Muslim or the modern Western contexts. But what is most illogical is the idea that a system of belief that proposes to spiritualize order and governance should totally separate the realm that is the source of spirit from any relation to the order that institutionalizes it."
-Nader Saiedi, Logos and Civilization
"...given the importance that church-state theories have assumed in Islamicist rhetoric vis-a-vis the West, the model of church-state relationships in the Baha'i scriptures is especially interesting. Coming from the Islamic world itself, the Baha'i Faith presents a justification of the separation of church and state going far beyond those produced in the West."
http://bahai-library.com/articles/theology.state.html
"You cannot shelter theology from science, or science from theology; nor can you shelter either from metaphysics, or metaphysics from either of them. There is no short cut to truth." Alfred North Whitehead (RM 79)
"God made religion and science to be the measure, as it were, of our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance.
To him who has the power of comprehension religion is like an openbook, but how can it be possible for a man devoid of reason and intellectuality to understand the Divine Realities of God?" - 'Abdul-Baha
"By encouraging openness between the Church and the scientific communities, we are not envisioning a disciplinary unity between theology and science like that which exists within a given scientific field or within theology proper. As dialogue and common searching continue, there will be growth toward mutual understanding and a gradual uncovering of common concerns which will provide the basis for further research and discussion. Exactly what form that will take must be left to the future. What is important, as we have already stressed, is that the dialogue should continue and grow in depth and scope. In the process we must overcome every regressive tendency to a unilateral reductionism, to fear and to self-imposed isolation. What is critically important is that each discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and who we are becoming .
We might ask whether or not we are ready for this crucial endeavor. Is the community of world religions, including the Church, ready to enter into a more thoroughgoing dialogue with the scientific community, a dialogue in which the integrity of both religion and science is supported and the advance of each is fostered? Is the scientific community now prepared to open itself to Christianity and indeed to all the great world religions, working with us all to build a culture that is more humane and in that way more divine? Do we dare to risk the honesty and the courage that this task demands? We must ask ourselves whether both science and religion will contribute to the integration of human culture or to its fragmentation. It is a single choice, and it confronts us all.
For a simple neutrality is no longer acceptable. If they are to grow and mature, peoples cannot continue to live in separate compartments, pursuing totally divergent interests from which they evaluate and judge their world. A divided community fosters a fragmented vision of the world; a community of interchange encourages its members to expand their partial perspectives and form a new unified vision.
Yet the unity that we seek, as we have already stressed, is not identity. The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion, science. On the contrary, unity always presupposes the diversity and the integrity of its elements. Each of these members should become not less itself but more itself in a dynamic interchange, for a unity in which one of the elements is reduced to the other is destructive, false in its promises of harmony and ruinous of the integrity of its components. We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other.
To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness. Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic. Science must bear witness to its own worth. While each can and should support the other as distinct dimensions of a common human culture, neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other. The unprecedented opportunity we have today is for a common interactive relationship in which each discipline retains its integrity and yet is radically open to the discoveries and insights of the other.
But why is critical openness and mutual interchange a value for both of us? Unity involves the drive of the human mind toward understanding and the desire of the human spirit for love. When human beings seek to understand the multiplicities that surround them, when they seek to make sense of experience, they do so by bringing many factors into a common vision. Understanding is achieved when many data are unified by a common structure. The one illuminates the many; it makes sense of the whole. Simple multiplicity is chaos; an insight, a single model, can give that chaos structure and draw it into intelligibility. We move toward unity as we move toward meaning in our lives. Unity is also the consequence of love. If love is genuine, it moves not toward the assimilation of the other, but toward union with the other. Human community begins in desire when that union has not been achieved, and it is completed in joy when those who have been apart are now united."
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-coyne.html
"One of the unique teachings of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of science and religion. To be sure, other religions embrace this principle, but the Bahá'í Faith is the first religion to explicitly proclaim the fact in its Holy Writings. This is not surprising, since science in the modern sense only came into being in the Renaissance with the systematic experimental and mathematical approaches pioneered by figures such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and others. The Scriptures of all major religious systems predate this by centuries. Even Islam, which regards itself as a religion that fully embraces science, does not state in Scripture that the two disciplines are harmonious.
But what do we mean by "harmony of science and religion"? Are science and religion both valid paths to knowledge about the universe in which we live? Are they totally separate paths leading to fundamentally different kinds of knowledge? Do they touch only at certain points, or at all points, or not at all? In discussions I've had with a variety of Bahá'ís and people of other faiths, I've heard the whole gamut of opinions. For whatever it's worth, I'd like to offer my own take on the question.
First, it seems clear enough that science and religion do have some points of contact. If nothing else, both are human concerns, so at the very least they intersect in their influence on human life. Moreover, both science and religion offer us visions of reality, often called worldviews, that help give meaning and direction to our individual and collective lives. If science and religion are harmonious, they ought to reinforce a common worldview rather than present disjoint visions of reality.
Indeed, this is what "harmony" means. In music, harmonious notes sound pleasing together, while discordant notes do not. We typically use the word "harmony" to imply complementary elements working together as one. Things are in harmony with each other not when they are identical but when their differences work together to create a unified whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Science and religion are not identical, but they can and do work together, if we let them. Even so, the proper relationship between them may surprise you. The Bahá'í Faith doesn't indicate that science needs to bring itself into line with religion. It says exactly the opposite:
"Furthermore, religion must conform to reason and be in accord with the conclusions of science. For religion, reason and science are realities; therefore, these three, being realities, must conform and be reconciled. A question or principle which is religious in its nature must be sanctioned by science. Science must declare it to be valid, and reason must confirm it in order that it may inspire confidence. If religious teaching, however, be at variance with science and reason, it is unquestionably superstition. The Lord of mankind has bestowed upon us the faculty of reason whereby we may discern the realities of things. How then can man rightfully accept any proposition which is not in conformity with the processes of reason and the principles of science? Assuredly such a course cannot inspire man with confidence and real belief."
('Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 394)
Time and again, 'Abdu'l-Bahá tells us that religion must conform to science and reason, not the other way around. When it fails to do so, it becomes mere superstition and is not worthy of acceptance. One of the major sources of conflict between science and religion has been the stubborn refusal of the followers of some religions to allow their understandings of their religion to be informed by scientific advances. This in turn results from viewing religious scripture as a literal account of the history of the universe and humanity rather than a metaphorical device intended to teach us about spiritual matters.
There is another side to the question, namely that science cannot by itself address all human needs. Religion has an important role to play, too. Indeed, 'Abdu'l-Bahá likened science and religion to two wings of a bird, indicating that both must be strong and functioning properly for humanity to achieve its potential. Let's take that as a given for the moment. The point I wish to emphasize right now is this: religion does not make for better science; rather, science makes for better religion. Science acts as a moderating influence on religion and keeps us from falling into superstition. Beyond this, it increases our sense of awe and wonder at God's creation. Time and again science has shown the universe to be far more subtle and beautiful than we had ever imagined. (Religion may make for better scientists, but that's a different matter entirely.)
I emphasize this because many religious people adopt the position that if science conflicts with their religious understanding, it's because science is "in its infancy" or is "excessively materialistic" or even is "a delusion of Satan." In short, they opt for what, as we saw above, the Master called superstition rather than allowing science and reason to inform their religious beliefs.
Now all scientists, and everyone who truly understands science, readily accepts that all scientific knowledge is provisional. Science doesn't give us absolute knowledge. It's always possible that an experiment or observation will upset even the most established bit of scientific wisdom. However, the provisional nature of this knowledge doesn't mean it's worthless. Indeed, we can have a high degree of confidence in many of the results of science. It also is true that some sciences are more mature than others. Physics and astronomy, the oldest of the sciences, are very mature as a whole. Modern biology is perhaps less so, besides being a more complex field. The cognitive sciences are very young and no doubt have a long way to go. But we must remember that even relatively immature sciences can tell us useful things about the world in which we live. They should not be discounted merely because of youth, just as people should not be discounted merely because of youth.
Interestingly enough, the Bahá'í Faith also regards religious understanding as tentative. The principle of progressive revelation indicates that religious knowledge changes and matures over human history, and the process of study and internalization of religion known among Bahá'ís as "deepening" implies that our religious understanding as individuals is always in a state of evolution. Absolute truth resides with God alone. We can only approximate it. It would be wrong, from a Bahá'í perspective, to cling to a particular interpretation of Scripture if we find solid indications that the interpretation is in error. We must allow our understanding of religion to grow, just as we must allow our understanding of science to grow. Science can and should inform religious understanding, while religious understanding can and should put the results of science in a larger context.
Ultimately, because science and religion both speak to reality, we should expect them to converge on a consistent worldview. My experience is that this happens, but that often it takes considerable study and reflection before such a worldview emerges. It is as much a process of discovery as anything else, and I suspect that different people will experience it in different ways. That's not a problem, because it often turns out that there are many equally valid ways of looking at the world. (This is even true in science.) This process proceeds best when I let science tell me about the physical universe and ask religion to offer a "big picture" that conforms to science and reason. Whenever the two come together in harmony, I sense that I have understood some small part of the mind of God."
http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/articles.pl?article=193
"66. What is the Universal, Divine Mind? (Spirit or Prophecy)
…But the universal divine mind, which is beyond nature, is the bounty of the Preexistent Power. This universal mind is divine; it embraces
existing realities, and it receives the light of the mysteries of God. It is a conscious power, not a power of investigation and of research.
The intellectual power of the world of nature is a power of investigation, and by its researches it discovers the realities of
beings and the properties of existences; but the heavenly intellectual power, which is beyond nature, embraces things and is cognizant of things, knows them, understands them, is aware of mysteries, realities and divine significations, and is the discoverer of the concealed
verities of the Kingdom. This divine intellectual power is the special attribute of the Holy Manifestations and the Dawning-places of
prophethood. (Some Answered Questions, p. 253)
And if the wayfarers dwell in the chamber of Mahmud (i.e, "Trustworthy" which is one of the titles of Muhammad) this station
belongs to reason which is known as the Prophet and the most great Pillar. But by the reason is here meant the divine universal Mind, on
whose sovereignty, in this state, depends the training of the whole of creation; and not every limited, inane mentality….
In this state, the wayfarer encounters countless vicissitudes and upheavals. Now he is lifted heavenwards and now lowered into the
depths, as it is said "Now thou attractest me to the loftiest throne of Divinity, and again thou destroyeth me with the fire of
perplexity." (Islámic holy utterance)….
And in this state, seeking after knowledge is needless, for concerning the instruction of wayfarers on this plane, He hath said: "Fear God
and God will teach you. (Qur'án)" Likewise He hath said: "Knowledge is a light which God depositeth within the heart of whomsoever He willeth." (Qur'án). Wherefore, one should prepare the place, to make it worthy the descending of favor, in order that All-Sufficient
Cup-bearer may cause one to drink the Wine of Bounty from the Chalice of mercy. (Seven Valleys and Four Valleys, p. 48-50)"
http://bahai-library.com/kelsey_bahai_answers
Cognitive-Developmental Psychology and the Baha'i Faith: Meaningful Connections.
"Explores the relationship between the Baha'i Faith and the cognitive-developmental school of psychology to promote greater communication between members of the Baha'i Faith and the therapeutic community. Concepts compared include a developmental teleology, the stagelike nature of development, and the importance of a cognitive, or epistemic, focus."
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ502599&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ502599
"Cognitive development is primarily concerned with the ways in which infants and children acquire, develop, and use internal mental capabilities such as problem solving, memory, and language. Major topics in cognitive development are the study of language acquisition and the development of perceptual and motor skills. Piaget was one of the influential early psychologists to study the development of cognitive abilities. His theory suggests that development proceeds through a set of stages from infancy to adulthood and that there is an end point or goal. Other accounts, such as that of Lev Vygotsky, have suggested that development does not progress through stages, but rather that the developmental process that begins at birth and continues until death is too complex for such structure and finality. Rather, from this viewpoint, developmental processes proceed more continuously, thus development should be analyzed, instead of treated as a product to be obtained.
Modern cognitive development has integrated the considerations of cognitive psychology and the psychology of individual differences into the interpretation and modeling of development. Specifically, the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development showed that the successive levels or stages of cognitive development are associated with increasing processing efficiency and working memory capacity. These increases explain progression to higher stages, and individual differences in such increases by same-age persons explain differences in cognitive performance. Other theories have moved away from Piagetian stage theories, and are influenced by accounts of domain-specific information processing, which posit that development is guided by innate evolutionarily specified and content-specific information processing mechanisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology#Piagetian_stages_of_cognitive_development
"The term "cognition" refers to all processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used. It is concerned with these processes even when they operate in the absence of relevant stimulation, as in images and hallucinations... Given such a sweeping definition, it is apparent that cognition is involved in everything a human being might possibly do; that every[4] psychological phenomenon is a cognitive phenomenon. But although cognitive psychology is concerned with all human activity rather than some fraction of it, the concern is from a particular point of view. Other viewpoints are equally legitimate and necessary. Dynamic psychology, which begins with motives rather than with sensory input, is a case in point. Instead of asking how a man's actions and experiences result from what he saw, remembered, or believed, the dynamic psychologist asks how they follow from the subject's goals, needs, or instincts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology
"The notion of "logical system" here is formalized as an institution. Institutions constitute a model-oriented meta-theory on logical systems similar to how the theory of rings and modules constitute a meta-theory for classical linear algebra. Another analogy can be made with universal algebra versus groups, rings, modules etc. By abstracting away from the realities of the actual conventional logics, it can be noticed that institution theory comes in fact closer to the realities of non-conventional logics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_model_theory
"Institutional Logic is a core concept in sociological theory and organizational studies. It focuses on how broader belief systems shape the cognition and behavior of actors.
Friedland and Alford (1991) defined Institutions as both supraorganizational patterns of activity by which individuals and organizations produce and reproduce their material subsistence and organize time and space. They are also symbolic systems, ways of ordering reality, thereby rendering experience of time and space meaningful. Focusing on macro-societal phenomena, Friedland and Alford (1991: 232) identified several key Institutions: the Capitalist market, bureaucratic state, democracy, nuclear family, and Christianity that are each guided by a distinct institutional logic. Thornton (2004) revised Friedland and Alford’s (1991) inter-institutional scheme to six sectors, i.e., the market, the corporation, the professions, the state, the family, and religions. This revision to a theoretically abstract and analytically distinct set of ideal types makes it useful for studying multiple logics in conflict and consensus, the hybridization of logics, and institutions in other parts of society and the world. While building on Friedland and Alford’s scheme, the revision addresses the confusion created by conflating institutional sectors with ideology (democracy) and means of organization (bureaucracy), variables that can be characteristic several different institutional sectors.
The institutional logic of Christianity leaves out other religions in the US and other religions that are dominant in other parts of the world. Thornton and Ocasio (2008) discuss the importance of not confusing the ideal types of the inter-institutional system with a description of the empirical observations in a study—that is to use the ideal types as meta theory and method of analysis.
New institutionalism
Organizational theorists operating within the new institutionalism (see also institutional theory) have begun to develop the institutional logics concept by empricially testing it. One variant emphasizes how logics can focus the attention of key decision-makers on a particular set of issues and solutions (Ocasio, 1997), leading to logic-consistent decisions (Thornton, 2002). A fair amount of research on logics has focused on the importance of dominant logics and shifts from one logic to another (e.g., Lounsbury, 2002; Thornton, 2002; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). Haveman and Rao (1997) showed how the rise of Progressive thought enabled a shift in savings and loan organizational forms in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Scott et al. (2000) detailed how logic shifts in healthcare led to the valorization of different actors, behaviors and governance structures. Thornton and Ocasio (1999) analyzed how a change from professional to market logics in U.S. higher education publishing led to corollary changes in how executive succession was carried out.
While earlier work focused on ambiguity as a result of multiple and conflicting institutional logics, at the levels of analysis of society and individual roles, Friedland and Alford (1991:248-255) discussed in theory multiple and competing logics at the macro level of analsyis. Recent empirical research, inspired by the work of Bourdieu, is developing a more pluralistic approach by focusing on multiple competing logics and contestation of meaning. By focusing on how some fields are composed of multiple logics, and thus, multiple forms of institutionally-based rationality, institutional analysts can provide new insight into practice variation and the dynamics of practice. Multiple logics can create diversity in practice by enabling variety in cognitive orientation and contestation over which practices are appropriate. As a result, such multiplicity can create enormous ambiguity, leading to logic blending, the creation of new logics, and the continued emergence of new practice variants. Thornton, Jones, and Kury (2005) showed how competing logics may never resolve but share the market space as in the case of architectural services."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_logic
Conceptua: Institutions in a Topos
"Abstract. Tarski’s semantic definition of truth is the composition of
its extensional and intensional aspects. Abstract satisfaction, the core of
the semantic definition of truth, is the basis for the theory of institutions
[3]. The satisfaction relation for first order languages (the truth classifi-
cation), and the preservation of truth by first order interpretations (the
truth infomorphism), form a key motivating example in the theory of
Information Flow (IF) [1]. The concept lattice notion, which is the cen-
tral structure studied by the theory of Formal Concept Analysis (FCA)
[2], is constructed by the polar factorization of derivation. The study
of classification structures (IF) and the study of conceptual structures
(FCA) provide a principled foundation for the logical theory of knowl-
edge representation and organization. In an effort to unify these two
areas, the paper “Distributed Conceptual Structures” [4] abstracted the
basic theorem of FCA in order to established three levels of categorical
equivalence between classification structures and conceptual structures.
In this paper, we refine this approach by resolving the equivalence as
the category-theoretic factorization of the Galois connection of deriva-
tion. The equivalence between classification and conceptual structures
is mediated by the opposite motions of factorization and composition.
Abstract truth factors through the concept lattice of theories in terms
of its extensional and intensional aspects."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=40BD665E91C90B7DB35BC2E620A3A02A?doi=10.1.1.103.4526&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Mathematical models of cognitive space and time
"This paper explores reasoning about space and time, e.g., in metaphors of time as space; an important method is to find minimal assumptions needed to reach the same conclusions that humans reach. Some mathematical language, including the notion of triad, is introduced for this purpose, formalizing and generalizing the cognitive semantics approaches to conceptual spaces (in the senses of both Fauconnier & Turner and of Gärdenfors), blending, and metaphor; in particular, continuous mathematics is used to model space and time. A new explanation of emergent structure in blend spaces is also discussed, and proposed as a source of creativity. Four main examples illustrate the approach, and an appendix encapsulates the most difficult mathematics."
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/pps/taspm.pdf
What is Unification? A Categorical View of Substitution, Equation and Solution
"From a general perspective, a substitution is a transformation from one space to another, an equation is a pair of such substitutions, and a solution to an equation is a substitution that yields the same value when composed with (i.e., when substituted into) the substitutions that constitute the given equation. In some special cases, solutions are called unifiers. Other examples include Scott domain equations, unification grammars, type inference, and differential equations. The intuition that the composition of substitutions should be associative when defined, and should have identities, motivates a general concept of substitution system based on category theory. Notions of morphism, congruence, and quotient are given for substitution systems, each with the expected properties, and some general cardinality bounds are proved for most general solution sets (which are minimal sets of solutions with the property that any other solution is a substitution instance of one in the set). The notions of equation and solution are also generalized to systems of equations, i.e., to constraint solving, and applied to clarify notions of "compositionality" and "unification" in linguistic unification grammar. This paper is self-contained as regards category theory, and indeed, could be used as an introductory tutorial on that subject."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.48.3615
"CTMU rescues most of standard big bang cosmology using special dualization principles reminiscent of those utilized in membrane theory.
The universe becomes an infocognitive endomorphism; space is a logical form that evolves (literally) by logical substitution, and time the implementation of substitutive grammar.
Instead of particles being "transmitted" from one point of space to another through the familiar kinematic osmosis based on a dissociation of logic and geometry, the motion of a particle is locally expressed within its own prior image, i.e., wavefunction.
CTMU self-creative reality
NeST provides a framework in which free will and freedom can exist, but to see it, one needs to subject it to a distributed involution effecting spatiotemporal closure."
http://www.polymath-systems.com/langlang/llmay99b.html
HYPERSTRUCTURE IN BRAIN AND COGNITION
"Abstract: This target article tries to identify the informational content of experience underlying object percepts and concepts in complex, changeable environments, in a way which can be related to higher cerebral functions. In complex environments, repetitive experience of feature- and object-images in static, canonical form is rare, and this remains a problem in current theories of conceptual representation. The only reliable information available in natural experience consists of nested covariations or 'hyperstructures'. These need to be registered in a representational system. Such representational hyperstructures can have novel emergent structures and evolution into 'higher' forms of representation, such as object concepts and event- and social-schemas. Together, these can provide high levels of predictability. A sketch of a model of hyperstructural functions in object perception and conception is presented. Some comparisons with related views in the literature of the recent decades are made, and some empirical evidence is briefly reviewed.
Keywords: complexity, covariation, features, hypernetwork, hyperstructure, object concepts, receptive field, representation
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/ptopic?topic=hyperstructure
ABSTRACT IDEAS, SCHEMATA AND HYPERSTRUCTURES
Abstract: Richardson's hyperstructures display the characteristics of a number of earlier explanatory concepts in perception and pattern recognition. Questions can be raised about their exact ontological status: Are they truly global constructs? or are they derived from the products of prior local processing? If the former, then what is the mechanism of their direct detection? If the latter, then questions can be asked about the validity of Richardson's attack on so-called "feature theory," which would seem to provide the basis for the extraction and derivation of hyperstructures. A more explicit conception of hyperstructures may be in terms of the "dependence systems" suggested by Rescher & Oppenheim (1955). Richardson suggests that hyperstructures fill a "void" in connectionist systems. It is argued here that there is no such void, and that Richardson's claim stems from his confusion of neural-level and cognitive descriptions, together with an incomplete exposition of the exact ontological status of his hyperstructures.
Keywords: connectionism, feature, global, hyperstructure, local, schema, part, whole."
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.040
"Nils Baas has been emphasizing for many years, in print and in private communication, the conviction that the usual notions of n-category, infinity-category omega-category in higher category theory are not naturally suited for describing
extended cobordisms such as appearing in
the tangle hypothesis
in extended quantum field theory
hierarchical systems such as appearing in
complex systems;
biology.
The point is essentially that the directedness of morphisms and — related to that — the binary notion of source and target in categories and higher categories are notions alien to these contexts, which in applications have to and are essentially removed again in a second step by adding extra structure and requiring further properties, such as various monoidal structures and dualities, which allow to change the direction of morphisms, to collect objects together, etc.
In contrast to that, Baas pointed out that more naturally the above situations are thought of from the beginning in terms of hierarchies of what he calls bonds, where, quite generally, a bond is an object equipped with information of how a collection of sub-bonds sits inside it, bound by the bond."
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/hyperstructure
"Question: Or, alternatively, does God instantaneously or non-spatiotemporally— completely, consistently, and comprehensively—reconfigure and reconstitute reality’s info-cognitive objects and relations?
Answer: The GOD, or primary teleological operator, is self-distributed at points of conspansion. This means that SCSPL evolves through its coherent grammatical processors, which are themselves generated in a background-free way by one-to-many endomorphism. The teleo-grammatic functionality of these processors is simply a localized "internal extension" of this one-to-many endomorphism; in short, conspansive spacetime ensures consistency by atemporally embedding the future in the past. Where local structure conspansively mirrors global structure, and global distributed processing "carries" local processing, causal inconsistencies cannot arise; because the telic binding process occurs in a spacetime medium consisting of that which has already been bound, consistency is structurally enforced."
"Question: If God does in fact continuously create reality on a global level such that all prior structure must be relativized and reconfigured, is there any room for free-will?
Answer: Yes, but we need to understand that free will is stratified. As a matter of ontological necessity, God, being ultimately identified with UBT, has "free will" on the teleological level...i.e., has a stratified choice function with many levels of coherence, up to the global level (which can take all lower levels as parameters). Because SCSPL local processing necessarily mirrors global processing - there is no other form which it can take - secondary telors also possess free will. In the CTMU, free will equates to self-determinacy, which characterizes a closed stratified grammar with syntactic and telic-recursive levels; SCSPL telors cumulatively bind the infocognitive potential of the ontic groundstate on these levels as it is progressively "exposed" at the constant distributed rate of conspansion."
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God
Category Theory and Consciousness:
"We propose a new research program which provides an approach to the problem of consciousness and deep reality. Our model is based on category theory. The need to relate local behavior to global behavior has convinced us early on that a good model for conscious entities had to be found in the notion of a sheaf. With this formulation, every presheaf represents a brain (or conscious activity). An important aspect of the theory we we will develop is the notion of sheafification of a presheaf which will allow us to include complementarity as part of the description of the universe. Our model is intended to describe a notion of consciousness which is pervasive throughout the universe and not localized in individual conscious entities.
...
In other words, we needed to provide a model which shows that "objects" which are locally trivial do not necessarily remain trivial at the global level. In our paper we do exactly this through the introduction of the new concept of consheaf (consciousness sheaf), a concept intermediate between presheaf and sheaf."
http://tinyurl.com/2443422
Algebraic Self-Duality as the Ultimate Explanation
...
"As we have seen, in his philosophical comments Majid refers to the Mach’s principle. One of its maximalistic formulations postulates that all local properties of the universe should be completely determined by its global properties (Demaret et al., 1997). Unfortunately, in spite of many claims to the opposite, general relativity and its known modifications fail to satisfy this postulate (one of the reasons being that in spaces most often used in physics local geometric properties are, at least in part, determined by the tangent space independently of the global structure). It is worthwhile to notice that noncommutative spaces are, in general, nonlocal (the concepts such as those of a point or its neighborhood have, in principle, no meaning in them), and if we assume – along the line of Majid’s suggestions – that the fundamental level of physics is modeled by such a space, then the possibility opens to have a “fully Machian” model in which local properties are completely engulfed by the global structure.
Majid’s achievements in the domain of quantum groups and related topics are remarkable. There are reasons to believe that they were inspired, at least partially, by his philosophical ideas and, vice versa, that his mathematical constructions opened before him broad philosophical horizons. They are indeed broader than the ones I have been able to present in this paper. He deals extensively, among others, with “an intrinsic dualism between observer and observed”,
with the relationship between mathematics and physics, and he develops some general ideas in the spirit of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy. I postpone the analysis of this aspects of his views to another occasion.
Finally, a word of warning. It is true that philosophical speculations often suggest valuable methods of research, but it is equally true that when a successful model or a theory is finally available, it usually goes far beyond previous expectations. This could well be the case with the looked for theory of quantum gravity."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pv74037m67326r7q/
"It is proposed that the physical universe is an instance of a mathemati-
cal structure which possesses a dual structure, and that this dual structure
is the collection of all possible knowledge of the physical universe. In turn,
the physical universe is then the dual space of the latter.
...
The purpose of this paper is to propose that the physical universe, and all
knowledge of the physical universe, are related to each other by a mathematical
duality relationship. Whilst this proposal was inspired by the hypothesis in
Majid (2000, 2007) and Heller (2004a,b) that the physical universe is self -dual,
the proposal made here suggests, on the contrary, that the dual space of the
physical universe possesses a distinct structure to that of the physical universe.
The idea proposed in this paper does, however, share with Heller's work the
hypothesis that the physical universe is an instance of a mathematical struc-
ture. Equivalently, it can be asserted that the physical universe is isomorphic
to a mathematical structure (Tegmark, 1998). This doctrine can be dubbed
`universal structural realism'."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4039/1/Dualiverse.pdf
"Recently, considerable interest has been stimulated in explaining the reality by the holographic principles. A central belief of Pythagoras and his followers was that
"everything is number". Holographic trinity theory is constructed in the light of the holographic principles and the Pythagoreans number theory. The special importance
of the trinity leads to the idea that universe organization be based on holographic trinity. Also all of formulations such as the big bang theory, matter-energy theory, the zero-point field theory and so on, explicitly address the phenomenon of the holographic trinity in general. Therefore the whole has a trinity organization which is seen in its every part."
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/pdf/pdf2011/18Jan/Anjamrooz.pdf
"It is shown that the Ashkin-Teller model has self-triality, which is a generalization of Kramers-Wannier self-duality proposed some time ago and illustrated with examples. In the Hamiltonian formalism, it means that the original Hamiltonian may be reexpressed in terms of either of two disorder variables without change of form and that the relation between all three variables is fully symmetric."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhRvL..50..787S
"Apart from my graduate years spent on S-matrix theory, my interests have focused on quantum field theory in one form or another, with a weakness for exact solutions and low dimensions. In the earlier period, I applied it to particle physics, to find the quark-gluon coupling constant using finite-energy sum rules, and in collaboration with Witten, exact S-matrices for certain field theories. I worked extensively on the Gross-Neveu model, discovering there the only known example of self-triality, exemplified by a theory which has three equivalent, mutually dual, representation, all with the same Lagrangian. The transformation I discovered there was used by Witten to establish, in a transparent way, world-sheet supersymmetry in string theory. It has appeared more recently in condensed matter systems with SO(8) symmetry. I then switched to statistical mechanics. Here my best efforts were in systems with random impurities. G. Murthy and I worked out several exact solutions for such systems. These solutions are particularly useful since intuition is not a very reliable guide in systems with competing interactions, e.g. a random magnet in which each spin receives conflicting signals from its neighbors on which way to align. I also worked out the exact long-distance limit of an Ising system with random bonds spread around the critical value using bosonization and also resolved a controversy."
http://physics.yale.edu/shankar
A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics: II. Daseinisation and the Liberation of Quantum Theory
"This paper is the second in a series whose goal is to develop a fundamentally new way of constructing theories of physics. The motivation comes from a desire to address certain deep issues that arise when contemplating quantum theories of space and time. Our basic contention is that constructing a theory of physics is equivalent to finding a representation in a topos of a certain formal language that is attached to the system. Classical physics arises when the topos is the category of sets. Other types of theory employ a different topos. In this paper, we study in depth the topos representation of the propositional language, PL(S), for the case of quantum theory. In doing so, we make a direct link with, and clarify, the earlier work on applying topos theory to quantum physics. The key step is a process we term `daseinisation' by which a projection operator is mapped to a sub-object of the spectral presheaf--the topos quantum analogue of a classical state space. In the second part of the paper we change gear with the introduction of the more sophisticated local language L(S). From this point forward, throughout the rest of the series of papers, our attention will be devoted almost entirely to this language. In the present paper, we use L(S) to study `truth objects' in the topos. These are objects in the topos that play the role of states: a necessary development as the spectral presheaf has no global elements, and hence there are no microstates in the sense of classical physics. Truth objects therefore play a crucial role in our formalism."
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703062
Classical and Quantum Probabilities as Truth Values
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2213
"The language of the kingdom, like all discourse, exists on the rational level. Whatever narrative framework, or linguistic meaning system, is used by an organized group or society is identical with their social structure. Adopting the Prophetic language, the essence of which is unity in diversity, will, then, produce an integrated group which is grateful for the individualities of its members.
Likewise, all language is meaningless without material referents. As `Abdu'l-Baha said to Dr. Auguste Forel (1956, p.337), "The mind comprehendeth the abstract by the aid of the concrete ...." So, in other words, the Prophets take words which, outwardly, pertain to material phenomena and, through them, demonstrate the analogical nature of the world of matter - the kingdom of names and attributes. All material substance is generated by spirit (purposeful power), and the words of the Prophets show us the purpose and power of material objects by symbolizing them in particular ways in Their teachings.
The progressive teachings of the Prophets are, according to `Abdu'l-Baha, "the science of reality" or "divine science." In order for any society to move from material to divine civilization, it must ascribe as much importance to the science of reality (religion, the divine teachings, or religion) as it does to the material sciences (physical, biological, social, and behavioral). In The Promulgation of Universal Peace, `Abdu'l-Baha was quoted as saying:
The Prophets of God have been the Servants of Reality. Their teachings constitute the science of reality. Reality is one; it does not admit plurality. We conclude, therefore, that the foundation of the religions of God is one foundation. (1982, p.297)"
http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.articles/neoplatonism.framework.html
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory
Christopher Michael Langan
Paper Published September 2002 in Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, the journal of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
"Among the most exciting recent developments in science are Complexity Theory, the theory of self-organizing systems, and the modern incarnation of Intelligent Design Theory, which investigates the deep relationship between self-organization and evolutionary biology in a scientific context not preemptively closed to teleological causation.
Bucking the traditional physical reductionism of the hard sciences, complexity theory has given rise to a new trend,
informational reductionism, which holds that the basis of reality is not matter and energy, but information.
Unfortunately, this new form of reductionism is as problematic as the old one. As mathematician David Berlinski writes regarding the material and informational aspects of DNA: “We quite know what DNA is: it is a macromolecule and so a material object. We quite know what it achieves: apparently everything. Are the two sides of this equation in balance?” More generally, Berlinski observes that since the information embodied in a string of DNA or protein cannot affect the material dynamic of reality without being read by a material transducer, information is meaningless without matter.
The relationship between physical and informational reductionism is a telling one, for it directly mirrors Cartesian mind-matter dualism, the source of several centuries of philosophical and scientific controversy regarding the nature of deep reality. As long as matter and information remain separate, with specialists treating one as primary while tacitly relegating the other to secondary status, dualism remains in effect. To this extent, history is merely repeating itself; where mind and matter once vied with each other for primary status, concrete matter now vies with abstract information abstractly representing matter and its extended relationships. But while the formal abstractness and concrete descriptiveness of information seem to make it a worthy compromise between mind and matter, Berlinski’s comment demonstrates its inadequacy as a conceptual substitute. What is now required is thus what has been required all along: a conceptual framework in which the relationship between mind and matter, cognition and information, is made explicit. This framework must not only permit the completion of the gradual ongoing dissolution of the Cartesian mind-matter divider, but the construction of a footworthy logical bridge across the resulting explanatory gap.
Mathematically, the theoretical framework of Intelligent Design consists of certain definitive principles governing the application of complexity and probability to the analysis of two key attributes of evolutionary phenomena,
irreducible complexity and specified complexity. On one hand, because the mathematics of probability must be causally interpreted to be scientifically meaningful, and because probabilities are therefore expressly relativized to specific causal scenarios, it is difficult to assign definite probabilities to evolutionary states in any model not supporting the detailed reconstruction and analysis of specific causal pathways. On the other hand, positing the “absolute improbability” of an evolutionary state ultimately entails the specification of an absolute (intrinsic global) model with respect to which absolute probabilistic deviations can be determined. A little reflection suffices to inform us of some of its properties: it must be rationally derivable from a priori principles and essentially tautological in nature, it must on some level identify matter and information, and it must eliminate the explanatory gap between the mental and physical aspects of reality. Furthermore, in keeping with the name of that to be modeled, it must meaningfully incorporate the intelligence and design concepts, describing the universe as an intelligently self-designed, self-organizing system.
How is this to be done? In a word, with language. This does not mean merely that language should be used as a tool to analyze reality, for this has already been done countless times with varying degrees of success. Nor does it mean that reality should be regarded as a machine language running in some kind of vast computer. It means using language as a mathematical paradigm unto itself. Of all mathematical structures, language is the most general, powerful and necessary. Not only is every formal or working theory of science and mathematics by definition a language, but science and mathematics in whole and in sum are languages. Everything that can be described or conceived, including every structure or process or law, is isomorphic to a description or definition and therefore qualifies as a language, and every sentient creature constantly affirms the linguistic structure of nature by exploiting syntactic isomorphism to perceive, conceptualize and refer to it. Even cognition and perception are languages based on what Kant might have called “phenomenal syntax”. With logic and mathematics counted among its most fundamental syntactic ingredients, language defines the very structure of information. This is more than an empirical truth; it is a rational and scientific necessity.
Of particular interest to natural scientists is the fact that the laws of nature are a language. To some extent, nature is regular; the basic patterns or general aspects of structure in terms of which it is apprehended, whether or not they have been categorically identified, are its “laws”. The existence of these laws is given by the stability of perception.
Because these repetitive patterns or universal laws simultaneously describe multiple instances or states of nature, they can be regarded as distributed “instructions” from which self-instantiations of nature cannot deviate; thus, they form a “control language” through which nature regulates its self-instantiations. This control language is not of the usual kind, for it is somehow built into the very fabric of reality and seems to override the known limitations of formal systems. Moreover, it is profoundly reflexive and self-contained with respect to configuration, execution and read-write operations. Only the few and the daring have been willing to consider how this might work…to ask where in reality the laws might reside, how they might be expressed and implemented, why and how they came to be, and how their consistency and universality are maintained. Although these questions are clearly of great scientific interest, science alone is logically inadequate to answer them; a new explanatory framework is required. This paper describes what the author considers to be the most promising framework in the simplest and most direct terms possible."
http://www.ctmu.net/
"Philosophers and psychologists are described as being neo-Cartesian if they posit 'mind stuff' as being different from 'brain stuff' and if they posit 'internal cognitive states' as having causal powers. Some philosophers (e.g. Hubert Dreyfus) have argued that artificial intelligence theories (and cognitivist theories generally), for all their alleged 'materialism', are actually neo-Cartesian."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Cartesian
"Metrical layering lets neo-Cartesian spacetime interface with predicate logic in such a way that in addition to the set of “localistic” spacetime intervals riding atop the stack (and subject to relativistic variation in space and time measurements), there exists an underlying predicate logic of spatiotemporal contents obeying a different kind of metric. Spacetime thus becomes a logical construct reflecting the logical evolution of that which it models, thereby extending the Lorentz-Minkowski-Einstein generalization of Cartesian space. Graphically, the CTMU places a logical, stratified computational construction on spacetime, implants a conspansive requantization function in its deepest, most distributive layer of logic (or highest, most parallel level of computation), and rotates the spacetime diagram depicting the dynamical history of the universe by 90° along the space axes. Thus, one perceives the model’s evolution as a conspansive overlay of physically-parametrized Venn diagrams directly through the time (SCSPL grammar) axis rather than through an extraneous z axis artificially separating theorist from diagram. The cognition of the modeler – his or her perceptual internalization of the model – is thereby identified with cosmic time, and infocognitive closure occurs as the model absorbs the modeler in the act of absorbing the model.
To make things even simpler: the CTMU equates reality to logic, logic to mind, and (by transitivity of equality) reality to mind. Then it makes a big Venn diagram out of all three, assigns appropriate logical and mathematical functions to the diagram, and deduces implications in light of empirical data. A little reflection reveals that it would be hard to imagine a simpler or more logical theory of reality."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Supernova.html
"In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but theories and their logical requisites. Since theories are mental constructs, and mental means "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence on the most basic level of understanding. It is this linkage of the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external, that constitutes the proper focus of a Theory of Everything (TOE). Since reality forever retains the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, reality theory must be based on the logic underlying the general process of making and interpreting scientific observations. Since observation and interpretation are predicated on the relationship holding between mind and reality, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe delivers an account of that relationship.
For the most part, ordinary theories are linguistic and mathematical descriptions of specific observations. In contrast, the CTMU is a metatheory about the general relationship between theories and observations…i.e., about science, knowledge and cognition themselves. In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness; just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to qualify by reasonable standards as a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God”, and that our individual minds are parts of this Universal Mind. As such, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of the Universe, which we sometimes call the soul or spirit, is the most essential part of being human.
In its exciting development of these and other ideas, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe helps us to understand not only the nature of reality, but the integral role played by human beings in the creation and maintenance of the world they inhabit. In the process, the CTMU enables us to comprehend the psychological, metaphysical, and ethical ramifications of the relationship between man and the cosmos, and thus what it means to be human.
Among the questions that are answered within the framework of the CTMU: What is the nature of humanity's relationship with God? What is our relationship with each other on individual and cultural levels? Do human beings possess free will? Is there life after death? Is there a physical basis for spirituality? Where did the universe come from? Is there such a thing as absolute good or absolute evil? These are just a few of the many burning philosophical dilemmas that mankind has pondered since its infancy. When these dilemmas are finally considered in the advanced conceptual framework of a true TOE like the CTMU, their answers fall into place as though under the influence of an attractive force. The mystery melts away, but not the wonder.
In its role as a comprehensive theory of reality, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe serves as a firm basis for the unification of science and theology, leading us inevitably in the direction of intellectual enlightenment and a collective spiritual awakening. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, matter and thought, science and spirituality is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Nexus.html
"In the modern period, beginning with Descartes and his method, empirical investigation of the world replaced rational speculation about the world as the “prime mover” of philosophical (including scientific) thought. Empirical science is “bottom up,” beginning with concrete observation and then moving inductively to general, abstract laws and principles, whereas classical philosophy and metaphysics are typically “top down,” starting with certain abstract, general principles and then moving deductively towards application to the concrete. However, empirical science has been increasingly mathematized, especially after the 19th-20th century discovery of the new and powerful logic of relations (classical, Aristotlean logic was only attributional, not relational). This highly mathematized empirical science now finds itself facing the same questions posed by classical philosophy. Minimalism is the name given by Professor Hatcher to his method of applying modern relational logic retroactively to problems in classical philosophy such as the existence and nature of God."
http://william.hatcher.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/logical_proof_presentation_200309.pdf
"In a nutshell, Dr. Hatcher has taken modern refinements in logic -- specifically the creation of relational logic, which forms the basis for modern computing -- and applied them in the realm of philosophy, in particular to the kinds of metaphysical and ethical questions that have seemed so stubbornly to resist modern analysis. The approach offers new insights into the great questions of classic philosophers, such as whether there is a God, the nature of being, and the notion of good.
"[M]inimalism shows that there are general logical principles which are common to all intellectual endeavors, regardless of the domain of investigation in question," he writes. He terms his method "minimalism" because it "results from consistently making the most plausible and rational choice in the light of current knowledge" but goes no farther than is necessary.
Indeed, the essence of minimalism is rationality. As outlined by Dr. Hatcher, it steadfastly hews to logic, utilizes scientific empiricism where it is proven effective, and makes an explicit iteration of viewpoint (in an effort to circumvent the limitations imposed by human subjectivity).
At the same time, it makes no claim to possessing the ultimate truth, acknowledging that there are limits to human knowledge.
The result, he writes, is a "proactive philosophy that yields genuine results," a "middle way" between the "gratuitous restrictions of logical positivism" (and other scientific materialists) and the "gratuitous subjectivism of postmodernism."
http://www.onecountry.org/e144/e14416as_Minimalism_Review.htm
"If a man finds that his nature tends or is disposed to one of these extremes..., he should turn back and improve, so as to walk in the way of good people, which is the right way. The right way is the mean in each group of dispositions common to humanity; namely, that disposition which is equally distant from the two extremes in its class, not being nearer to the one than to the other." — Maimonides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)
"Let us enlarge on the distinction between statistics and causality. Causality is just the most concise exact description of a set of statistical correlations, and can be regarded as the out put of an algorithm on statistical input. This algorithm, "logical induction", includes Occam's Razor and its metasyntax. What enters as "probabilistic dependency" emerges as "logical dependency"; the many-valued logic of the former, wherein probabilities are defined as truthvalues, has become two-valued by the formation of distin guishing predicates (or conversion of truthvalues to quantifiers). So logical dependency, or causality, is the inductive transform of probabilistic dependency. This transformation, being largely based on past data, can be rendered inconsistent by new data."
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Causality
"The fact that most such theories, e.g. theories of physics, point to the fundamental status of something “objective” and “independent of language”, e.g. matter and/or energy, is quite irrelevant, for the very act of pointing invokes an isomorphism between theory and objective reality…an isomorphism that is subject to the Reality Principle, and which could not exist unless reality shared the linguistic structure of the theory itself.
Perhaps the meaning of this principle can be most concisely expressed through a generalization of the aphorism “whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent”: whereof that which cannot be linguistically described, one cannot perceive or conceive. So for the observational and theoretical purposes of science and reality theory, that which is nonisomorphic to language is beyond consideration as a component of reality.
Diagram 7: In this syndiffeonic diagram, the assertion “Language differs from reality” is laid out along an extended line segment representing the supposed difference between the relands. Just as in the generic diagram above, both relands possess the attribute “inclusion in the relational syntactic medium (Language Reality)”. Because they are both manifestations of the same underlying medium, their difference cannot be absolute; on a fundamental level, reality and language share common aspects. This is consistent with the nature of the “difference” relationship, which is actually supposed to represent a semantic and model-theoretic isomorphism.
As we have already seen, the Reality Principle says that reality contains all and only that which is real. As defined by this statement, the predicate reality is primarily a linguistic construct conforming to syntactic structure, where syntax consists of the rules by which predicates are constructed and interpreted. In this sense, reality amounts to a kind of theory whose axioms and rules of inference are implicitly provided by the logical component of the conceptual syntax in which it is expressed. The Principle of Linguistic Reducibility merely clarifies the issue of whether reality is a linguistic predicate or the objective content of such a predicate by asserting that it is both. Thus, where the reality predicate is analytically (or syntactically) self-contained, reality is self-contained. This can be expressed as follows: on the level of cognitive-perceptual syntax, reality equals reality theory. Where theory and universe converge, Occam’s razor and physical
principles of economy become tautologies."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
On Einstein's Razor: Telesis-Driven Introduction of Complexity into Apparently Sufficiently Non-Complex Linguistic Systems:
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.” —Niels Bohr
“It is wrong to say that a good language is important to good thought, merely; for it is the essence of it.” —Charles Sanders Peirce
The notion that a linguistic system that is powerful enough to accept any acceptable language but insufficiently complex to meet specific goals or needs is explored. I nominate Chomsky’s generative grammar formalism as the least complex formalism required to describe all language, but show how without the addition of further complexity, little can be said about the formalism itself. I then demonstrate how the O(n) parsing of pseudoknots, a previously difficult to solve problem, becomes tractable by the more complex §-Calculus, and finally close with a falsifiable hypothesis with implications in epistemological complexity.
Keywords: parsing, scientific inquiry, telesis, necessary complexity
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Jackson_EinsteinsRazor_050205.pdf
"The first principle Baha’u’llah talked about was the Independent Investigation of Reality, by this, he meant that we should each read and learn to find out what is reality. Reality has changed through time. If you think about it historically in the earliest days of man, we had no concept of God, the world or the Universe as a whole. All mankind was concerned with were their basic survival needs, food, water and shelter.
As man progressed, his world grew and mankind built boats and wagons and they traveled farther and met with other tribes and cultures. Survival wasn’t the only thing on man’s mind. Mankind traded goods and kept animals as livestock, they pondered the world and how it came to be. Different cultures created different gods and set up their own ways of practicing their religions. All mankind wanted was just to make sure that life continued as well as it was and even possibly better. In the earliest days of civilization it was only the priests, scribes and nobility that could read and write. The rest of mankind had to be told what was law. Religion was taught the same way, a priest or Holy man would tell stories or tell religious law. Sometimes it would vary on the interferers understanding of what they read. This interpretation or sometimes lack of it lead to the many different religions that are around today.
Think about the fact that hundreds of years ago the theories of the world. One theory, was the world was flat, that the stars, planets and sun revolved around us. That was the truth of the era. Not until later was it discovered that the world was round and we revolved around the sun. Truth changes and reality as we evolve and learn more. Just because our ancestors believed one way doesn’t make it true now.
As Baha’is it is imperative that we investigate all truths for ourselves, we don’t have to follow the path of previous beliefs. That now, there is one truth and it will lead us to the beginnings of equality, and then peace."
“Among these teachings is the independent investigation of reality, so that the world of humanity might be saved from the darkness of imitation and attain to the truth; might tear off and cast away this ragged and outworn garment of one thousand years ago and put on the robe woven in the utmost purity and holiness in the loom of reality. As reality is one and cannot admit of multiplicity, therefore different opinions must ultimately become fused into one.” (Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 28)
“He must not rely implicitly upon the opinion of any man without investigation; nay, each soul must seek intelligently and independently, arriving at a real conclusion and bound only by that reality” (Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 74)
“The independent investigation of reality, whether scientific or religious, is strongly encouraged in Bahá'u'lláh's writings. Individuals should strive, He said, to free themselves from prejudices, preconceptions and reliance on tradition or traditional authorities. Consultation is a critical tool for discovering truth” (Baha'i International Community, 1992, Magazine - The Baha'is)
“Therefore the independent investigation of truth will lead to the oneness of the world of humanity.” (Compilations, Japan Will Turn Ablaze, p. 35)
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art34956.asp
"Non-locality and the non-local Quantum Hologram provide the only testable mechanism discovered to-date which offer a possible solution to the host of enigmatic observations and data associated with consciousness and such consciousness phenomena. Schempp (1992) has successfully validated the concept of recovery and utilization of non-local quantum information in the case of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) using quantum holography. Marcer (1995) has made compelling arguments that a number of other chemical and electromagnetic processes in common use have a deeper quantum explanation that is not revealed by the classical interpretation of these processes. Hammeroff (1994) and Penrose have presented experimental data on microtubules in the brain supporting quantum processes. The absorption/re-emission phenomena associated with all matter is well recognized. That such re-emissions are sufficiently coherent to be considered a source of information about the object is due to the theoretical and experimental work of Schempp and Marcer, based upon the transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics of Cramer (1986); the Berry geometric phase analysis of information (Berry, 1988; Anandan, 1992); and the ability of quantum phase information to be recovered and utilized (Resta, 1997). The mathematical formalism appropriate to these analyses is consistent with standard quantum mechanical formalism and is defined by means of the harmonic analysis on the Heisenberg nilpotent Lie group G, algebra g, and nilmanifold (see Schempp (1986) for a full mathematical treatment)."
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/ISSO_5.pdf
Replication, Transcription, and Mutation: Genetic Information Processing in Nanobiotechnology
All physical phenomena are information-theoretic in origin. Conversely, the hereditary genetic information contained in the cell nuclei should be considered from the quantum physical point of view. The present paper applies quantum holography to the DNA and the messenger RNA of the molecular biology of gene expressions in order to understand the semi-conservative replication and transcription processes of the DNA double helix in terms of the quantization action on the stereometric architecture of quantum information biology.
http://ssgrr2002w.atspace.com/papers/181.pdf
"Remarkably too, quantum holography also confirms and is confirmed by another astonishing experimental finding. This is the so-called "DNA-Phantom-Effect" [Gariaev, Junin, 1989; Gariaev et al, 1991; Gariaev, 1994], a very intriguing phenomenon, widely discussed, when it was first found by Peter Gariaev. Later similar phenomenon termed “mimicking the effect of dust” [Allison et al, 1990] was detected by group of R.Pecora. This is the discovery that the pattern, shown in Graphs (a), (b) and (c), found in the first experiment described, when a laser illuminated DNA, does not immediately disappear if the DNA samples are removed from the apparatus. It continues in different form for sometime. An explanation would be that quantum holography defines an admitter/absorber quantum vacuum model of quantum mechanics in terms of annihilation/creation operators [Schempp, 1993], implying that DNA does indeed behave like a single quantum, which induces a "hole" temporarily in the vacuum by its removal.
Recently published our new theoretical and experimental paper in respect so-called “DNA phantom effect», which describes a new type of memory the genetic structures and its significance for organisms http://scireprints.lu.lv/160/1/gariaev.pitkanen.pdf. The article develops our earlier data and theory about this phenomena http://www.wavegenetics.jino-net.ru/zip/DNK-repliki-new.zip.
Almost simultaneously with the publication of a new article of a Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier (2008) was published http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.5166v1.pdf. Paper caused a sensation in the scientific world, because it contains an experimental proof of the wave transmission of the DNA molecule into the water as wave phantom. Unfortunately, the authors do not refer to our publications, where we have previously shown the same observation on a more complex system - the wave translation morpho-genetic information reading from the rat’s native pancreas preparation to rats with destroy pancreas with subsequent regeneration normal working pancreas http://www.wavegenetics.jino-net.ru/zip/Diabet.zip and caused the experimental wave immunity in animals http://www.wavegenetics.jino-net.ru/zip/Wimmuni.zip Moreover, we gave a theoretical interpretation is not only our experiments, but actually the work of Luc Montagnier http://scireprints.lu.lv/160/1/gariaev.pitkanen.pdf , where they cannot give realistic explain the own result."
http://www.dnadecipher.com/index.php/ddj/article/view/3/13
"Speculatively, (and Montagnier doesn't directly suggest anything so unsubstantiated), it could also be the little-understood quantum properties of the water molecule and not just its more obvious chemical bonding properties that gives it ...such a central role in the bio-engineering of life-forms. Water might be a good medium in which DNA can copy itself using processes that hint at quantum entanglement and 'teleportation' (our term)."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/216767/dna_molecules_can_teleport_nobel_winner_says.html
"This volume contains papers based on the workshop “Energy and Information Transfer in Biological Systems: How Physics Could Enrich Biological Understanding”, held in Italy in 2002. The meeting was a forum aimed at evaluating the potential and outlooks of a modern physics approach to understanding and describing biological processes, especially regarding the transition from the microscopic chemical scenario to the macroscopic functional configurations of living matter. In this frame some leading researchers presented and discussed several basic topics, such as the photon interaction with biological systems also from the viewpoint of photon information processes and of possible applications; the influence of electromagnetic fields on the self-organization of biosystems including the nonlinear mechanism for energy transfer and storage; and the influence of the structure of water on the properties of biological matter."
http://books.google.com/books?id=jPDkS1I61vMC&dq=energy+and+information+transfer+in+biological+systems&output=html_text&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Biophoton interaction in biological systems: evidence of photonic info-energy transfer?
Photons are continuously absorbed and emitted by all living cells. A possible means of releasing energy when an electron changes energy states during a biochemical reaction is via biophoton emission. An example of energy transfer in biological systems is the process of photosynthesis. Biophoton emission has also been proposed as one possible mechanism responsible for intra- and intercellular communication (information transfer) as well as for regulation of biological and biochemical functions within cells and living systems. Measurements by other researchers of this emission have shown it has the properties of coherent light and is measurable from the UV through the near IR. Experimental evidence gathered by various researchers since the 1920's indicates that light plays an important role in certain biological functions and processes. Through a series of experiments we have observed resonance effects between plant parts measured using a highly sensitive, low noise, cooled CCD in total darkness in a light-tight chamber. Dynamical systems theory offers a plausible explanation for resonance effects we have observed. The role of photonic interaction at the systemic level in biological systems has received relatively little attention. Yet, a better understanding of these processes would help us in deciphering the nature and role of light in biological systems.
http://spie.org/x648.html?product_id=620846
Information Transfer in Biological Systems:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/spa/talks/vegas08.pdf
"The Kaznacheyev Experiments
Dr. Vlail Kaznacheyev is Director of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine in Novosibirsk.
For 20 years he has been directing highly unusual experiments with twin cell cultures. These experiments a...re vital to understanding disease and healing on a more fundamental basis than is presently utilized by orthodox medical science.
The Kaznacheyev experiments (several thousand) in the Soviet Union proved conclusively that any cellular disease or death pattern can be transmitted electromagnetically, and induced in target cells absorbing the radiation.
In the experiments, two sealed containers were placed side by side, with a thin optical window separating them. The two containers were completely environmentally shielded except for the optical coupling.
A tissue was separated into two identical samples, and one sample placed in each of the two halves of the apparatus.
The cells in one sample (on one side of the glass) were then subjected to a deleterious agent - a selected virus, bacterial infection, chemical poison, nuclear radiation, deadly ultraviolet radiation, etc. This led to disease and death of the exposed/infected cell culture sample.
If the thin optical window was made of ordinary window glass, the uninfected cells on the other side of the window were undamaged and remained healthy. This of course was as expected in the orthodox medical view.
However, if the thin optical window was made of quartz, a most unexpected thing happened. Some time (usually about 12 hours) after the disease appeared in the infected sample, the same features of disease appeared in the uninfected sample.
This startling "infection by optical coupling" occurred in a substantial percentage of the tests (70 to 80 percent)."
http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch5.htm
"The physics and engineering behind electromagnetic disease transmission is truly amazing. Back in 1974, Soviet biologist A.P. Dubrov reported that "all living organisms emit gravitational (electromagnetic) waves." Dubrov recited data from his own experiments with polarizing microscopes (which divide light into its components for easier observation) to support his claim that high-frequency oscillations, or rhythmic movements, of the cell's molecules, can generate biogravitational electromagnetic waves and can propagate (transmit) them over long distances."
http://www.think-aboutit.com/energy/elf_sick.htm
Full Dan Burisch Presentation:
https://www.eaglesdisobey.net/Caltech2008.htm
Dan (Burisch)
...Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:43 pm
http://stargateforum.13.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=11&start=540
Post subject: ---FOR BILL---
Hi, Bill...
I've decided to make a public post about this as I feel very strongly that you are on to something very important here.
During March, 2004, I had reviewed two of your papers: "The Biophotonic Quantum Holographic Matrix" and "The Continuous Creation Process". Further, I printed and have subsumed the links for both. You recently remailed the latter of the two to me.
As you are well aware, the presently weakest portion of the Lotus Theory is concerned with the actual physical process whereby the portals open, and as a conduit of sorts, emit their "cargo." Hypotheses regarding this process range from micro-worm-holes to effecting holography.
What no one may know is that it has become my intention to eventually bring the Lotus Theory to a publishable form. The working model (what happens after the "particles" are on this side of the veil) is, of course, already "stored" somewhere. I have held off publishing because the data is still being collected and I must be very careful with certain numbers. I am reasonably certain it can be done, however, without handing anyone an energy weapon. The "widget" may be used in that process.
I believe that a few of your papers, when combined, will form the accurate physical definition of the "formation ---> emanation" process. Of course, you would receive the credit due. Your name will be placed as the discoverer of the physical theory. I should be able to integrate the counterpart metaphysical definitions into the physical ones.
Can you produce a physically viable combination of your...
(1) Vortex work (including Moon's work and the platonic-atomic description).
(2) "The Biophotonic Quantum Holographic Matrix"
(3) "The Continuous Creation Process" ???
I have been watching the reality of process court you for some time, and I feel that you are very close to the condensation of the physics. I am aware that implicit in this process would be the temptation to produce a Mathesis Universalis (God forgive me Leibniz and Descartes!) and then concretize it via a calculus ratiocinator...I believe that the integration of your papers into a single one containing the above information is the appropriate first step (together with my team's Lotus Model) toward the same. We will leave the implications to the Darwinian paradigm alone, for the moment. It would take a bit of work on your part...but you are a hard worker!
Wanna do it?
Dan
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/peter7/Links/billHcomments.html
The Biophotonic Quantum Holographic Matrix
This paper is an attempt to integrate studies of the quantum potential, quantum holography, biophotonics and the enveloping matrix of biointegration, biocommunication, and bioinformation that composes the web of light and life in living organisms and their possible genesis in an electromagnetic infoton.
http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Hamilton_04.doc
What does all of this mean? It could be that the propagation of life is able to make use of the quantum nature of reality to project itself in subtle ways, as has been hinted at in previous experiments.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/216767/dna_molecules_can_teleport_nobel_winner_says.html
"In recent years other groups have shown that collections of particles can be rearranged so as to reduce their entropy without providing them with energy directly. The breakthrough in the latest work is to have quantified the conversion of... information to energy. By measuring the particle's degree of rotation against the field, Toyabe and colleagues found that they could convert the equivalent of one bit information to 0.28 kTln2 of energy or, in other words, that they could exploit more than a quarter of the information's energy content.
Processes taking place on the nanoscale are completely different to those we are familiar with, and information is part of that picture
Christian Van den Broeck, University of Hasselt
The research is described in Nature Physics
, and in an accompanying article Christian Van den Broeck of the University of Hasselt in Belgium describes the result as "a direct verification of information-to-energy conversion" but points out that the conversion factor is an idealized figure. As he explains, it regards just the physics taking place on the microscopic scale and ignores the far larger amount of energy consumed by the macroscopic devices, among them the computers and human operators involved. He likens the energy gain to that obtained in an experimental fusion facility, which is dwarfed by the energy needed to run the experiment. "They are cheating a little bit," joked Van den Broeck over the telephone. "This is not something you can put on the shelf and sell at this point."
However, Van den Broeck does believe that the work could lead to practical applications within perhaps the next 30 or 40 years. He points out that as devices get ever more miniature the energy content of the information used to control them – kT at room temperature being equivalent to about 4 × 10–21 J – will approach that required to operate them. "Nobody thinks of using bits to boil water," he says, "but that would in principle be possible at nanometre scales." And he speculates that molecular processes occurring in nature might already be converting information to energy in some way. "The message is that processes taking place on the nanoscale are completely different from those we are familiar with, and that information is part of that picture.""
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44385
Feynman Processes and Information Dynamics:
Part I: The Digital World Theory
1. Methodology and Basic Principles
The DWT designates a common theoretical framework for modeling complex non-linear systems and their interactions or communications [M, SM], from elementary particles and their fundamental interactions to the modeling of living organisms and their environment.
It is “A New Kind of Science” [Wolfram]:
- New methodology. A top-down design of the theory is used, starting from the analysis of the present state-of-the-art level in science, and with an ambitious goal as a target, since
we cannot understand the parts in isolation, due to the interdependency of the
fundamental questions.
- A new fundamental principle unifying energy and information is introduced, as an
“upgrade” of Einstein’s equivalence principle between energy and matter, preparing us
for breaching the ultimate frontier: the Mind-Matter Interface;
- A new physics content is provided: interactions, quantum or classical, are
communications. The distinction between “system” (matter/apparatus) and “observer”
(living organism / conscience) is a matter of nuances (info processing capability), not of
principle.
- A new mathematics implementation of the physics interface: a discrete algebraic
structure is introduced, the Quantum Dot Resolution with Internal/External Duality (QDR), prone for computer simulations, abandoning the classical continuum “ballast”
(conceptual and computational).
It is a professional theoretical foundation, developed based on its specialized precursors: cellular automata, representations of categories, networks etc..
http://virequest.com/ISUP/FPID-ProjDesc.pdf
"What do I care about the physical world? Only the symmetry groups and path integrals and branes underlying its dynamics concern me, particularly insofar as their homomorphisms to the algebras underlying reflexive cognition."
http://www.goertzel.org/EdgeOfTheBleedingAbyss.pdf
"SHORT FORM: Say that there are two true but different theories of metaphysics M and M’, one or each of which contains information inferentially excluded by the other. Call all such info "d". Since M, M’ are both true, and the distinction between two truths is itself a truth, d is true. Since metaphysics is comprehensive over reality by definition, it can exclude no real truth. But at least one of the pair M, M’ excludes at least a part of d. So at least one of the pair is not a theory of metaphysics, and the assumption that two such theories exist is self-contradictory. This implies that there is at most one true theory of metaphysics.
Could there be no true theory of metaphysics? According to the above discussion, metaphysics reduces ultimately to the human cognitive syntax (or more accurately, its symmetric self-expansion). So "no true theory of metaphysics" would imply that human beings lack a cognitive syntax. If this were so, human cognition would he random and patternless. But it isn't. So there is one true theory of metaphysics, and this is by definition the CTMU.
It might be objected that the CTMU, being based by definition on the human cognitive syntax, already resides in each of our minds and thus represents no informational gain. But this syntax is not so easily formulated within itself, and equating metaphysical reality to it is neither obvious nor simple. As explained above, a net informational gain comes from freeing information once "locked up" (artificially isolated) within U*-pseudotautologies and the scientific and mathematical theories implicitly based on them.
Now that we have the essential picture, let's try for some detail. Let Ui, be that part of a generalized universe U* to which we refer as the physical universe, or the set of all things directly observable by Ui-observers. This is a recursive definition in which Ui is defined on Ui-observers and vice versa, and varies with choice of subscript. Subscripts correspond to cognitive equivalency classes within U*, or sets of observers sharing the same information-transductive syntax. Ui consists of that part of U* specifically decidable to Ui-observers, and is mathematically equivalent to the cognitive class itself. Assume that the class Ui is human.
The term "metaphysics" is variously construed. In certain usages it encompasses alternate (or "parallel", or independent) realities with no physical meaning. In the Aristotelian sense - and ours it is the totality of theoretical potential relative to the physical universe. While there is nothing mutually antithetical about these constructions, metaphysics relates to physics only as an exhaustive domain of ultimately Ui-effective "hidden causality" undecidable by conventional scientific means. The real universe U* is an extension of Ui by adjunction of this domain.
U* is related to the physical universe by a form of connectedness loosely characterizable as "relevancy"; i.e., it is an extension of Ui generated by causal regression. From Ui, it appears as "causal potential" manifesting itself in Ui as "physical effects". For Ui, U* is unique. For suppose that Ui were contained in many realities corresponding to many Ui-distinguishable metaphysical tautologies. For the differences among them to "register" in the minds of Ui observers, they must be specific relative to the Ui cognitive syntax. As relatively specific tautologies are of lower order than the "tautological" Ui cognitive syntax itself, the universes to which they apply - i.e., the realms of Ui potential and Ui-relevant "alternate reality" they represent - must be partial and therefore properly included in U* (which is complete by definition and theoretically infinite). It follows that U* is unique up to indiscernability: if "other versions" of U* exist, they must be within it, inductively homomorphic to it and indistinguishable from it.
It would be easy at this juncture to point out that by "reifying" information as the quantum transducer, and distributing the quantum transducer over reality, we have removed the major distinction between U* and any theory describing it. Whereas only the latter was formerly regarded as "informational", so now is U*. The U*-decscriptive theory is now merely a sort of endomorphic "self-equivalency" of U* as perceived by Ui. We could conclude our proof on these grounds alone; if U* is informational and "unique" for Ui, then so is the metaphysical information to which Ui regards it as "equivalent". But we can make this even clearer.
A theory of metaphysics is formulated by inhabitants of the real universe it describes. Relative to (Ui , U*), it is a description of U* by the observational subsystem Ui of U*, or a U*-self-description based on a Ui-formulated U*-quantified tautology applying to the "metaphysical" extension U* of the jointly-observable reality (Ui) of the Ui cognitive equivalency class of U*. The circularity of this description reflects the necessary self-referentiality of tautology at the metaphysical level.
Suppose that there exist Ui-discernible theories of metaphysics M and M’ on {Ui, U*}. The Ui-discernability" of M, M’ implies that they are Ui-informationally disjoint: (M ∪ M’) - (M ∩ M’) = [illegible] ∅. The "infometrical" form of this relationship is graphically expressed as
M---------(d)---------M’,
where the edge (dotted line d) represents syndiffeonesis (difference within a cognitive class)...i.e., information in the sense given above.
Now, the disjunctive information represented by the edged exists in M ∪ M’, which, by the self-referentiality of metaphysical tautology, implies that it exists in their common universe U*. So the edge d represents real information that must be included in the real universe U*. By our initial assumption that M and M’ are both theories of metaphysics and therefore tautological on U*, d must be included in both of them. But since d is defined as disjoint information - whence the way it disjunctively separates M and M’ - this leads to a contradiction. I.e., the nonuniqueness of M and M’ violates the universality criterion of metaphysics.
Now let's see if we can recap all of this.
Aristotelian metaphysics is universal, containing in principle all Ui-relevant information (Ui-potential) U*. A theory of metaphysics M is an open inferential system which, because necessarily universal, reduces to a Ui-recognizable tautology T on U* heritable in M via generalized rules of inference (where "generalized inference" is just logical substitution). As specific information equates inductively to ancestral generalisms, and U* is both unique and Ui-indiscernible from T, the identification M = T = U* is practically unconditional. Now suppose that there exist two Ui-distinguishable true metaphysical theories M and M’; i.e., two Ui-distinguishable Ui-tautologies T and T’. These can only be Ui-distinguishable by virtue of a nonempty Ui-informationa1 disjunction: i.e., disjoint information d = (T ∪ T’) - (T ∩ T’) > ∅ recognizable in/by Ui (where the information in T or T’ equals the scope (image) of its universal quantifier, and ∅ is the null set). This information d, being the distinction between two Ui-perceptible truths, exists in Ui and thus U*. But as it is disjoint information, one member of the pair (T, T’) does not contain it. So this member does not cover U*, is not a U* tautology, and thus is not a theory of metaphysics. On the other hand, M = Uj = 1, 2... Mj, where the jointly U*-exhaustive Mj are all "true", Ui-distinct, and M-nonexluded, does and is.
So the assumption fails, and there can be only one correct theory of metaphysics at the tautological level. This, by definition, is the CTMU. I.e., the CTMU takes this existential proof of metaphysical uniqueness and uses the implied system as the identity of a transductive algebra meeting the conditions for human cognition by its homomorphic relationship to the human cognitive syntax. So for the human cognitive equivalency-class, the universe is generalistically identical to the CTMU tautology.
Soi-disant "metaphysicians" have been debating the merits of so-called metaphysical theories for centuries, usually claiming to argue from "logical" standpoints. The only accord they have been able to reach is an "agreement to disagree". Sadly, this has left the uncloistered masses with a level of metaphysical understanding not far above that which guided them through the last Ice Age, and science without a clue as to the meaning of what it is doing. If this is not a monumental injustice to humanity, then humanity has vastly overestimated its own importance.
Fortunately, mankind does have a protector against the abuses of time and energy being perpetrated upon it even now by mainstream philosophy. With the coming of the CTMU, time has run out forever on this conspiracy of the blind: the blind, sighted at last, can newly behold reality through tears of shame and gratitude; and the rest of us, freed from the rotting conceptual bonds of traditional "wisdom", can finally anticipate the fulfillment of our collective intellectual identity.
As a start down that road, the information in this letter alone exceeds that of a standard Ph.D in "philosophy". Think of it as a primary gateway into logical self-awareness."
http://www.megasociety.net/noesis/76/05.htm
"Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.
As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? ... Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute."
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html
Attributive (Topological-Descriptive, State-Syntax) Duality
"Because states express topologically while the syntactic structures of their underlying operators express descriptively, attributive duality is sometimes called state-syntax duality. As information requires syntactic organization, it amounts to a valuation of cognitive/perceptual syntax; conversely, recognition consists of a subtractive restriction of informational potential through an additive acquisition of information. TD duality thus relates information to the informational potential bounded by syntax, and perception (cognitive state acquisition) to cognition."
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Attributive_(Topological-Descriptive,_State-Syntax)_Duality
"In either case, human beings are integral parts of reality that contribute to its structure, and must either be using the inherent freedom of reality to do so, or be freely used as tools by some higher level of realty to the same end. So while the using-versus-used question remains up in the air, one fact has nevertheless been rationally established: whether it belongs exclusively to the universe or to man as well, free will exists. (Q.E.D.)" -The Art of Knowing, Langan
"How come the “one world” out of many observer-participants? Insofar as the term “observer-participants” embraces scientists and other human beings, this question invites a quasi-anthropological interpretation. Why should a universe consisting of separate observers with sometimes-conflicting agendas and survival imperatives display structural and nomological unity? Where observers are capable of creating events within the global unitary manifold of their common universe, why should they not be doing it strictly for themselves, each in his or her own universe, and never the twain shall meet? Where the observer-participant concept is generalized to include non-anthropic information-transducing systems, what is holding all of these systems together in a single unified reality?"
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
Information, Physics, Quantum (J.A. Wheeler)
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/33879515
"If religion be the cause of disunity, then irreligion is surely to be preferred." -Abdu'l-Baha
"So let's employ the adversarial method as it was used by Cicero in Rome, and John Stuart Mill in England: to discover the truths that unite us, instead of the half-truths that divide us."
http://tinyurl.com/4dmr96n
"The virtues of humanity are many but science is the most noble of them all. The distinction which man enjoys above and beyond the station of the animal is due to this paramount virtue. It is a bestowal of God; it is not material, it is divine. Science is an effulgence of the Sun of Reality, the power of investigating and discovering the verities of the universe, the means by which man finds a pathway to God. All the powers and attributes of man are human and hereditary in origin, outcomes of nature's processes, except the intellect, which is supernatural. Through intellectual and intelligent inquiry science is the discoverer of all things. It unites present and past, reveals the history of bygone nations and events, and confers upon man today the essence of all human knowledge and attainment throughout the ages. By intellectual processes and logical deductions of reason, this super power in man can penetrate the mysteries of the future and anticipate its happenings." `Abdu'l-Bahá on Science and Religion
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-5-3-1.html
Some Answered Questions
Author: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Part One: ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETS IN THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANITY
1: NATURE IS GOVERNED BY ONE UNIVERSAL LAW
"Nature is that condition, that reality, which in appearance consists in life and death, or, in other words, in the composition and decomposition of all things.
This Nature is subjected to an absolute organization, to determined laws, to a complete order and a finished design, from which it will never depart—to such a degree, indeed, that if you look carefully and with keen sight, from the smallest invisible atom up to such large bodies of the world of existence as the globe of the sun or the other great stars and luminous spheres, whether you regard their arrangement, their composition, their form or their movement, you will find that all are in the highest degree of organization and are under one law from which they will never depart.
But when you look at Nature itself, you see that it has no intelligence, no will. For instance, the nature of fire is to burn; it burns without will or intelligence. The nature of water is fluidity; it flows without will or intelligence. The nature of the sun is radiance; it shines without will or intelligence. The nature of vapor is to ascend; it ascends without will or intelligence. Thus it is clear that the natural movements of all things are compelled; there are no voluntary movements except those of animals and, above all, those of man. Man is able to resist and to oppose Nature because he discovers the constitution of things, and through this he commands the forces of Nature; all the inventions he has made are due to his discovery of the constitution 4 of things. For example, he invented the telegraph, which is the means of communication between the East and the West. It is evident, then, that man rules over Nature.
Now, when you behold in existence such organizations, arrangements and laws, can you say that all these are the effect of Nature, though Nature has neither intelligence nor perception? If not, it becomes evident that this Nature, which has neither perception nor intelligence, is in the grasp of Almighty God, Who is the Ruler of the world of Nature; whatever He wishes, He causes Nature to manifest.
One of the things which has appeared in the world of existence, and which is one of the requirements of Nature, is human life. Considered from this point of view man is the branch; nature is the root. Then can the will and the intelligence, and the perfections which exist in the branch, be absent in the root?
It is said that Nature in its own essence is in the grasp of the power of God, Who is the Eternal Almighty One: He holds Nature within accurate regulations and laws, and rules over it.
1. On the idea of God, cf. “The Divinity Can Only Be Comprehended through the Divine Manifestations,” p. 146; and “Man’s Knowledge of God,” p. 220.
The reader will there see that the Bahá’í Faith has not an anthropomorphic conception of God, and that if it employs a customary terminology, it is careful to explain its symbolic meaning."
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-1.html
"Regarding the highest plane of existence, Bahá'u'lláh "proclaims unequivocally the existence and oneness of a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty."[27] The God thus described "is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force...To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy."[28] Bahá'u'lláh writes that God is "immeasurably exalted beyond every human attribute such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress...He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men."[29] At the other end of the spectrum is the human world. Bahá'u'lláh states that God created all humanity "To know Him and to love Him."[30] and "to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization."[31] Moreover, every human being is created in the "image and likeness of God" (cf. Genesis 1:25-6) not in any physical sense (for God has no physical form), but in the sense of being able to reflect God's attributes such as knowledge, love, mercy, justice, kindness, will, loftiness, and countless others.
However, finite man cannot conceive or comprehend the Infinite Creator, nor can he reflect God's attributes except within the limits of his own capacity. He is able, at best, to make continual progress towards perfection without actually achieving it. Moreover, he cannot do even this much by his own unaided effort, since he has no direct access to the knowledge of God or His will. God therefore intervenes periodically in history at intervals typically varying from five hundred to one thousand years, providing humankind with guidance through a chosen Christ-figure or Manifestation.
Bahá'u'lláh teaches that "this subtle, this mysterious and etheral Being,"[32] the Manifestation of God, has two aspects-- one human, the other divine. His human personality is "in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man could possibly attain."[33] His inner reality, however, manifests the infinite perfections of God as a polished mirror reflects the image of the sun. He is a relay station linking the world of God with that of man. This unique capacity is a divine gift that cannot be acquired by study and effort. "However far the disciples might progress, they could never become Christ."[34] The Divine Manifestation belongs to a different sphere altogether.
http://tinyurl.com/4q3rgox
"The CTMU, and to a lesser extent GR itself, posits certain limitations on exterior measurement. GR utilizes (so-called) intrinsic spacetime curvature in order to avoid the necessity of explaining an external metaphysical domain from which spacetime can be measured, while MAP simply states, in a more sophisticated way consistent with infocognitive spacetime structure as prescribed by M=R and MU, that this is a matter of logical necessity (see Noesis/ECE 139, pp. 3-10). Concisely, if there were such an exterior domain, then it would be an autologous extrapolation of the Human Cognitive Syntax (HCS) that should properly be included in the spacetime to be measured. [As previously explained, the HCS, a synopsis of the most general theoretical language available to the human mind (cognition), is a supertautological formulation of reality as recognized by the HCS. Where CTMU spacetime consists of HCS infocognition distributed over itself in a way isomorphic to NeST – i.e., of a stratified NeST computer whose levels have infocognitive HCS structure – the HCS spans the laws of mind and nature. If something cannot be mapped to HCS categories by acts of cognition, perception or reference, then it is HCS-unrecognizable and excluded from HCS reality due to nonhomomorphism; conversely, if it can be mapped to the HCS in a physically-relevant way, then it is real and must be explained by reality theory.]
Accordingly, the universe as a whole must be treated as a static domain whose self and contents cannot “expand”, but only seem to expand because they are undergoing internal rescaling as a function of SCSPL grammar. The universe is not actually expanding in any absolute, externally-measurable sense; rather, its contents are shrinking relative to it, and to maintain local geometric and dynamical consistency, it appears to expand relative to them. Already introduced as conspansion (contraction qua expansion), this process reduces physical change to a form of "grammatical substitution" in which the geometrodynamic state of a spatial relation is differentially expressed within an ambient cognitive image of its previous state. By running this scenario backwards and regressing through time, we eventually arrive at the source of geometrodynamic and quantum-theoretic reality: a primeval conspansive domain consisting of pure physical potential embodied in the self-distributed "infocognitive syntax" of the physical universe…i.e., the laws of physics, which in turn reside in the more general HCS.
Conspansion consists of two complementary processes, requantization and inner expansion. Requantization downsizes the content of Planck’s constant by applying a quantized scaling factor to successive layers of space corresponding to levels of distributed parallel computation. This inverse scaling factor 1/R is just the reciprocal of the cosmological scaling factor R, the ratio of the current apparent size dn(U) of the expanding universe to its original (Higgs condensation) size d0(U)=1. Meanwhile, inner expansion outwardly distributes the images of past events at the speed of light within progressively-requantized layers. As layers are rescaled, the rate of inner expansion, and the speed and wavelength of light, change with respect to d0(U) so that relationships among basic physical processes do not change…i.e., so as to effect nomological covariance. The thrust is to relativize space and time measurements so that spatial relations have different diameters and rates of diametric change from different spacetime vantages. This merely continues a long tradition in physics; just as Galileo relativized motion and Einstein relativized distances and durations to explain gravity, this is a relativization for conspansive “antigravity” (see Appendix B).
Conspansion is not just a physical operation, but a logical one as well. Because physical objects unambiguously maintain their identities and physical properties as spacetime evolves, spacetime must directly obey the rules of 2VL (2-valued logic distinguishing what is true from what is false). Spacetime evolution can thus be straightforwardly depicted by Venn diagrams in which the truth attribute, a high-order metapredicate of any physical predicate, corresponds to topological inclusion in a spatial domain corresponding to specific physical attributes. I.e., to be true, an effect must be not only logically but topologically contained by the cause; to inherit properties determined by an antecedent event, objects involved in consequent events must appear within its logical and spatiotemporal image. In short, logic equals spacetime topology.
This 2VL rule, which governs the relationship between the Space-Time-Object and Logico-Mathematical subsyntaxes of the HCS, follows from the dual relationship between set theory and semantics, whereby predicating membership in a set corresponds to attributing a property defined on or defining the set. The property is a “qualitative space” topologically containing that to which it is logically attributed. Since the laws of nature could not apply if the sets that contain their arguments and the properties that serve as their parameters were not mutually present at the place and time of application, and since QM blurs the point of application into a region of distributive spacetime potential, events governed by natural laws must occur within a region of spacetime over which their parameters are distributed.
Conspansive domains interpenetrate against the background of past events at the inner expansion rate c, defined as the maximum ratio of distance to duration by the current scaling, and recollapse through quantum interaction. Conspansion thus defines a kind of “absolute time” metering and safeguarding causality. Interpenetration of conspansive domains, which involves a special logical operation called unisection (distributed intersection) combining aspects of the set-theoretic operations union and intersection, creates an infocognitive relation of sufficiently high order to effect quantum collapse. Output is selectively determined by ESP interference and reinforcement within and among metrical layers."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Supernova.html
"The process of reducing distinctions to the homogeneous syntactic media that support them is called syndiffeonic regression. This process involves unisection, whereby the rules of structure and dynamics that respectively govern a set of distinct objects are reduced to a “syntactic join” in an infocognitive lattice of syntactic media. Unisection is a general form of reduction which implies that all properties realized within a medium are properties of the medium itself.
Where emergent properties are merely latent properties of the teleo-syntactic medium of emergence, the mysteries of emergent phenomena are reduced to just two: how are emergent properties anticipated in the syntactic structure of their medium of emergence, and why are they not expressed except under specific conditions involving (e.g.) degree of systemic complexity?"
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
"Normative functionality is evaluated on the basis of the functional outcomes of the autonomous system, therefore, anticipation is immediately related to functionality (Collier, 2000). Anticipation in turn, is goal-directed. As a matter of fact, anticipation almost always requires functionality, which is, by default, a goal-oriented process. From this perspective, anticipation guides the functionality of the system through its representational content.
In the model of the emergence of representations in the special case of autonomous self-organizing systems presented above, the representational content emerges in system’s anticipation of interactive capabilities (Bickhard, 2001). In other words, the interactive capabilities are constituted as anticipation and it is this anticipation whose potential error is detectable by the system itself, since such anticipation is embedded in the functional context of a goal-directed system. This type of anticipation is very different from that supported by the cognitivist models of representation, which attempt to map the environment to their past decisions. Here, the activity is future-oriented and it can be mistaken, if the chosen interactive strategy does not internally yield the desired results, or if the respective environment does not support the type of interaction that would lead to the anticipated internal outcome. This is a naturalized account of interactive anticipation."
http://www.syros.aegean.gr/users/tsp/journ_pub/J20/J20.pdf
"2. Design Inference Patterns
The historical arguments of interest are precisely the potentially problematic ones—inferences beginning with some empirical features of nature taken as (or argued to be) design-indicative, and concluding with the designedness of, and a designer of, the phenomena in question. A standard but separable second step—the natural theology step—involves identifying the designer as God, often via particular properties and powers required by the designing in question. Although the argument wielded its greatest intellectual influence during the 18th and early 19th centuries, it goes back at least to the Greeks and in extremely clipped form comprises one of Aquinas's Five Ways. It was given a fuller and quite nice early statement by Hume's interlocutor Cleanthes:
Look round the world; contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence. (Hume 1779 [1998], 15).
That statement captures much of popular, informal design intuitions, but exactly how ought we to construe the formal structure of such arguments? What sort of logic is being employed? As it turns out, that question does not have just a single answer. Several distinct answers are canvassed in the following sections.
2.1 Analogical Design Arguments: Schema 1
Design arguments are routinely classed as analogical arguments—various parallels between human artifacts and certain natural entities being taken as supporting parallel conclusions concerning operative causation in each case. (Note that Cleanthes, above, specifically appeals to “the rules of analogy.”) The standardly ascribed schema is roughly thus:
Schema 1:
Entity e within nature (or the cosmos, or nature itself) is like specified human artifact a (e.g., a machine) in relevant respects R.
a has R precisely because it is a product of deliberate design by intelligent human agency.
Like effects typically have like causes (or like explanations, like existence requirements, etc.)
Therefore
It is (highly) probable that e has R precisely because it too is a product of deliberate design by intelligent, relevantly human-like agency.
(The relevant respects and properties R are referred to variously as teleological properties or as marks or signs of design, and objects having such properties are sometimes referred to as teleological objects. For simplicity and uniformity of discussion, I shall simply talk in terms of “Rs”.)"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
"From its beginnings, the empirical study of life has been earmarked by the idea that tiny machines are at work in living tissues. The discovery of protein machines and the illumination of the genetic code during the 20th century revealed a profound similarity between many aspects of technological devices and biological components, and this fulfilled many of the musings of early biological thinkers. The stronger similari-ties between biology and engineering are so clear that there are pervasive cases of design isomorphs, where precise technological designs are found to preexist in living organisms. This isomorphic congruence has been thought by many to be a mere coin-cidental outcome of undirected evolutionary processes, making the similarities super-fluous to scientific practice, and inconsequential to the question of the cause of life. The precision of the likenesses might suggest a reevaluation of viewing the matches as un-correlated coincidences. Conceptual likenesses are widespread, and exist at all levels of organismal complexity. Cases of isomorphic reasoning, when the similarities be-tween machine devices and organism parts have been applied to experimental biology, reveal a powerful conceptual resource for the research biologist. Cooperation between biologists and technologists in isomorphic integration yields a successful investigative effort of previously unknown efficiency. The rendering of a quantitative metric of iso-morphic relationships, presented here as Isomorphic Complexity (abbreviated IsoC), would bring the possibility of a database that could be queried for possible help in bio-logical and technological research. One might get the distinct impression that some-thing more than mere coincidence is involved in the origin of the isomorphic connection between organic biology and teleological machines."
http://www.arn.org/docs/article_the_design_isomorph_and_isomorphic_complexity.pdf
"Design theory, which traces its origins to traditional theological “arguments from design” holding that nature was more or less obviously designed by a preexisting intelligence, maintains that the observed complexity of biological structures implies the involvement of empirically detectable intelligent causes in nature. Intelligent Design, the most recent scientific outgrowth of Design Theory, is a scientific research program based on a more philosophically neutral, and therefore scientific, search for instances of a clear, objective, standard form of biological complexity. According to William Dembski, one of the movement’s leading spokesmen, this has led to “a theory of biological origins and development” according to which “intelligent [and empirically detectable] causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology.” In view of the informational nature of complexity, Dembski observes that “information is not reducible to natural causes…the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.
One of the first things to note about the above definition is that it couples the implied definitions of intelligence, causation and information to a greater extent than do most dictionaries, pointing in principle to a joint definition of all of them. Since any good definition requires a model, one might be strongly tempted to infer on this basis that ID, as here defined, has a well-defined model in which all of its constituent concepts are related. It may therefore come as a surprise to many that perhaps the most frequent, or at any rate the most general, objection to ID in the wider intellectual community is that it “has no model”. According to its critics, it lacks any real-world interpretation specifying a fundamental medium able to support it or a means by which to realize it.
Furthermore, its critics claim, its central hypothesis is not only beyond proof, but unrealistic and not amenable to empirical confirmation.
In all fairness, it must be noted that insofar as science has itself spectacularly failed to agree on a global model of reality, this is really nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy. Science observes, relates and extrapolates from observations with what often turns out to be great efficiency, but has time and time again proven unable to completely justify its reductions or the correspondences between its theories and the real universe as a whole. Although some critics claim that beyond a certain point, explanation is pointless and futile, they do not speak for science; the entire purpose of science is explanation, not rationally unsubstantiated assertions to the effect that a closed-form explanation is “unavailable” or “unnecessary”. In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent – the ID program is in fact perfectly consistent with science.
However, being perfectly consistent with science means merely that something is in line for a model, not that it already has one. It has thus been possible for dedicated critics of ID to create the illusion, at least for sympathetic audiences, that they have it at a critical disadvantage. They contend that while science must be instrumental to society, yield specific predictions, and thus cite specific structural and dynamical laws that nontrivially explain its contexts of application, ID is nothing more than a Trojan horse for religious ideology, makes no nontrivial predictions, and is devoid of theoretical structure. Due to the number of sympathetic ears that such claims have found in Academia, this illusion has all but promoted itself to the status of a self-reinforcing mass delusion in certain closed-minded sectors of the intellectual community. Obviously, it would be to the advantage of the ID movement, and society as a whole, to end this contagion by putting forth something clearly recognizable as a model.
The problem, of course, is that as long as science in general lacks a fundamental model, so do all particular strains of science including Intelligent Design. Due to the close connection between fundamentality and generality, ID or any other field of scientific inquiry would ultimately have to provide science in general with a fundamental model in order to provide one for itself. This might have led some people, in particular those who doubt the existence of a stable fundamental model of reality, to suppose that the ID controversy would remain strictly within the realm of philosophy until the end of time. But this is not the case, for if there were really no fundamental model – if there were no way to map theoretic cognition onto reality in its entirety - perception itself would lack a stable foundation. Perception, after all, can be described as the modeling of objective reality in cognition, and the modeling of cognition in objective reality. The self-evident perceptual stability of reality, on which the existence and efficacy of science and scientific methodology absolutely depend, bear unshakable testimony to the existence of a fundamental model of the real universe.
The general nature of this model can be glimpsed merely by considering the tautological reflexivity of the term “self-evident”. Anything that is self evident proves (or evidences) itself, and any construct that is implicated in its own proof is tautological. Indeed, insofar as observers are real, perception amounts to reality tautologically perceiving itself. The logical ramifications of this statement are developed in the supertautological CTMU, according to which the model in question coincides logically and geometrically, syntactically and informationally, with the process of generating the model, i.e. with generalized cognition and perception. Information thus coincides with information transduction, and reality is a tautological self-interpretative process evolving through SCSPL grammar.
The CTMU has a meta-Darwinian message: the universe evolves by hological self-replication and self-selection. Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a cosmic form of natural selection. But by the nature of this selection process, it also bears description as intelligent self-design (the universe is “intelligent” because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection, the master-problem in terms of which all lesser problems are necessarily formulated). This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property of the medium of emergence. An object does not displace its medium, but embodies it and thus serves as an expression of its underlying syntactic properties. What is far more surprising, and far more disappointing, is the ideological conflict to which this has led. It seems that one group likes the term “intelligent” but is indifferent or hostile to the term “natural”, while the other likes “natural” but abhors “intelligent”. In some strange way, the whole controversy seems to hinge on terminology.
Of course, it can be credibly argued that the argument actually goes far deeper than semantics… that there are substantive differences between the two positions. For example, some proponents of the radical Darwinian version of natural selection insist on randomness rather than design as an explanation for how new mutations are generated prior to the restrictive action of natural selection itself. But this is untenable, for in any traditional scientific context, “randomness” is synonymous with “indeterminacy” or “acausality”, and when all is said and done, acausality means just what it always has: magic. That is, something which exists without external or intrinsic cause has been selected for and brought into existence by nothing at all of a causal nature, and is thus the sort of something-from-nothing proposition favored, usually through voluntary suspension of disbelief, by frequenters of magic shows.
Inexplicably, some of those taking this position nevertheless accuse of magical thinking anyone proposing to introduce an element of teleological volition to fill the causal gap. Such parties might object that by “randomness”, they mean not acausality but merely causal ignorance. However, if by taking this position they mean to belatedly invoke causality, then they are initiating a causal regress. Such a regress can take one of three forms: it can be infinite and open, it can terminate at a Prime Mover which itself has no causal explanation, or it can form some sort of closed cycle doubling as Prime Mover and that which is moved. But a Prime Mover has seemingly been ruled out by assumption, and an infinite open regress can be ruled out because its lack of a stable recursive syntax would make it impossible to form stable informational boundaries in terms of which to perceive and conceive of reality.
What about the cyclical solution? If one uses laws to explain states, then one is obliged to explain the laws themselves. Standard scientific methodology requires that natural laws be defined on observations of state. If it is then claimed that all states are by definition caused by natural laws, then this constitutes a circularity necessarily devolving to a mutual definition of law and state. If it is then objected that this circularity characterizes only the process of science, but not the objective universe that science studies, and that laws in fact have absolute priority over states, then the laws themselves require an explanation by something other than state. But this would effectively rule out the only remaining alternative, namely the closed-cycle configuration, and we would again arrive at…magic.
It follows that the inherently subjective process of science cannot ultimately be separated from the objective universe; the universe must be self-defining by cross-refinement of syntax and state. This brings us back to the CTMU, which says that the universe and everything in it ultimately evolves by self-multiplexing and self-selection. In the CTMU, design and selection, generative and restrictive sides of the same coin, are dual concepts associated with the alternating stages of conspansion. The self-selection of reality is inextricably coupled to self-design, and it is this two-phase process that results in nature. Biological evolution is simply a reflection of the evolution of reality itself, a process of telic recursion mirroring that of the universe as a whole. Thus, when computations of evolutionary probability are regressively extrapolated to the distributed instant of creation, they inevitably arrive at a logical and therefore meaningful foundation.
The CTMU says that on logical grounds, reality has generative and restrictive phases, and that evolution has generative and restrictive phases that are necessarily expressed in terms of those of reality. It asserts that the meta-cybernetic mechanism of evolution is telic recursion, an atemporal process which sets up a stratified dialectic between syntax and state, organism and environment, with mutually consistent mutable and invariant levels. It says that this process, though subject to various forms of noise, interference and competition predicated on the internal freedom of reality, tends to maximize the utility of the universe and its inhabitants. And it thus says that evolution is much more than a mere environmental dictatorship in which inexplicable laws of nature call the tune as biology slavishly dances the jig of life and death.
The CTMU says that by its self-generative, self-selective nature, which follows directly from the analytic requirement of self-containment, reality is its own “designer”. Other features of the generative grammar of reality imply that reality possesses certain logical properties traditionally regarded as theological or spiritual, and that to this extent, the self-designing aspect of reality is open to a theological or spiritual interpretation. The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone’s throat; not all semantic permutations need affect theoretical structure. What it does do, however, is render any anti-theological interpretation a priori false, and ensures that whatever interpretation one chooses accommodates the existence of an “intelligent designer”…namely, reality itself. In light of the CTMU, this is now a matter more of logic than of taste.
In any case, it should be clear that the CTMU yields new ways of looking at both evolution and teleology. Just as it is distinguished from other theories of cosmic evolution by its level of self-containment, particularly with regard to its preference for self-determinacy rather than external determinacy or indeterminacy, so for its approach to biological evolution. Unlike other theories, the CTMU places evolutionary biology squarely in the context of a fundamental, self-contained model of reality, thus furnishing it with an explanation and foundation of its own instead of irresponsibly passing the explanatory buck to some future reduction; instead of counting it sufficient to model its evolutionary implications in the biological world, the CTMU establishes model-theoretic symmetry by providing a seamless blend of theory and universe in which the biological world can itself be “modeled” by physical embedment."
http://www.ctmu.net/
"And now we come to what might be seen as the pivotal question: what is the goal of self-actualization?
Conveniently enough, this question contains its own answer: self-actualization, a generic analogue of Aristotelian final causation and thus of teleology, is its own inevitable outcome and thus its own goal.([39]To achieve causal closure with respect to final causation, a metacausal agency must self-configure in such a way that it relates to itself as the ultimate utility, making it the agency, act and product of its own self-configuration. This 3-way coincidence, called triality, follows from self-containment and implies that self-configuration is intrinsically utile, thus explaining its occurrence in terms of intrinsic utility.) Whatever its specific details may be, they are actualized by the universe alone, and this means that they are mere special instances of cosmic self-actualization. Although the word “goal” has subjective connotations – for example, some definitions stipulate that a goal must be the object of an instinctual drive or other subjective impulse – we could easily adopt a reductive or functionalist approach to such terms, taking them to reduce or refer to objective features of reality. Similarly, if the term “goal” implies some measure of design or pre-formulation, then we could easily observe that natural selection does so as well, for nature has already largely determined what “designs” it will accept for survival and thereby render fit.
Given that the self-containment of nature implies causal closure implies self-determinism implies self-actualization, how is self-actualization to be achieved? Obviously, nature must select some possible form in which to self-actualize. Since a self-contained, causally closed universe does not have the luxury of external guidance, it needs to generate an intrinsic self-selection criterion in order to do this. Since utility is the name already given to the attribute which is maximized by any rational choice function, and since a totally self-actualizing system has the privilege of defining its own standard of rationality([40]It might be objected that the term “rationality” has no place in the discussion…that there is no reason to assume that the universe has sufficient self-recognitional coherence or “consciousness” to be “rational”. However, since the universe does indeed manage to consistently self-recognize and self-actualize in a certain objective sense, and these processes are to some extent functionally analogous to human self-recognition and self-actualization, we can in this sense and to this extent justify the use of terms like “consciousness” and “rationality” to describe them. This is very much in the spirit of such doctrines as physical reductionism, functionalism and eliminativism, which assert that such terms devolve or refer to objective physical or functional relationships. Much the same reasoning applies to the term utility.), we may as well speak of this self-selection criterion in terms of global or generic self-utility. That is, the self-actualizing universe must generate and retrieve information on the intrinsic utility content of various possible forms that it might take.
The utility concept bears more inspection than it ordinarily gets. Utility often entails a subject-object distinction; for example, the utility of an apple in a pantry is biologically and psychologically generated by a more or less conscious subject of whom its existence is ostensibly independent, and it thus makes little sense to speak of its “intrinsic utility”. While it might be asserted that an apple or some other relatively non-conscious material object is “good for its own sake” and thus in possession of intrinsic utility, attributing self-interest to something implies that it is a subject as well as an object, and thus that it is capable of subjective self-recognition.([41]In computation theory, recognition denotes the acceptance of a language by a transducer according to its programming or “transductive syntax”. Because the universe is a self-accepting transducer, this concept has physical bearing and implications.) To the extent that the universe is at once an object of selection and a self-selective subject capable of some degree of self-recognition, it supports intrinsic utility (as does any coherent state-syntax relationship). An apple, on the other hand, does not seem at first glance to meet this criterion.
But a closer look again turns out to be warranted. Since an apple is a part of the universe and therefore embodies its intrinsic self-utility, and since the various causes of the apple (material, efficient and so on) can be traced back along their causal chains to the intrinsic causation and utility of the universe, the apple has a certain amount of intrinsic utility after all. This is confirmed when we consider that its taste and nutritional value, wherein reside its utility for the person who eats it, further its genetic utility by encouraging its widespread cultivation and dissemination. In fact, this line of reasoning can be extended beyond the biological realm to the world of inert objects, for in a sense, they too are naturally selected for existence. Potentials that obey the laws of nature are permitted to exist in nature and are thereby rendered “fit”, while potentials that do not are excluded.([42]The concept of potential is an essential ingredient of physical reasoning. Where a potential is a set of possibilities from which something is actualized, potential is necessary to explain the existence of anything in particular (as opposed to some other partially equivalent possibility).) So it seems that in principle, natural selection determines the survival of not just actualities but potentials, and in either case it does so according to an intrinsic utility criterion ultimately based on global self-utility.
It is important to be clear on the relationship between utility and causality. Utility is simply a generic selection criterion essential to the only cosmologically acceptable form of causality, namely self-determinism. The subjective gratification associated with positive utility in the biological and psychological realms is ultimately beside the point. No longer need natural processes be explained under suspicion of anthropomorphism; causal explanations need no longer implicitly refer to instinctive drives and subjective motivations. Instead, they can refer directly to a generic objective “drive”, namely intrinsic causality…the “drive” of the universe to maximize an intrinsic self-selection criterion over various relational strata within the bounds of its internal constraints.([43]Possible constraints include locality, uncertainty, blockage, noise, interference, undecidability and other intrinsic features of the natural world.) Teleology and scientific naturalism are equally satisfied; the global self-selection imperative to which causality necessarily devolves is a generic property of nature to which subjective drives and motivations necessarily “reduce”, for it distributes by embedment over the intrinsic utility of every natural system.
Intrinsic utility and natural selection relate to each other as both reason and outcome. When an evolutionary biologist extols the elegance or effectiveness of a given biological “design” with respect to a given function, as in “the wings of a bird are beautifully designed for flight”, he is really talking about intrinsic utility, with which biological fitness is thus entirely synonymous. Survival and its requisites have intrinsic utility for that which survives, be it an organism or a species; that which survives derives utility from its environment in order to survive and as a result of its survival. It follows that neo-Darwinism, a theory of biological causation whose proponents have tried to restrict it to determinism and randomness, is properly a theory of intrinsic utility and thus of self-determinism. Athough neo-Darwinists claim that the kind of utility driving natural selection is non-teleological and unique to the particular independent systems being naturally selected, this claim is logically insupportable. Causality ultimately boils down to the tautological fact that on all possible scales, nature is both that which selects and that which is selected, and this means that natural selection is ultimately based on the intrinsic utility of nature at large.
The Stratification Problem
It is frequently taken for granted that neo-Darwinism and ID theory are mutually incompatible, and that if one is true, then the other must be false. But while this assessment may be accurate with regard to certain inessential propositions attached to the core theories like pork-barrel riders on congressional bills([44]Examples include the atheism and materialism riders often attached to neo-Darwinism, and the Biblical Creationism rider often mistakenly attached to ID theory.), it is not so obvious with regard to the core theories themselves. In fact, these theories are dealing with different levels of causality."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Cheating_the_Millennium-final.pdf
"Duality principles thus come in two common varieties, one transposing spatial relations and objects, and one transposing objects or spatial relations with mappings, functions, operations or processes. The first is called space-object (or S-O, or S O) duality; the second, time-space (or T-S/O, or T S/O) duality. In either case, the central feature is a transposition of element and a (spatial or temporal) relation of elements. Together, these dualities add up to the concept of triality, which represents the universal possibility of consistently permuting the attributes time, space and object with respect to various structures. From this, we may extract a third kind of duality: ST-O duality. In this kind of duality, associated with something called conspansive duality, objects can be “dualized” to spatiotemporal transducers, and the physical universe internally “simulated” by its material contents.
...
(4) A starting configuration, the MU form µ, which is identical to the telic recursion event which creates it (the inception of SCSPL and Γ grammar is a telic recursion, not an informational-algorithmic recursion). It is this identity of event and outcome that determines the innate spatial and temporal characteristics of spacetime, for which µ is the “seed”. The MU form can be regarded as an “intrinsic perturbation” or “intrinsic asymmetry” in UBT. The MU form is distributed over SCSPL.
A processor of a grammar G is any natural or artificial dynamical system that operates, changes state or processes information in conformance to the rules of G. Unlike ordinary generative grammars, Γ grammar requires no external processors; its processors and productions are identical. Thus, Γ grammar is executed by its own productions in levels of syntactic distribution ranging from the global to the object level. In fact, O, R and P – processors, products (states) and production events – all coincide and thus exhibit a form of triality. This three-way coincidence is characteristic of Γ grammar and captures many of its essential features.
O-R-P coincidence is already to some extent realized in the standard language-grammar-processor model of computation theory, but only inadvertently. While linguistic processing is dynamically paralleled by changes in the internal and external states of processors, the processors are still considered separate from the language and grammar being processed.
Moreover, the basic medium of processing is not considered, the model is not self-sufficient, and recursion is merely informational and computational; there is no allowance for infocognition or telic recursion. SCSPL shares none of these limitations.
Γ grammar generates SCSPL according to the utility of its sentient processors, including the self-utility of Γ and the utility of its LO relations to telors in A. Γ and A generate telons on the global and local level respectively; thus, they must be capable of recognizing and maximizing the selection parameter υ (in the case of human telors, for example, this requires the QPS and ETS components of the HCS). As such, they are responsible for telic recursion and may be regarded as the “generators” of Γ grammar, while the set Q of elementary physical objects are freely and competitively acquired by telons and thus occupy an ontologically secondary position.
Γ grammar is conspansive. Non-global processors alternate between the generative selective actualization of possible productions, and thus between the generative and selective (inner expansive and requantizative) phases of conspansion. The selective phase of an operator coincides with interactive mutual-acquisition events, while the generative phase coincides with the generation and selective actualization of possible productions through hological multiplexing. In conjunction with extended spatiotemporal superposition, conspansion provides the means of local (telic and informational) recursion."
http://www.ctmu.net/
Design Out of Complexity: A Mathematical Theory of Design as a Universal Property of Organization
...
So, while the core definition of anticipation seems to be generally accepted, the assumptions about the nature of anticipation vary substantially. For example, anticipation has been defined as a particular kind of dynamics (e.g. Dubois, 1998), as a particular pattern of causal relations (e.g. Burgers, 1975; Rosen, 1985), or as a particular relationship between wholes and parts (e.g. Van de Vijver, 2000). In general, there are two different research directions for considering the issue of anticipation. The first focuses on anticipation as a characteristic property of certain classes of systems (cognitive, social or physical) and aims to define anticipation, as well as to identify and describe the conditions that make a system anticipatory (e.g. von Glaserfeld, 1998; Riegler, 2001; Leydesdorff, 2005). The second direction of research is focussed on the question of how anticipatory behaviour can be achieved computationally, or generally be used for developing more effective systems (e.g. Butz et al, 2003a).
Here we will mainly examine the predominant approaches of Rosen and Dubois: Rosen is considered to be the 'father' of anticipatory systems since his treatment Chapter 7: An organizational level theory of design introduced the concept in relation to the study, modelling, and control of complex systems, while Dubois reintroduced the concept in the scientific community in recent years. We will also briefly explore anticipation in relation to the concept of agency in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence. In any case, we will distil some important arguments for the understanding of anticipation in the context of design, and highlight links with other related concepts such as expectation or autonomy.
...
In Rosen’s view, anticipation is coupled with the ability of a system to contain a model of itself and/or its environment. This ability enables the system to act not only according to its history, but also in response to possible or future states of the world. He gives some examples of systems where the existence of an internal model (whether ‘wired-in’ or constructed) allows the expression of future states to guide present action. In one such example he writes: ‘…if I am walking in the woods, and I see a bear appear on the path ahead of me, I will immediately tend to vacate the premises. Why? I would argue: because I can foresee a variety of unpleasant consequences arising from failing to do so.’ (Rosen, 1985: 7). People customarily construct models which allow them to predict future situations, or consequences of future events, and on this basis to change their present course of action. But the ability to anticipate can also be found in ‘lower levels’ of (biological) organisation ‘where there is no question of learning or of consciousness’ (ibid).
Rosen's characterisation of anticipatory systems is built on the coupling between a dynamical system S (running in real time) and another dynamical system M which is a model of S. The idea is that this model can 'go faster' than real time and therefore predict future states: ‘by looking at the state of M at time T, we get information about the state that S will be in at some time later than T’ (ibid: 12). This prediction is then used to perform an action at present time. For Rosen, the idea of building and employing predictive models was a fundamental aspect of science in general. His definition of anticipatory systems with its associated premises was hence also intended as a framework for understanding, modelling and controlling (complex) systems.
...
Another prominent approach to research in anticipatory systems is advocated by Dubois (Dubois, 1997; Dubois, 1998; Dubois, 2000). Starting from a divergent position from that of Rosen, he suggests that anticipation is not a characteristic of biological systems alone (a trait of life), but is fundamentally present in all physical systems. In particular, he asserts that Rosen's notion constitutes a special form of anticipation as it is founded on model-based prediction (‘weak’ anticipation). He additionally discusses a formulation where anticipation as change of current state according to initial, as well as final conditions, is achieved at a system level (‘strong’ anticipation). His alternative interpretation is based on the concept of incursion (implicit recursion) by which future state is computed in a self-referential manner.
...
Dubois uses the concepts of incursion and hyperincursion (incursion with multiple solutions) as a method to investigate and develop a series of formal models, ranging from control of feedback and chaotic systems, to the generation of fractals from incursive automata and digital wave equations.
Dubois's view in fact summarises the main discussion points in research relevant to anticipatory systems: whether anticipation is a unique characteristic of biological systems or extends to all complex systems (biological, natural, and artificial), and whether anticipation can be realised computationally. The question about computation has its roots in Rosen’s argument that there is a parallel between natural languages and organisms, in the sense that they both possess semantic models of entailment that cannot be encapsulated in a syntactic formalisation, a formal system, or a machine (Rosen, 1991: 247). Thus, although the existence of some sort of internal model is commonly agreed to be necessary, some consider that purely syntactic representations are sufficient for producing anticipatory behaviour, while others consider that a semantic dimension is necessary."
http://design.open.ac.uk/people/zamenopoulos/Zamenopoulos_PhD_Thesis.pdf
EMERGENT DESIGN
"Explorations in Systems Phenomenology in Relation to Ontology,Hermeneutics and the Meta-dialectics of Design
A Phenomenological Analysis of Emergent Design is performed based on the foundations of General Schemas Theory. The concept of Sign Engineering is explored in terms ofHermeneutics, Dialectics, and Ontology in order to define Emergent Systems and Meta-systems Engineering based on the concept of Meta-dialectics."
http://tinyurl.com/4edbgj7
"Pre-Lie algebras have a strange self-referential feature. Every operad of a large class gives a pre-Lie algebra, but the operad for pre-Lie algebras is one of this class! This raises the following interesting puzzle.
As we have seen above, for any linear operad O, the free O-algebra with one generator becomes a pre-Lie algebra. But the operad for pre-Lie algebra is an operad of this type. So, the free pre-Lie algebra on one generator becomes a pre-Lie algebra in this way. But of course it already is a pre-Lie algebra! Do these pre-Lie structures agree?
The answer is no. For an explanation, see page 7 here:
A short survey on pre-Lie algebras.
http://math.univ-bpclermont.fr/~manchon/biblio/ESI-prelie2009.pdf
http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/pre-Lie+algebra
Operadic Point of View on the Hopf Algebra of Rooted Trees
http://www-math.unice.fr/~patras/CargeseConference/ACQFT09_FredericCHAPOTON.pdf
"M Theory Lesson 77
Posts here often discuss operads, for which compositions are represented by a directed rooted tree and the root is the single output. Dually one can consider cooperads with multiple outputs.
These give rise naturally to coalgebras rather than algebras. And yes, people have considered vertex operator coalgebras and so on. Recall that coalgebras are essential to the concept of Hopf algebra. An example of a Hopf algebra is a universal enveloping algebra of a semisimple Lie algebra. Deformations of these, also Hopf algebras, are the notorious quantum groups.
Now Ross Street has published a book, Quantum Groups: a Path to Current Algebra, which I would love to get my hands on. The book blurb says, "A key to understanding these new developments is categorical duality." That simply means the duality given by turning a tree upside down, as drawn, so we need operad structures that combine upward branches and downward branches. Leaping ahead to triality, one expects branchings in three directions and no chosen root. Such diagrams are associated to cyclic operads, and we actually consider these with polygonal tilings, since the dual to a polygon is a branching tree with no real root."
http://kea-monad.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
Higher Operad Combinatorics in Quantum Gravity
"Here we wish to investigate a new tricategorical [12] regime at N =3 by relating special properties of 3-categories to the dimension of space, colour in QCD, 3 stranded braids, and the number of generations in the low energy particle spectrum. This appears to be possible only by attributing to the parameter N = 3 an extremely fundamental significance, associated to unknown axioms for higher toposes and N -dimensional multicategories. This approach is therefore quite distinct from other topos theoretic ideas for gravity. The proposal contains 3 sections:
1. describes the axiomatic nature of higher topos quantum gravity
2. outlines the technical core of the proposed research
3. notes connections to a broader research program
1 Higher Topos Quantum Gravity
Ordinary geometry is supposed to emerge from a framework which first defines observables for a finite range of input criteria, determined by the abstract constraints of specific experimental questions. This discrete language must transcend the mathematics of points in a classical space. A topos is the modern generalisation of the concept of space."
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/2918313
"The aim of this paper is to give a topos-theoretical approach to anticipatory aspects of reactive systems. In order to reason about reactive systems we identify the category of transition systems with a category of functors, SetF, where F is a suitable small category with four objects. As SetF is a topos we have its internal logic to reason about its objects. In this paper we exhibit the terminal object and the subobject classifier of SetF, and analyse the way subobjects are classified according to several truth values. We define in the internal language of this topos the notion of approximation between systems. Among all possible approximations of a system, we take a good approximation (to compute how good an approximation is we compare approximations of a system using the ordering between truth values of the topos) to be its predictive model, as it differs from the original one in time and gives information about undesirable paths. With these tools we could complete the formulation of the concept of anticipatory system in a topos-theoretic framework."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AIPC..627..543D
Implementation Issues of Anticipatory Reasoning-Reacting Systems
...
"Though there is no generally accepted definition which can catch all of the characteristics of anticipatory system, there is a literal definition which are originated from Rosen’s pioneer work and commonly accepted, i.e. an anticipatory system is a system whose current state is determined by not only past/present states but also some predicted future states. This definition does give us inspirations, but it’s far from enough. We should add more qualifiers to this to get a more clear definition.
An anticipatory system is a holistic open system driven by finality (goal, final cause and teleo in other terms). It is interacting with an ever changing environment which includes the system itself and other anticipatory or non-anticipatory systems.
An anticipatory system should have the following abilities:
to perceive the environment; based on past context (including past self state, past event, past environment circumstances and etc.), present context (as a result of perception) and experience (including simple situation-action rules, more abstract rules or theories), to make a prediction about future context; to add the prediction into account; to make a decision how to interact with the environment and take this action; after action, to evaluate the action result to get a reference for future.
A genuine anticipatory system should be intentional, that
is:
• Self-consciousness: the system is aware of internal and external (environmental) structures, interrelation and interaction among internal structures, between internal and external structures. It does not only represent these in its language (may be some kinds of symbols), but also know what these exactly mean, e.g. how the action it will take will affect the environment (especially other systems) and how the environment will affect itself.
• Self-guidance: the system can extract intentions, motives or finalities from the interaction with the environment, or create new ones consciously.
• Explicit action control: every movement has the involvement of conscious mind, whatever perception, prediction, decision, action, evaluation and other internal/external processes, etc.
To fare in the changing environment, a genuine anticipatory system should be evolutionary, that is:
• Self-measurement/monitoring: the self-consciousness characteristics make self-measurement/monitoring necessary, i.e., the system should have some function components and some (maybe only one) embedded permanent self-measurement components that act concurrently with the function components, measure and monitor the system itself according to some requirements, and pass run-time information about the systems behavior to the outside world of the system; also based on the dependence, wholeness, uncertainty and self-measurement principle in designing, developing, and maintaining a large-scale, long-lived, and highly reliable concurrent system, Self-measurement/monitoring is necessary [9, 10].
• Self-entailment: transfer knowledge from an old instance to a new instance of system itself.
• Self-organization: under certain physical constraints, (re)arrange its internal components, processes, interactions and interrelations between them.
• Self-modification: under certain physical constraints, change its internal components, processes, interactions and interrelations among them and original knowledge, and repair failed or malfunctioned parts.
• Self-generation: under certain physical constraints,
reproduce internal components, processes and reestablish
interrelations between them or produce new ones
above and get new abstract knowledge (increase experience).
As one of most important methods of self-evolution, an anticipatory system should be able to learn, especially the inductive learning capability, not only the deductive learning capability by which it gets new facts from the theories it already has.
Concerning more detail affairs about formal, structural and functional considerations of an anticipatory system are, formally, a most possible approach to implement an anticipatory system is a layered modular structure with strong internal coherence, including a object system at low reactive level and a reasoning system at high meta level.
Directed by itself, it selectively perceives itself and the environment through different channels, synchronizes the distributive data perceived and records them in its internal structures that can be multiple implicit or explicit system and environment model (may include the system self model which also includes the environment model, so it could be an infinite recursion), and then processes them and endows them with semantic meaning.
Under its own constraints and combined with predefined or learned abstract theories and past context data (experience), it reasons the present data to predict multiple future situations with certain possibilities (“confidence” in psychological terms) in certain scope. Taking the possible future situations into account, it concludes which actions (including internal actions and those against the environment) can lead it to its finality (or say goal) and takes these actions, and then check the effects. And the evaluation of the effects is very important for the system to learn new general theories and particular facts which can be
helpful to organize itself to be more adaptive to the protean environment."
http://www.aise.ics.saitama-u.ac.jp/KEST/KEST03W/papers/30-shang.pdf
Data Structures in Natural Computing: Databases as Weak or Strong Anticipatory Systems:
"Information systems anticipate the real world. Classical databases store, organise and search collections of data of that real world but only as weak anticipatory information systems. This is because of the reductionism and normalisation needed to map the structuralism of natural data on to idealised machines with von Neumann architectures consisting of fixed instructions. Category theory developed as a formalism to explore the theoretical concept of naturality shows that methods like sketches arising from graph theory as only non-natural models of naturality cannot capture real-world structures for strong anticipatory information systems. Databases need a schema of the natural world. Natural computing databases need the schema itself to be also natural. Natural computing methods including neural computers, evolutionary automata, molecular and nanocomputing and quantum computation have the potential to be strong. At present they are mainly at the stage of weak anticipatory systems."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.103.659
Anticipatory Topoi:
Topological Sheaf
Sheaf over I
The Topos Semantics for a First-Order Language
Obtaining a Topos of Comp. Systems
Transition System
Category TS
Category of Transition Systems II
http://www-di.inf.puc-rio.br/~hermann/CASYS2001/index.htm
Presheaves, Sheaves and their Topoi in Quantum Gravity and Quantum Logic
http://www.citeulike.org/user/isotelesis/article/4633711
Information Systems and the Theory of Categories: Is Every Model an Anticipatory System?
http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/CGNR1/liege04m4.pdf
"Information systems are anticipatory systems providing knowledge of thereal world. If e-science is to operate reactively across the Grid it needs to be integrable with other information systems and e-commerce.
Theory suggests that four strong-anticipatory levels of computational types are sufficient to provide ultimate systemic closure with a single strong anticipation. Between the four levels are three layers of adjoint functors that relate each type-pair. A free functor allows selection of a target type at a lower level and its right adjoint determines the higher-level type. Because of the uniqueness a higher-level anticipates a lower level and a lower level a higher. Type anticipation can be provided by left (F) or right (G) adjoint functors. These however are weak anticipation. Strong anticipation needs both left and right adjoints at each levelor by composition of adjoints for the system as a whole.
The ISO standard for the Information Resource Dictionary System (IRDS) is itself an anticipatory system with this four-level architecture of universal types which can be used for design of interoperability across the Grid. The sufficiency of middleware tools for the Grid can be anticipated by reference to this same architecture. Thus for instance RDF, the Resource Description Framework, for the markup language XML seems to lack the top level abstraction of IRDS and to have only left-adjoint functionality and therefore not to qualify as a strong anticipatory system.
Keywords: computational types, strong anticipation, category theory, Grid, XML."
http://tinyurl.com/Anticipatory-Adjointness
"The most obvious mistake committed by almost everyone when first confronted with the idea of anticipation is to think that anticipation is a feature that we possess because we are such highly complex and wonderfully sophisticated cognitive agents. This is not what the theory of anticipation claims. Indeed, the major surprise embedded in the theory of anticipation is that anticipation is a widespread phenomenon present in and characterizing all types of realities. Life in all its varieties is anticipatory, the brain works in an anticipatory way, the mind is obviously anticipatory, society and its structures are anticipatory, even non-living or non-biological systems can be anticipatory. All this comes as more than a surprise. If all this is true, and providing that the necessary supporting evidence can be accumulated, it implies that a proper understanding of anticipation requires the adoption of an innovative conceptual framework. Moreover, this new framework will have to be innovative in many different ways, some of which will be mentioned by this paper."
http://robertopoli.co.cc/wp-content/uploads/papers/Poli%202009%20Aspects%20of%20Anticipation.pdf
"Super-complexity can be regarded as the most general property of living systems, including aspects like their constitution, reproduction and autonomy. In short, complex systems are systems (1) requiring a double form of composition (the bottom-up type of composition from elements to the system, and the top-down form from (a previous stage of) the system to its elements; (2) capable of both regeneration and self-reproduction by reproducing the elements of which they are made (autopoiesis); (3) endowed with autonomy."
http://robertopoli.it/Papers/Poli%202009%20Introduction%20to%20Anticipation.pdf
"This paper attempts to provide a naturalized description of the complex design process. The design process may be abstractly conceived as a future-creating activity that goes beyond "facticity" and creates visions of a desirable future among groups of agents. It requires the engagement of individual or groups of cognitive systems in purposeful and intentional (meaning-based) interactions with their environment and consequently with each other. It is argued in this paper that a design process should be interactive, future-anticipatory and open-ended. Furthermore, a frame-work to explain and support the design process should have in turn its basis in a framework of cognition. It is suggested that the design process should primarily be examined within an interactive framework of agency based on 2nd order cybernetic epistemology. Future-oriented anticipation requires functionality which can be thought of as future-directed activity; indeed all but the simplest functionalities require anticipation in order to be effective. Based on the fundamental notions of closure, self-reference and self-organisation, a cybernetically-inspired systems-theoretic notion of autonomy is proposed. This conception of autonomy is immediately related to the anticipative functionality of the cognitive system, which constructs emergent representations while it interactively participates in a design process.
Consequently, the design process is seen as an interaction between two or more self-organising autonomous systems thereby constructing ever more adaptive representations directed towards ill-defined outcomes. It is argued that this kind of autonomy is fundamental for the interactive establishment and definition of the design process as an essentially open-ended process."
http://www.syros.aegean.gr/users/arar/books/Naturalising_Design_Process.pdfl
"Unfortunately, the advantages of discrete models, which are receiving increasingly serious consideration from the scientific and philosophical communities, are outweighed by certain basic deficiencies. Not only do they exhibit scaling and nonlocality problems associated with their “display hardware”, but they are inadequate by themselves to generate the conceptual infrastructure required to explain the medium, device or array in which they evolve, or their initial states and state-transition programming. Moreover, they remain anchored in materialism, objectivism and Cartesian dualism, each of which has proven obstructive to the development of a comprehensive explanation of reality. Materialism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful nonmaterial aspect, objectivism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful subjective aspect, and although Cartesian dualism technically excludes neither, it arbitrarily denies that the mental and material, or subjective and objective, sides of reality share common substance.
...
Although insights regarding the ideal and/or perceptual basis of reality go back millennia, we may as well start with some their more recent proponents for the sake of continuity. First, Descartes posited that reality is mental in the sense of rationalism, but contradicted his own thesis by introducing mind-body dualism, the notion that mind and matter are irreducibly separate. The empiricist Berkeley then said that reality is perceptual in nature, a kind of intersect of mind and matter. This can be seen by mentally subtracting perception from one’s conception of reality; what remains is pure subjective cognition, but without any objective grist for the perceptual mill. (Although attempts to cognitively subtract cognition from reality are far more common, they are a bit like trying to show that a sponge is not inherently wet while immersing it in water, and can never be successful on the parts of cognitive entities.) Hume then attempted to do away with cognition and causation entirely, asserting that both mind and matter inhere in perception and exist apart from neither it nor each other.
In disposing of mind, Hume made another salient “contribution” to reality theory: he attempted to dispose of causation by identifying it as a cognitive artifact, supporting his thesis with the problem of induction.23 The problem of induction states that because empirical induction entails the prior assumption of that which it seeks to establish, namely the uniformity of nature, science is circular and fundamentally flawed. The problem of induction is very real; it is manifest in Heisenberg uncertainty and the cosmic horizon problem, finite limitations of scientific tools of microscopic and macroscopic observation, and is why no general theory of reality can ever be reliably constructed by the standard empirical methods of science. Unfortunately, many scientists have either dismissed this problem or quietly given up on the search for a truly general theory, in neither case serving the long-term interests of science. In fact, the problem of induction merely implies that a global theory of reality can only be established by the rational methods of mathematics, specifically including those of logic.
In response to Berkeley and Hume, Kant asserted that the unprimed cognition which remains when perceptual content is subtracted has intrinsic structure that exists prior to content; it comprises the a priori categories of perceptual or “phenomenal” reality.24 Unfortunately, subtracting perception according to Kantian rules yields more than unprimed cognition; it also yields noumena, absolute objects or “things-in-themselves”. On one side of the result is a perceptual isomorphism between the mind and phenomenal reality; on the other yawns a chasm on the far side of which sits an unknowable but nonetheless fundamental noumenal reality, which Kant evidently regarded as the last word in (sub-theological) reality theory.
However, Kant’s chasm is so deep and wide, and so thoroughly interdicts any mind-reality isomorphism, that it precludes causal efficacy and for that matter any other comprehensible principle of correspondence. This implies that noumena are both rationally and empirically irrelevant to cognitive and perceptual reality, and thus that they can be safely eliminated from reality theory. Whatever Kant had in mind when he introduced the concept of a noumenon, his definition essentially amounts to “inconceivable concept” and is thus an oxymoron. Whatever he really meant, we must rely on something other than Kantian metaphysics to find it.25
Thus far, we have managed to narrow reality down to the phenomenal reality studied by science, a combination of perceptual content and rational principles of cognition. A scientist employs empirical methods to make specific observations, applies general cognitive relationships from logic and mathematics in order to explain them, and comes off treating reality as a blend of perception and cognition. But this treatment lacks anything resembling an explicit justification. When a set of observations is explained with a likely set of equations interpreted therein, the adhesion between explanandum and explanation might as well be provided by rubber cement. I.e., scientific explanations and interpretations glue observations and equations together in a very poorly understood way. It often works like a charm…but why? One of the main purposes of reality theory is to answer this question."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
Event-State Duality
"Computation is traditionally taught with a focus on states, a point of view that has permeated computer science so thoroughly that event-oriented models are in a distinct minority even at CONCUR. One could imagine a parallel universe in which computer science had focused instead on events, with advocates of a state-oriented perspective in the minority. The situation is rather like the old philosophical problem of the primacy of mind or matter, with science having chosen Hume over Berkeley, matter over mind. Or for that matter the general preference in mathematics of sets over categories.
Just as Russell along with Eccles and Popper advocated a return to a more symmetric view of matter and mind contemplated both by millennia-old ying-yang philosophy and by Descartes in 1647, so does event-state duality take a more symmetric view of events and states, defining them in such a way that each could be understood in terms of the other. The duality of events and states goes hand in hand with that of time and information as the respective metrics on event spaces and state spaces. Event-based duality permits a process to be viewed equally well as a state-based automaton or an event-based schedule. These views are structurally different: automata (or transition systems) are state-based, and branching is disjunctive: the process only goes down one branch. Schedules are event-based, and branching is conjunctive: parallel events all occur. These structural differences not withstanding, each view fully determines the other, and moreover simply by matrix transposition!"
http://tinyurl.com/4tcy9mr
"A Chu space can in this way be seen as a multiset A of rows from KX and a multiset X of columns from KA, with “multiset” replaced by “set” when T0 and extensional. The rows present the physical, concrete, conjunctive, or yang aspects of the space, while the columns present the mental, coconcrete, disjunctive, or yin aspects. We may regard rows and columns as characteristic functions of subsets of respectively X and A, where K is taken to consist of the degrees of membership, with K = 2 = {0, 1} giving the ordinary notion of membership, 1 for in and 0 for out."
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/chuconc.pdf
"A more satisfactory reconciliation with the short form definition is to view the subject-predicate relationship as a symmetrically expressed relation r. We do not have to interpret the notion of predicate on a set X of subjects as a function a:X→K, any more than we have to interpret a subject as a function x:A→K. Instead we have three options: either of those two, or just leaving r as the symmetric expression of the relationship. Unlike both algebras and topological spaces, Chu spaces do not take subjects to be primitive and predicates to be derived, but rather take both to be primitive.
In this symmetric view, ``subject'' is more natural than ``individual.'' One envisages an individual as having an independent existence. A subject on the other hand is a subject of something: it forms one half of an elementary proposition r(x,a) that combines a subject x with a predicate a.
This reconciliation has a historical link with the discovery and resolution of the paradoxes of Cartesian Dualism. If we identify the sets X and A with Descartes' 1647 division of the universe into physical and mental components respectively, then r is the mediator of these components sought by many philosophers during the following century. The respective proposals of Hume and Berkeley to make one side or the other primitive correspond to taking respectively X or A to be primitive and deriving the other in terms of functions from the former to K. That Hume won out would seem to be correlated with mathematics' preference for basing mathematical objects on their constituent individuals rather than their constituent predicates."
http://chu.stanford.edu/
"Yin and yang are the negative and positive phases in the cyclic flow of Chi. These are the root of power, the beginning of everything. Since they constitute the beginning of everything and constitute the basic principles of the entire universe, they are indeed the cause of both life and death. For this reason the Chinese refer to the sky as yang and the earth as yin. Yang is active and yin is restful. Thus, as activity culminates in rest which in turn culminates in activity, yang becomes yin as yin becomes yang. So as you can see these two elements are inseparable since they imply each other."
http://www.essortment.com/all/yinyangmeaning_rosp.htm
Common Teachings from Chinese Culture and the Baha'i Faith: From Material Civilization to Spiritual Civilization
"The Chinese culture is one of the oldest civilizations with five thousand years of history. The Bahá’í Faith is the youngest independent world religion of just 155 years. These two civilizations, from different places and times, have many teachings in common. Both the Bahá’í Faith and the Chinese culture speak to the process of transforming from material civilization to spiritual civilization. Indeed, the history of humankind demonstrates this process of spiritual transformation at various stages in our search of meanings in life among family, tribes, nations, and finally in a global community. The reality of our common human experience is that we are spiritual beings going through the journey of a physical life on Earth. Yet, the majority of people are still struggling with the physical journey with very little regard to their own spiritual well-being. Meanwhile, our world is now living through a global transition to a spiritual age, which will gather together all people from every nation into one human family.
Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), the Prophet Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, brings the divine teachings for the spiritualization of the whole planet and proclaims, "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Bahá’í Faith promotes world peace and the unity of humankind in a global culture. 'Abdu'l-Bahá (1844-1921), one of the three Central Figures of the Bahá’í Faith, speaks of the Chinese people as "most simple hearted and truth-seeking" and of China as "the country of the future."
Therefore, the Chinese culture and the Bahá’í Faith are relevant and need the utmost cooperation and mutual understanding. This paper is a simple attempt to show the unity in the major teachings of both. There are social teachings, such as: 1) the Great Unity (world peace); 2) unity of the human family; 3) service to others; 4) moral education; 5) extended family values. These social teachings are based on fundamental spiritual teachings, such as 6) the investigation of truth; 7) the Highest Reality (God); 8) the common foundation of religions; 9) harmony in Nature; 10) the purpose of tests and suffering; and 11) moderation in all things."
http://bahai-library.com/cheung_chinese_bahai_teachings
"During His stay at the inn, Abdu'l-Baha gave public talks that were fundamental to the Baha'i view of education and human development. He urged His listeners to study 'reality' so that the union of opinions and expressions may be obtained. Additionally, Abdu'l-Baha shared with Sarah and others His vision of the future of Green Acre. He said to Sarah as they reviewed to location of the great university her efforts had made possible:"
http://bahai-library.com/essays/greenacre.html
"Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.
As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? ... Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute."
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html
"Viewed operationally, a relational database organized in this way can be understood as recording the states of a number of concurrent observers of the world at large, each specializing in some attribute that they are qualified to observe or measure. Picture this as a battery of differently talented movie cameras and other recording instruments all aimed at the same scene or universe and recording different aspects of it concurrently and asynchronously, some recording the observed universe slowly and others quickly. All observers agree on what individuals are present in the universe, of whatever type. A state in our framework is one frame captured from one such recording device.
From this perspective a traditional database relation can be understood as a global snapshot formed by merging information from all observers. Each observer contributes a column having one row per observed individual, and these are then assembled as a matrix whose rows are indexed by individuals and whose columns are indexed by attributes. It is natural to refer to this theory of attributes based on observers asynchronously gathering state information as concurrent ontology. This is to be contrasted with the traditional conception of a Kripke structure in which the truth of a proposition is evaluated in a single world catering for all attributes simultaneously and therefore synchronously.
...
Putting individuals and states on an equal or dual footing creates a mathematically rigorous framework that rationalizes the underlying intuition of Cartesian dualism in terms of a matrix mediating the interaction of individuals and states. Whereas for untyped Chu spaces the entire theory derives solely from interaction, concurrent ontology serves to decouple the two by allowing each side to have its own theory, in terms of equations involving respectively operations and dependencies, in addition to whatever interaction might contribute to the overall theory. To put the sequel in a larger perspective, a useful analogy is with any algebraic theory such as group theory, linear algebra, Boolean algebra, etc. The core framework is developed purely algebraically using only equations involving terms built with operations, in this case only unary. Once established it can then be extended with operations of other arities, along with predicates, first or higher order quantifiers, modalities, fixpoint operators, etc. to develop a much richer theory around the core.
The primary focus of this paper is on the development of the core itself, which to the usual machinery of algebraic theories adds two new concepts, namely bidirectional transformations and qualia. The former are as for Chu spaces, while the latter confer a certain mathematical precision on C.I. Lewis’ notion of quale or sense datum [7]. Qualia present ontology with the problem of what they are, which conventional accounts of the concept of attribute have been unable to answer in a way that convincingly distinguishes qualia from other entities, due in part to the difficulty of distinguishing sensing from other activities. Concurrent ontology distinguishes qualia as those individuals that do not reside in the universe of individuals sensing them but instead are apprehended as values of attributes of an individual. This account of qualia abstracts the activity of ”sensing” an attribute to that of an abstract observer doing the sensing, namely the attribute itself.
Qualia as understood here constitute an abstract notion in their own right, in that they are not limited to those qualia perceivable by living organisms, or even by physical observers such as robots, cameras, and tape recorders. For example sanity as an attribute of a human may be observed only by logical inference from more concrete qualia. The simplest case recognizes only two qualia: an individual may be merely sane or insane. The premise of the vulgarity “What kind of nut are you” is that psychiatry recognizes a wide range of sanity-related qualia. Our framework draws a further distinction based on type, for example humans can be insane in ways that cats can’t."
http://conconto.stanford.edu/conconto.pdf
Carnap, Goguen, and the Hyperontologies
Logical Pluralism and Heterogeneous Structuring in Ontology Design
This paper addresses questions of universality related to ontological engineering, namely aims at substantiating (negative) answers to the following three basic questions: i) Is there a ‘universal ontology’ ?, ii) Is there a ‘universal formal ontology language’?, and iii) Is there a universally applicable ‘mode of reasoning’ for formal ontologies?
To support our answers in a principled way, we present a general framework for the design of formal ontologies resting on two main principles: firstly, we endorse Rudolf Carnap’s principle of logical tolerance by giving central stage to the concept of logical heterogeneity, i.e. the use of a plurality of logical languages within one ontology design. Secondly, to structure and combine heterogeneous ontologies in a semantically wellfounded way, we base our work on abstract model theory in the form of institutional semantics, as forcefully put forward by Joseph Goguen and Rod Burstall. In particular, we employ the structuring mechanisms of
the heterogeneous algebraic specification language HetCasl for defining a general concept of heterogeneous, distributed, highly modular and structured ontologies, called hyperontologies.
Moreover, we distinguish, on a structural and semantic level, several different kinds of combining and aligning heterogeneous ontologies, namely integration, connection, and refinement. We show how the notion of heterogeneous refinement can be used to provide both a general notion of sub-ontology as well as a notion of heterogeneous equivalence of ontologies, and finally sketch how different modes of reasoning over ontologies are related to these different structuring aspects."
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~okutz/hyperontologies.pdf
Ontology, Society, and Ontotheology
"This paper surveys a wide range of work currently little known among formal ontologists, but that shows promise for improving the state of the art. Two conclusions are that the embodied, embedded, situated nature of human concepts undermines attempts to reify context, and that category theory provides relevant tools for problems associated with structural and logical heterogeneity. Ethnomethodologists emphasize the negotiable, situated, embodied, emergent character of classification, as of all human activity. Cognitive linguists and psychologists study categorization, conceptual domains, metaphor and blending, and reach similar conclusions. Sociologists of science observe the intensely political and ethical aspects of classification systems, as well as their malleability, evolution, and local interpretation. French post-structuralists consider writerly texts, intertextuality, deconstruction, etc. Heidegger criticized “ontotheology” as the alienating notion of “being” that is the essence of modern technology. Taken together, these results motivate skepticism about extreme claims for ontologies in the technical sense of the SemanticWeb, database integration, etc., despite the undoubted applicability of this technology to many specific problems. What can emerge from carefully considering skeptical arguments, hyperbolic claims, technical advances, and logical foundations is a balanced assessment of what seems possible and desirable, versus what seems impossible and undesirable, as well as a plea for greater humility, better ethics, better theory, and more humanity."
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/pps/fois04.pdf
Pluralism and the Foundations of Mathematics
"A plurality of approaches to foundational aspects of mathematics
is a fact of life. Two loci of this are discussed here, the classicism/
constructivism controversy over standards of proof, and
...the plurality of universes of discourse for mathematics arising in
set theory and in category theory, whose problematic relationship
is discussed. The first case illustrates the hypothesis that
a sufficiently rich subject matter may require a multiplicity of
approaches. The second case, while in some respects special to
mathematics, raises issues of ontological multiplicity and relativity
encountered in the natural sciences as well."
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hellm001/Publications/PluralismMSPS.pdf
Scientific Pluralism
"Scientific pluralism is an issue at the forefront of philosophy of science. This landmark work addresses the question, Can pluralism be advanced as a general, philosophical interpretation of science? Scientific Pluralism demonstrates the viability of the view that some phenomena require multiple accounts. Pluralists observe that scientists present various—sometimes even incompatible—models of the world and argue that this is due to the complexity of the world and representational limitations. Including investigations in biology, physics, economics, psychology, and mathematics, this work provides an empirical basis for a consistent stance on pluralism and makes the case that it should change the ways that philosophers, historians, and social scientists analyze scientific knowledge."
http://books.google.com/books?id=B5UHqo7V1AsC&dq=topoi+pluralism&source=gbs_navlinks_s
"So we have now seen how a super-advanced civilisation could (according to David Deutsch) affect the "gross physical development of the universe", and might even be able to create new universes. But how likely is it that any civilisation would ever achieve this power? And might even the lowly human race one day evolve into an advanced civilisation such as this?
Several authors have suggested that this advanced civilisation might actually be some form of "super computer intelligence" which has been created by in the future by highly-evolved human civilisation. The rationale for this suggestion comes from examining the rapid growth in computer intelligence over the last few decades. It has been suggested that computers could even start creating and improving other computers, thus achieving exponential growth in their intelligence! The point at which computer intelligence overtakes human intelligence has been called the technological singularity. This theory has been popularised by Ray Kurzweil in his book The Singularity is Near."
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_intelligent_universe.asp
"I make this case more fully in my book, and Jim makes it quite forcefully in this book. It is remarkable to me that almost all of the discussions of cosmology fail to mention the role of intelligence. In the common cosmological view, intelligence is just a bit of froth, something interesting that happens on the sidelines of the great cosmic story. But in the standard view, whether the universe winds up or down, ends up in fire (a great crunch and new Big Bang), or ice (an ever-expanding and ultimately dead universe), or something in-between, depends only on measures of dark matter, dark energy, and other parameters we have yet to discover. That the story of the universe is a story yet to be written by the intelligence it will spawn is almost never mentioned. This book will help to change the common “unintelligent” view.
So what will we do when our intelligence is in the range of a googol (10100) cps? One thing we may do is to engineer new universes. Similarly, our universe may be the creation of some superintelligences in another universe. In this case, there was an intelligent designer of our universe—that designer would be the evolved intelligence of some other universe that created ours. Perhaps our universe is a science fair experiment of a student in another universe. (Reading the news of the day, you might get the impression that this erstwhile adolescent superintelligence who designed our universe is not going to get a very good grade on his or her project.)
But the evolution of intelligence here on Earth is actually going very well. All of the vagaries (and tragedies) of human history, such as two world wars, the cold war, the great depression, and other notable events, did not make even the slightest dent in the ongoing exponential progressions I previously mentioned.
Clearly, the universe we live in does appear to be an intelligent design, in that the constants in nature are precisely what are required for the universe to have grown in complexity. If the cosmological constant, the Planck constant, and the many other constants of physics were set to just slightly different values, atoms, molecules, stars, planets, organisms, humans, and this book would have been impossible. As Jim Gardner says, “A multitude of…factors are fine-tuned with fantastic exactitude to a degree that renders the cosmos almost spookily bio-friendly.” How the rules of the universe happened to be just so is a profound question, one that Gardner explores in fascinating detail.
Or perhaps our universe is not someone’s science experiment, but rather the result of an evolutionary process. Leonard Susskind, the developer of string theory, and Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist and expert on quantum gravity, have suggested that universes give rise to other universes in a natural, evolutionary process that gradually refines the natural constants. Smolin postulates that universes best able to product black holes are the ones that are most likely to reproduce. Smolin explains, “Reproduction through black holes leads to a multiverse in which the conditions for life are common—essentially because some of the conditions life requires, such as plentiful carbon, also boost the formation of stars massive enough to become black holes.”1
As an alternative to Smolin’s concept of it being a coincidence that black holes and biological life both need similar conditions (such as large amounts of carbon), Jim Gardner and I have put forth the conjecture that it is precisely the intelligence that derives from biological life and its technological creations that are likely to engineer new universes with intelligently set parameters. In this thesis, there is still an important role for black holes, because black holes represent the ultimate computer. Now that Stephen Hawking has conceded that we can get information out of a black hole (because the particles comprising the Hawking radiation remain quantum-entangled with particles flying into the black hole), the extreme density of matter and energy in a black hole make it the ultimate computer. If we think of evolving universes as the ultimate evolutionary algorithm, the utility function (that is, the property being optimized in an evolutionary process) would be its ability to produce intelligent computation.
This line of reasoning sheds some light on the Fermi paradox. The Drake formula provides a means to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in a galaxy or in the universe. Essentially, the likelihood of a planet evolving biological life that has created sophisticated technology is tiny, but there are so many star systems, that there should still be many millions of such civilizations. Carl Sagan’s analysis of the Drake formula concludes that there should be around a million civilizations with advanced technology in our galaxy, while Frank Drake estimated around 10,000. And there are many billions of galaxies. Yet we don’t notice any of these intelligent civilizations, hence the paradox that Fermi described in his famous comment. As Jim Gardner and others have asked, where is everyone?
We can readily explain why any one of these civilizations might be quiet. Perhaps it destroyed itself. Perhaps it is following the Star Trek ethical guideline to avoid interference with primitive civilizations (such as ours). These explanations make sense for any one civilization, but it is not credible, in my view, that every one of the billions of technology capable civilizations that should exist has destroyed itself or decided to remain quiet."
http://www.kurzweilai.net/foreword-to-the-intelligent-universe
Intelligent universe: AI, ET, and the emerging mind of the cosmos
"What is the ultimate destiny of our universe? That is the striking question addressed by well-known complexity theorist James Gardner in The Intelligent Universe. Scientists have traditionally offered two bleak answers: fire or ice. But Gardner envisions a third, dramatic alternative--the birth of a new universe. This unique viewpoint that has won praise from leading scientists, including Sir Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal and Templeton Prize winner Paul Davies. The Intelligent Universe is both a journey to the past and a road map for the future of the universe. It explores the mysteries of the cosmos and of consciousness, and provides a frank and fascinating look at where our minds are taking us."
http://books.google.com/books?id=jgUoOuAepkMC&dq=the+intelligent+universe+gardner&output=html_text&source=gbs_navlinks_s
"Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute. - Baha'u'llah, Gleanings
I[t] must be confessed in other realms there are Still other worlds, other breeds of men... -Lucretius (99-55 BC), On the Nature of Things
I have ... the strong belief ... that there are inhabitants in other worlds - Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Critique of Pure Reason
Fascination with the possibility of intelligent lifeforms on other planets has lasted over two millennia, and perhaps much longer. Philosophy, science, religion and literature all contain strong statements of belief about such a possibility. It is a profoundly interesting question because it raises issues about the origins of life and our place in the physical and spiritual universe. It also has inspired a new discipline: exotheology. Exotheology is the examination of theological issues as they pertain to Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI). Traditional Christian theology and the Baha'i Revelation disclose fascinating observations on exotheology.
In Western Christendom the Inquisition burned the Dominican monk Giordano Bruno at the stake in Rome in 1600 for insisting on a heliocentric (sun-centered) rather than a geocentric (earth- centered) universe. Bruno took matters a step further by insisting the universe was populated by ETIs. Brun said, "Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living being inhabit these worlds." (Drake, Is Anyone Out There? Page 65)
"If one accepted the view that the universe is infinite, which Bruno believed was unavoidable, then its being peopled by a limited, and therefore "imperfect," population of intelligent beings was to Bruno incompatible with the infinite goodness or perfection attributed to God and His works. Thus, he said, "infinite perfection is far better presented in innumerable individuals than in those which are numbered and finite." He therefore concluded that there must be an infinite number of morally imperfect beings, inhabiting the infinitude of worlds." (We Are Not Alone Page 15)
The Catholic Church made a public declaration of its theological position on extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) when it clashed with Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) over the movement of the earth some 350 years ago. Galileo exhibited the first telescope in 1609. With it he visually confirmed the 100-year old Copernican (heliocentric) hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo's view ran counter to 1300-year old Church dogma which had already adopted the Ptolemaic (geocentric) system. In the Ptolemaic system planets--as well as the sun--circle a fixed Earth.
...
What we can glean from this brief review--apart of the fascinating prospects arising from eventual contact with ETIs from other star systems--is the remarkable flexibility of Baha'i exotheology.
Other religious systems have interpreted their Revelations in ways that have fixed theological doctrine rather inflexibly. Discovery of extrasolar sentient lifeforms will require a significant recasting of traditional dogma before the majority of faithful Catholics--for example--can fit such a conception within its worldview. Consider the Catholic doctrines of Original Sin, Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection in the light of ETI. There will need to be a considerable shift in the existing Catholic exotheological paradigm to accommodate such an understanding.
Taking just the theological notion of the Incarnation as an example: "The existence of extra-terrestrial intelligences would have a profound impact on religion, shattering completely the traditional perspective on God's relationship with man. The difficulties are particularly acute for Christianity, which postulates that Jesus Christ was God incarnate whose mission was to provide salvation for man on Earth. The prospect of a host of 'alien Christs' systematically visiting every inhabited planet in the physical form of the local creatures has a rather absurd aspect. Yet how otherwise are the aliens to be saved?" (Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics" qtd. in "The Gods Have Landed")
Such convoluted revisionist ploys to make traditional theology fit with modern scientific findings will not happen in the Baha'i Revelation because of its teaching of the fundamental agreement of science with religion (theology). Indeed, Baha'i exotheology already contains strong statements of ETI existence as well as a cosmic model (Progressive Revelation) to explain the process of the spiritual education of extrasolar souls.
Regardless of nature of ETI Baha'u'llah reminds us all (ETIs and Earthlings) are bound by the same spiritual law:
O SON OF MAN! Wert thou to speed through the immensity of space and traverse the expanse of heaven, yet thou wouldst find no rest save in submission to Our command and humbleness before Our Face. (Arabic Hidden Words, #40)
http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.articles/extraterrestrials.html
"The Super-Copernican Principle: Just as Copernicus displaced geocentricity with heliocentricity, showing by extension that no particular place in the universe is special and thereby repudiating “here-centeredness”, the Super-Copernican Principle says that no particular point in time is special, repudiating “now-centeredness”. Essentially, this means that where observer-participation functions retroactively, the participatory burden is effectively distributed throughout time. So although the “bit-size” of the universe is too great to have been completely generated by the observer-participants who have thus far existed, future generations of observer-participants, possibly representing modes of observer-participation other than that associated with human observation, have been and are now weighing in from the future. (The relevance of this principle to the Participatory Anthropic Principle is self-evident.)
“Consciousness”: Wheeler emphasizes the difficulty of making a general distinction between the form of information processing characteristic of humans, and that characteristic of various complex systems and devices that may or may not be “conscious”. “The line between the unconscious and the conscious begins to fade…” he states; “We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by a ‘who’.” The term who, he suggests, is too specific to man, life and consciousness; its anthropic connotations are anti-Copernican, while the concepts of life and consciousness are subject to revision as science advances. “It would seem more reasonable,” he suggests, “to dismiss for the present the semantic overtones of ‘who’ and explore and exploit the insights to be won from the phrases, ‘communication’ and ‘communication employed to establish meaning.’” 21
More is different: The potential for complexity increases with cardinality; with large numbers of elements comes combinatorial variety and the potential for the sort of multilevel logical structure that typifies biological organisms and modern computers alike. This is a fundamental precept of complexity theory. Wheeler poses a question: “Will we someday understand time and space and all the other features that distinguish physics—and existence itself—as the self-generated organs of a self-synthesized information system?” 22
Together, these pithy slogans, questions, precautions and clues add up to a call for a new strain of reality theory, a unified conceptual model for our thoughts and observations. How many of the models currently being held forth respond to this call? The answer, of course, is “almost none”.
While some of them seem to address one or two of the questions and meet one or two of the criteria, none comes close to addressing and meeting all of them. What each model has been forced to give in order to meet any small subset of criteria has cost it dearly in terms of meeting the others. Thus, we have thesis and antithesis in the form of classical physics and discrete quantum models, but because the full depth of the relationship between the two is unfathomed, no synthesis."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
"Introduction: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis
In agreeing to write this essay, I have promised to explain why I find Darwinism unconvincing. In order to keep this promise, I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well. I find it convincing because it is in certain respects correct, and in fact tautologically so in the logical sense; I find it unconvincing because it is based on a weak and superficial understanding of causality and is therefore incomplete. Explaining why this is so will require a rather deep investigation of the nature of causality. It will also require not only that a direction of progress be indicated, but that a new synthesis embracing the seemingly antithetical notions of teleology and natural selection be outlined. But first, some essential background.
It would be hard to imagine philosophical issues bearing more strongly on the human condition than the nature of life and the meaning of human existence, and it would be hard to imagine a scientific issue bearing more strongly on the nature and meaning of life than biological origins. Our view of evolutionary biology, whatever it happens to be at any particular juncture, tells us much of what we believe about who and what we are and why we are here, unavoidably affecting how we view (and ultimately, treat) ourselves and each other. Unfortunately, the prevailing theory of biological origins seems to be telling us that at least one of these questions, why are we here?, is meaningless…or at least this is the message that many of us, whether or not we are directly aware of it, seem to have received. As a result, the brightest hope of the new millennium, that we would see the dawn of a New Enlightenment in which the Meaning of it All would at last be revealed, already seems to have gone the way of an extravagant campaign promise at an inauguration ceremony.
The field of evolutionary biology is currently dominated by neo-Darwinism, a troubled marriage of convenience between post-Mendelian genetics and natural selection, a concept propounded by the naturalist Charles Darwin in his influential treatise On the Origin of Species. It has often been noted that the field and the theory appear to be inseparable; in many respects, it seems that evolutionary biology and Darwinism originated and evolve together, leading some to conclude that the field properly contains nothing that is not already accommodated by the theory.
Those attempting to justify this view frequently assert that the limitations of the theory are just the general limitations imposed on all scientific theories by standard scientific methodology, and that to exceed the expressive limitations of the theory is thus to transgress the boundaries of science. Others have noted that this seems to assume a prior justification of scientific methodology that does not in fact exist – merely that it works for certain purposes does not imply that it is optimal, particularly when it is evidently useless for others - and that in any case, the putative falsifiability of neo-Darwinism distinguishes it from any definition of science according to which the truth or falsity of such theories can be scientifically determined. Nevertheless, neo-Darwinism continues to claim exclusive dominion over the "science" of evolutionary biology.
Until the latter part of the 18th century, the story was quite different. People tended to regard the matter of biological origins in a religious light. The universe was widely considered to have been freely and purposively designed and created by God as described in the Book of Genesis, and divine purpose was thought to be immanent in nature and open to observation and study. This doctrine, called teleology, drew rational support from traditional theological "arguments from design" holding that nature could only have been designed and created by a supreme intelligence. But teleology began to wane with the rise of British empiricism, and by the time Darwin published his theory in 1859, the winds of change were howling his anthem. Since then, the decline of teleology has accelerated to a point at which every supposedly universal law of nature is confidently presented as "irrefutable evidence" that natural events unfold independently of intent, and that purpose, divine or otherwise, is irrelevant to natural causation.
The concept of teleology remains alive nonetheless, having recently been granted a scientific reprieve in the form of Intelligent Design theory
. "ID theory" holds that the complexity of biological systems implies the involvement of empirically detectable intelligent causes in nature. Although the roots of ID theory can be traced back to theological arguments from design, it is explicitly scientific rather than theological in character, and has thus been presented on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis awaiting scientific confirmation.
Rather than confining itself to theological or teleological causation, ID theory technically allows for any kind of intelligent designer – a human being, an artificial intelligence, even sentient aliens. This reflects the idea that intelligence is a generic quality which leaves a signature identifiable by techniques already heavily employed in such fields as cryptography, anthropology, forensics and computer science. It remains only to note that while explaining the inherent complexity of such a material designer would launch an explanatory regress that could end only with some sort of Prime Mover, thus coming down to something very much like teleology after all, ID theory has thus far committed itself only to design inference. That is, it currently proposes only to explain complex biological phenomena in terms of design, not to explain the designer itself. With regard to deeper levels of explanation, the field remains open.
Because neo-Darwinism is held forth as a "synthesis" of Darwinian natural selection and post-Mendelian genetics, it is sometimes referred to as the "Modern Synthesis". However, it appears to fall somewhat short of this title, for not only is its basic approach to evolutionary biology no longer especially modern, but despite the fact that it is a minority viewpoint counterbalanced by cogent and far more popular alternatives including theistic evolution and ID theory, it actively resists meaningful extension. Many of its most influential proponents have dismissed ID theory virtually on sight, declaring themselves needless of justification or remedial dialectic despite the many points raised against them, and this is not something that the proponents of a "modern synthesis" would ordinarily have the privilege of doing. A synthesis is ordinarily expected to accommodate both sides of a controversy regarding its subject matter, not just the side favored by the synthesist.
Given the dissonance of the neo-Darwinist and teleological viewpoints, it is hardly surprising that many modern authors and scientists regard the neo-Darwinian and teleological theories of biological evolution as mutually irreconcilable, dwelling on their differences and ignoring their commonalities. Each side of the debate seems intent on pointing out the real or imagined deficiencies of the other while resting its case on its own real or imagined virtues. This paper will take a road less traveled, treating the opposition of these views as a problem of reconciliation and seeking a consistent, comprehensive framework in which to combine their strengths, decide their differences, and unite them in synergy. To the extent that both theories can be interpreted in such a framework, any apparent points of contradiction would be separated by context, and irreconcilable differences thereby avoided.
The ideal reconciliatory framework would be self-contained but comprehensive, meaning that both theories could be truthfully interpreted within it to the maximum possible extent, and consistent, meaning that irreconcilable differences between the theories could not survive the interpretation process. It would also reveal any biconditionality between the two theories; were they in any way to imply each other, this would be made explicit. For example, were a logical extension of neo-Darwinism to somehow yield ID-related concepts such as teleological agency and teleological causation, these would be seen to emerge from neo-Darwinist premises; conversely, were ID-theoretic concepts to yield ingredients of neo-Darwinism, this too would be explicated. In any case, the result would wear the title of "synthesis" far more credibly than neo-Darwinism alone."
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/24820585
"To what extent and in what respects do set theory and topos theory present conflicting views of mathematics? Is peaceful coexistence possible? How is pluralism in mathematics similar to and/or different from pluralism in the natural sciences? These and related questions require our attention and reflection.
Turning to the fourth item of our list, mathematics since ancient times has been regarded as paradigmatic for philosophy. It still is, despite all the intervening developments in both fields. Nowadays, however, we are more circumspect in how we describe the paradigms. Rather than simply taking mathematics generally as exemplifying “certain knowledge”, we would restrict this, perhaps severely to, say, primitive recursive arithmetic or some other weak system, e.g. an elementary theory of finite sets, perhaps. In the wake of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, we recognize limits to “certainty” regarding, e.g., consistency claims of powerful theories and (in light of reverse mathematics) regarding many key theorems, e.g. the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem (equivalent over a weak base theory to the relatively non-controversial arithmetical comprehension axiom). And when it comes to strong axioms of set theory, such as Replacement, or stronger, we don’t demand anything like “self-evidence”, but tend to invoke informal notions such as coherence of the idea of a set-theoretic universe that extensive, or analogies with the systematizing role, sometimes even “explanatory role”, of theoretical postulates in the foundations of physics, such as fundamental symmetries or conservation principles."
http://www.phil-math.org/Interviews/hellman.html
Philosophy and pluralism
"McKeon published 158 articles over the span of seven decades. The evidence of his pluralist influence is not evident in one particular doctrine or system, but rather in a plurality of all his articles. The scope of his work extends to virtually all philosophies and to the whole cultural history of the Western world while being ordered by semantic schema.
Early in his academic career, McKeon recognized that truth has no single expression. His understanding of philosophical and historical semantics led him to value philosophies quite different from his own. He viewed the aim of pluralism as not achieving a monolithic identity but rather a diversity of opinion along with mutual tolerance. It is important to note that his pluralism is not a form of relativism. He characterized his philosophy as a philosophy of culture, but it is also humanistic, a philosophy of communications and the arts, and a philosophical rhetoric.
The value of a philosophic position is determined by demonstrating its value as an explanation or as an instrument of discovery. The pragmatism of Richard Rorty owes much to McKeon, his teacher. McKeon's operational method is a method of debate which allows one to refine their positions, and in turn, determining what limits their perception of an opponent's argument. Opposition provides a necessary perspective. Notwithstanding, it does not necessarily acquire characteristics from the perspectives with which it is opposed; his philosophy, by nature, resists being pinned down by a single name. It is not meant to affirm the value or credibility of any and all philosophies. Essentially, pluralism is closely related to objectivity; a desired outcome of communication and discussion and a fundamental goal and principle of being human.
Human beings come together around common issues and/or problems and their different interests and perspectives are often an obstacle to collective action. McKeon's pluralism insists that we understand what a person means by what they say. He believes that proper discussion can lead to agreement, courses of action, and in some cases to mutual understanding, if not, an eventual agreement on issues of ideology or philosophic belief. The work of Jürgen Habermas has close affinities to that of McKeon. Conflicting concepts, interests, and assumptions which concern society form an ecology of culture. Discussion forms an object, which is the transformation of the subject into a product that is held in common as the outcome. McKeon's philosophy is similar to rhetoric as conceived by Aristotle, whereby it has the power to be employed in any given situation as the available means of persuasion.
The pluralism of perspectives is an essential component to our existence. Nonetheless, the effort to form our individual perspectives through thought and action brings us into touch with being human and being with other individuals. For McKeon, an understanding of pluralism gives us access to whatever may be grasped of being itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_McKeon
"Cultures cannot arise within solitary persons (as so-called the “social contract theory” mistakenly assumes) but are shared, living phenomena. They are simultaneously inclusive and exclusive, inside/outside, with boundaries that shift, and whose peripheries intertwine with the boundaries of other cultures. Cultures are the ground in which, as Hannah Arendt famously put it, “men and not man inhabit[s] the earth” , that is, we view the world as we do primarily through our culture. Cultures are the manner in which men, as men rather than “Man”, approach things, so as things may be known in their universality, that is, as a common world. As cultures interact, the “truth” of things comes more clearly into focus due to this inter-cultural “hermeneutic circle,” much in the same way as it does amongst individual people living within a particular culture. This cultural pluralism allows for mankind as a whole to perceive, interpret, and communicate the truths of the common world within which we all inhabit and because of which, we are at all."
http://oikoslogos.blogspot.com/2007/04/necessity-of-culture-pluralism-part-i.html
http://oikoslogos.blogspot.com/2007/04/necessity-of-cultural-pluralism-part-ii.html
"Christopher Michael Langan's HI Q & A
Q: What are your thoughts on moral relativism? Can an action be classified as *objectivly* evil or is it only relatively so, depending on one's viewpoint? (Based on a question posted to the Ultranet by Mike Hess after the 9-11 attacks.)
A: Moral relativism says that utility is context-sensitive...that to decide whether an act results in positive net utility (is "good") or negative net utility (is "evil") cannot be decided except with respect to an arbitrary psycho-social frame in which utility is defined, and that frames are essentially incommensurate.
However, since one thing can have utility in more than one frame, intersecting content provides a basis for entanglement of utility functions. For example, if there are two hungry people A and B on a desert island and nothing to eat but one mango hanging from a tree, their individual utility functions both acquire the mango as an argument. Indeed, where teamwork has utility - and this is the rule in human affairs - A and B are acquired by each other's utility function (e.g., suppose that the only way A or B can reach the mango is to support or be supported by the other from below).
In a system dominated by competition and cooperation - a system like the real world - this cross-acquisition is a condition of interaction. But given a system with interacting elements, we have a systemic identity, i.e. a distributive self-transformation applying symmetrically to every element (frame) in the system, and this implies the existence of a mutual transformation relating different elements and ultimately rendering them commensurate after all. So "absolute moral relativism" fails in interactive real-world contexts. It's a logical absurdity."
http://forum.quoteland.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4511947895/m/93310115
"German philosopher Hegel believed that history serves a purpose and that its meaning lies in the awakening of individual human rights and freedom.
For the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770- 1831) history is both imbued with meaning and purpose. It is not based on coincidence or random events, but as a whole history represents a gradual growth towards individual rights and freedom and understanding oneself. This process, Hegel believed, starts from the stages of primitivism and ends up as “absolute knowledge” about oneself and one’s surroundings.
The First Stage of History and the Persian Empire
Hegel claims that world history is nothing but a progress of the consciousness of freedom and he believed that true history started with the Persian Empire. The Oriental societies of China and India he regarded as “stationary” because the only free individual was the ruler, which left no room for development among its citizens.
However, the theocratic monarchy of Persia was based on the religion of Zoroaster, the worship of light which would shine on every citizen in equal measure. Although the king would rule over everyone, it was not based on a “natural fact”, but rather a “general principle”, which constituted a first step towards humanity’s spiritual emancipation.
Hegel’s Concept of History and the Democracy of Ancient Greece
Although the Greeks had a democratic system, their definition of democracy varied greatly from the modern one. For the Greeks, slaves, as well as women and foreigners, were not regarded as free citizens and did not have any established rights. In fact, individual conscience or identity had not fully developed yet and the Greeks identified themselves with the polis, the Greek city-states. They did not perceive themselves of individuals within a given society, but as an integral part of their community, so much so, that there was no distinction between personal interests and those of the community.
Hegel claims that the Greek, despite their study and reflection of reason and freedom, were still mostly dependent on external forces, such as the customs and habits of their society, as well as the frequent dependence on oracles for decision-making; hence they are not considered free individuals.
The Roman State and the Acceptance of Abstract Freedom
The Roman State incorporated various elements of Greek thought into its social and political system. Hegel believes that historical epochs usually build on the previous accomplishments and accumulated knowledge and that in most cases they improve upon them.
As a result, the Romans established a political constitution and a legal system with individual rights as their essential foundation. However these rights were merely part of legal formality, which Hegel calls the “abstract freedom of the individual”. Yet true freedom still did not exist within the Roman system as they did not allow for diversity and different lifestyles. In fact, “concrete individuality”, as Hegel understands it, did not manifest itself until the age of Reformation and the ensuing French Revolution."
http://www.suite101.com/content/hegels-world-spirit-and-individual-freedom-a102924
"In The Philosophy of History, Hegel identifies the active (creative) reason (Vernunft) as spirit (Geist), and maintains that the world is the intersection of spirit and matter (The Philosophy of History, pp. 15-16). What distinguishes the spirit from matter is the idea of freedom. Freedom or self-contained existence is the essence of spirit, and matter is marked by its dependence on something external to it (p. 17). The history of the world (Weltgeschichte) is the result of the immersion of spirit in matter (p. 70). At first, this immersion manifests itself in natural regularity, but, through man’s historical development, it culminates in the self-consciousness of spirit (p. 71). This historical process of freedom’s self-consciousness begins with the Persians, and, according to Hegel, the history of Zoroastrian Achaemenid Persia “constitutes strictly the beginning of world history” (p. 174).
The significance of Achaemenid Persians as the “first Historical People” (The Philosophy of History, p. 173) is expressed in the Zoroastrian religious system. Hegel interprets “Zoroaster’s Light” as the first objectification of the spirit: “We see in the Persian World a pure exalted Unity, as the essence which leaves the special existences that inhere in it, free; as the Light, which only manifests what bodies are in themselves” (p. 174). Zoroaster’s light is contrasted with darkness, as its antithesis, and in this contradiction Hegel sees the beginning of the separation of the immersed spirit from matter (in nature) and its consciousness of its freedom through the individual human being (p. 174). The Mazdean light enables the individual human being, together with other beings, to achieve freedom to act in as many ways as their natural propensities allow. Hegel traces a replication of the Zoroastrian space opened up by the antithesis between light and darkness in the political organization of the Persian empire: “We find . . . [the Persian empire] consisting of a number of states, which are indeed dependent, but which have retained their own individuality, their manners, and laws . . . As Light illuminates everything—imparting to each object its peculiar vitality—so the Persian Empire extends over a multitude of nations, and leaves to each one its particular character” (p. 187).
...
Islamic Persia. It is in his Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art,that Hegel considers the civilization of Islamic Iran and the question of its continuity with its Zoroastrian past. He divides the various forms of art in a way that corresponds roughly to the different stages of the history of spirit, because, for him, art is an expression of the spirit’s consciousness of itself (Aesthetics, p. 72; see also Charles Taylor, Hegel, Cambridge, 1975, pp. 465-66). The different forms of art are the symbolic, the classical, and the romantic (Aesthetics, pp. 300-302). The symbolic refers to the art of the Orient and includes Zoroastrian Persian art as the expression of the culmination of the contribution of that region to the development of spirit. To the classical corresponds the art of the Greek and Roman worlds, and the romantic is the artistic expression of the German world. For Hegel, the artistic value of each form of art is directly proportional to the level of spiritual self-consciousness attained by the civilization responsible for its production.
In Aesthetics, Hegel identifies Zoroastrian Zend-Avesta as a kind of symbolic art, the category that also includes what he calls the “Persian Mohammedan Poetry” (Aesthetics, p. 368). Hegel’ s sources for Islamic Persian poetry were two influential books by Joseph Von Hammer-Purgstall (q.v.): Der Diwan von Mohammed Schemsed-din Hafis (Stuttgart, 1812-13) and Geshichte der scöhnen Redekünste Persiens (Vienna, 1818). He also read Friedrich Rückert’s translations of Persian poetry (Aesthetics, p. 368) and was probably introduced to that tradition of Persian poetry by Goethe (see GOETHE AND ḤĀFEẒ), whose fascination with the poetry of the Persians is most apparent in his West-östlicher Divan.
Symbolic art, for Hegel, involves “a detachment of a universal meaning from what is immediately present in nature” (Aesthetics, p. 323), and Zend-Avesta is symbolic although only in a restricted sense. This is because the Mazdean light, as we have seen, does not draw us away from the concrete natural objects towards the spirit as such; rather it lets natural objects show themselves as embodied spirit: “what is really present—the sun, the stars, actual plants, animals, men, existent fire—is apprehended as the Absolute’s [i.e., the self-conscious spirit’s] shape which is already in its immediacy adequate thereto” (Aesthetics, p. 331). Islamic Persian poetry, on the other hand, is a manifestation of the symbolism of the sublime: “Sublimity lifts the Absolute above every immediate existent and therefore brings about the liberation which, though abstract at first, is at least the foundation of the spirit” (p. 362). Yet, the sublimity of Persian poetry does not reduce the natural object—the rose, for instance—to an adornment or a mere symbol denoting the divine (p. 370). In a way reminiscent of Zend-Avesta, the rose “appears to the poet as ensouled, as an affianced beloved, and with his spirit he is engrossed in the soul of the rose” (p. 370; see also p. 1148). In the same vein, Hegel claims that Islamic Persian poetry is at one remove from symbolic art proper, since the latter annihilates the particular manifestations of the spirit for the sake of the independent and abstract spirit. According to Hegel, proper symbolic art is manifested in sacred Jewish poetry (p. 364). It could be maintained, however, that Islamic sacred poetry—as exemplified by the Koran—is also an instance of symbolic art proper. In that case, Hegel’s so-called Mohammedan Persian poetry is a synthesis of Islamic and Zoroastrian art, in that the Zoroastrian concern with the particularized spirit is conjoined with the transcendence of the particular in Judeo-Islamic art. Moreover, because of the Persian poet’s surrender to God, his subjectivity becomes infused with spirit, and he “acquires the supreme enlargement of consciousness as well as the bliss of absorption into everything that is best and most splendid” (p. 371). This flowering of the subject (in its conjunction with the divine) suggests a strong affinity between later Persian art and romantic art: the art form which, according to Hegel, embraces and transcends the external realizations of the spirit owing to the freedom of the artist and his consciousness of himself as the spirit (p. 301)."
http://www.iranica.com/articles/hegel-georg-wilhelm-friedrich
Heraclitus said: “time is a body” (p.
358)... this, Lassalle says, is in the sense
of the unity of being and nothing. Time
is the pure unity of Being and not-Be-
ing, etc.!
Fire for Heraclitus, it is said = the
principle of motion |and not simply fire|,
something similar is fire in the teaching
of Persian philosophy (and religion)! (362)
If Heraclitus was the first to use the
term λόγος (“word”) in the objective sense
(law), this, too, is said to be taken from
the Persian religion.... (364)
— A quotation from the Zend-Avesta.[16]
(367)
In § 17 on the relation between Δίχη[17]
and είμαρμένη, Lassalle interprets these
ideas of Heraclitus in the sense of “ne-
cessity,” “connection.” (376)
NB: “the bond of all things” (δεσός
άπάντων) (p. 379)
Plato (in the Theaetetus) is al-
leged to express the Heraclitean philosophy
when he says:
“Necessity binds together the essential-
ity of Being....”
“Heraclitus is ... the source of the con-
ception, common among the Stoics, that
είμαρμένη rerum omnium necessitas,[18] ex-
presses bond and ligation, illigatio....” (376)
Cicero:
“I, however, call fate what the Greeks
call είμαρμένη, i.e., the order and sequence
of causes, when one cause linked with
another produces the phenomenon out of
itself” (p. 377).
Thousands of years have passed
since the time when the idea was
born of “the connection of all
things,” “the chain of causes.” A
comparison of how these causes
have been understood in the his-
tory of human thought would give
an indisputably conclusive theory
of knowledge.
Volume II.
Speaking of “fire,” Lassalle proves,
by repeating himself a thousand times over,
that this is a “principle” for Heraclitus.
He insists especially on the idealism of
Heraclitus (p. 2 5—that the principle of
development, des Werdens,[19] in Heracli-
tus is logisch-präexistent,[20] that his phi-
losophy = Idealphilosophie.[21] Sic!!)
(p. 25).
((Squeezing into Hegelian!))
Heraclitus accepted “pure and absolute-
ly immaterial fire” (p. 28 Timaeus, on
Heraclitus)....
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/obsc/obsc.htm
PHIL 310 Heraclitus and the Possibility of Persian Influence Lesher
1. A general comment on the origins of Greek cosmology:
‘We may take it as an axiom that philosophy arose out of religion. Greek philosophy arose, we are told, out of Ionian naturalism. Starting from our axiom we are bound to ask, ‘Out of what religion was it that Ionian naturalism arose? Not from Olympianism. The doctrines of Thales, of Heraclitus, of Anaximenes, of Anaximander, given that they arose from a religion at all, must have arisen from a religion concerned with the elements, Water, Fire, Air, and Earth. For such a religion we look in vain to Greece, That philosophy arose in the sixth century B.C., just the century when Asia Minor was riddled through and through with Persian infiltrations.’ (Jane Harrison, Themis (New York, 1962), p. 461).
2. Some Interesting Zoroastrian Texts
Who, O Wise One, shall be sent as a protector to such as I am,
If the evil one seeks to do me harm?
Who but fire and thy mind, O Lord,
Whose acts shall bring Righteousness to maturity?
Do thou proclaim this mystery to my conscience! (Hymns of Zarathustra 46:7).
As fire you are the joy of Ahura Mazda, as holiest spirit you are his joy. Whichever of your names is the most beneficial, O Atar, son of Ahura Mazda, with it on our lips let us approach you. (Yasna 36.3)
‘…and fire permeated all six elements, and the period for which it was inserted into each element lasted, it is said, as much as the twinkling of an eye’ (Zurvan, p. 342)
‘O Wise Lord, as this Holy Spirit
Through the fire thou shalt accomplish, supported by Devotion and Right,
The apportioning of good between the two parties (Yasna, 47.6)
For Heraclitus, compare Frs. 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82,and 83.
‘I believe that Heraclitus would not naturally have turned to fire without some particular stimulus. Such a stimulus could have been given by observation of the extraordinary status accorded to the Persians to fire. (M.L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford, 1971), p. 173.
3. Some questions to consider:
When two beliefs (or theories) exhibit some striking resemblances to one another can we conclude that one must have influenced the other? Among some possible alternative explanations: (1) Perhaps both views were both derived from some common older source? Or (2) Perhaps they were merely parallel developments in two unrelated cultures—resulting from a parallel perception of basic features of reality (e.g. the importance of fire in human life, or the existence of opposites such as night and day, up and down, etc.), or shared features of language, or similar social or religious institutions?
http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/JLesher/PHIL310/6Herac&theEast.htm
I admit you are more qualified than me in good vs. bad math MarkCC, I'm just an explorer of knowledge and civilization, however it's not just math which deals with the discrete vs. continuous, while you stand ready to define what is and isn't good, and Langan may readily see things differently than I do, I think he deserves some credit for kicking the stone a bit further up the road for us, since the time of Heraclitus to Whitehead, holism and reductionism, unity and multiplicity, have been interesting topics and will continue being so, even if Langan is long forgotten (which I hope he is not).
"Since theories are mental constructs, and mental means "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence on the most basic level of understanding. It is this linkage of the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external, that constitutes the proper focus of reality theory. The CTMU is a theory of reality tautologically developed along these lines." - Langan ISCID chat
"Multiplex Unity Principle (MU) - The minimum and most general informational configuration of reality, defines the relationship holding between unity and multiplicity, the universe and its variegated contents. Through its structure, the universe and its contents are mutually inclusive, providing each other with a medium." - Langan, 2002
"Unity, duality, equilibrium, circularity, the articulated continuum, mutual causation and supervenience: these are the essential attributes of Harmony. Its full significance is encrypted by Heraclitus in one of his riddling pronouncements, where bow and lyre are presented as paradigms:
“They do not understand how that which diverges converges on itsel:, for Harmony is opposite-tuning, like that of bow and lyre.” – Heraclitus
Simple yet ingenious, the bow is a mechanical riddle, worthy of the divining powers of Apollo, Plato’s overseer of Harmony (Cratylus 404e-405d). The string once connected, the bent arms attempt to diverge and release the potential energy invested by the bender; they are instead forced to converge. The disparate parts thus joined, the bow emerges as a single and continually self-interacting whole, at once articulated and a continuum, limited and unlimited. In early Greek poetry, archery could stand metaphorically for cognition and intellectual process." - Indo-European Cosmology
Minimalism:
http://juxta.com/wp-content/uploads/minimalism_2.0.pdf
Process philosophy/theology as far as we know began with Heraclitus, "the obscure" according to Aristotle, perhaps Langan is also a bit cryptic in his pronouncements.
"We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own. Men who love wisdom should acquaint themselves with a great many particulars. Joints are at once a unitary whole and not a unitary whole. To be in agreement is to differ, the concord-ant is the discord-ant. From many things comes oneness, and out of oneness come the many things. The hidden harmony is better than the obvious. People do not understand how that which is at variance with itself agrees with itself. There is a harmony in the bending back, as in the cases of the bow and the lyre. Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one. Wisdom is one and unique; it is desires and yet does not desire the name of Zeus. Wisdom is one ---- to know the intelligence which steers all things through all things. Even sleepers are workers and collaborators in what goes on in the universe." - Heraclitus, Fragments
Dynamic resemblance: Hegel's early theory of ethical equality
"In the voluminous literature on the young Hegel, it has been generally overlooked that the cornerstone of his early moral theory concerns the possibility of ethical "equality."(1) This project first explicitly emerges in the late 1790s in Frankfurt, against the background of his incipient critique of Kantian morality. Hegel specifically rejects Kant's promotion of the moral law over sensuous inclination, and what he views as the ungrounded autonomy possessed by the principle of "moral freedom" in the Second Critique. In the course of his confrontation with Kant, Hegel would derive the antecedent condition for moral freedom from another principle, also drawn from the cardinal values of the French Revolution which was so instrumental to his early thinking: that is, rather than moral freedom, Hegel promotes a unique interpretation of ethical equality (Gleichheit) as the foundation for the religious community. In Hegel's view, freedom can emerge only as the product of an infinite striving for ethical equality with God.
Hegel's reflections depend on the unique semantic richness of the German term Gleichheit, which has a wider range of application than the English term "equality." While Gleichheit can certainly mean equality or "parity" in the sense of sharing the same set of rights or status as another, it can also mean "to resemble" or "to be like" something (etwas zu gleichen) in a certain respect. For Hegel, however, resemblance is not merely a relation between shared external properties, but rather two things are said to be "equal" or "alike" to the extent they are united within the same horizon of existential conditions. Consequently, Gleichheit can mean both a kind of parity in respect of some external set of shared properties or rights, or to be alike in respect of some fundamental condition of existence. The originality of Hegel's conception of equality is to explicitly segregate these two senses of Gleichheit, so that he may reject the status of mere parity or "equivalence" of individuals before the law, in favor of a conception of complete ethical "likeness" or similarity between moral agents, in which Self and Other are united within the same ethical horizon.
Consequently, although his use of terminology is not always consistent, Hegel persistently distinguishes a bad or abstract form of equality-which imposes a "formal equivalence" (Gleichheit) between individuals on the basis of a moral law heteronomous to the confines of ethical life from a nonreflective form of equality, understood in the sense of a consummate "likeness" (Gleiche) between individuals, which emerges in the condition of love (Liebe). Love for Hegel indicates a completely shared sense of being with another, or a "living union between the individual and his world." This fundamental similarity or likeness (Gleiche), then, overcomes the positing of conceptual and ethical opposition between individuals--which he diagnoses in Kant's principle of moral freedom--and bonds the members of a religious faith into a true community (Gemeinschaft), in that they are inherently "alike" in and through their devotion to God."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3545/is_n2_v50/ai_n28678382/?tag=content;col1
"Equal Liberty and Justice Under Law:
Isonomia — equal law — is the historical and philosophical foundation of liberty, justice, and constitutional democracy. Aristotle considered it the core ingredient of a civilization that seeks to promote individual and societal happiness. First ordained by the ancient Athenian lawgiver Solon (c. 638-558 B.C.), isonomia was later championed by the Roman Republic's finest orator, Cicero; but it was subsequently eclipsed for a millennium, until (in effect) "rediscovered" in the eleventh century A.D. by the founders of the Western Legal Tradition, the law students of Bologna who synthesized the Greek genius for systematic thought, the Roman genius for pragmatic administration, and the medieval Judeo-Christian-Islamic preoccupation with the "uses" of faith and reason to secure a common humanity under a common deity.
Empathy, Liberty, Equality. These concepts are often linked, a triune "much of a muchness"; there is a good reason for this; it is rooted in the history of the idea of isonomia, the parent of demokratia.
Our most precious legacy is our understanding — originating in our evolving capacity for empathy — that we must be equal in our liberties and hence equal in the restraints upon our liberties.
We must be equal under the law, and hence equal in the making of laws. Liberty and law are coevolving, and any "constitutional democracy" worthy of this oh-so-precious name must reflect that sequence of foundational ideas.
I believe that Socrates' metaphor captures and "domesticates" the deep wisdoms of that ancient Greek trinity of ontology, epistemology, and teleology; he bends philosophy to his will, to human purposes, in ways that still ring true.
The art of the helmsman requires integrating knowledge of the changeless stars with knowledge of the naturally-changing — the winds and waves of circumstance — in order to choose, and act, and react, with reference to the angle of the rudder, the trim of the sail, but more ... to change these (a) in relation to each other, for each affects the other, and (b) in relation to achieving an ultimate goal, such as safe passage across open seas to prosperous harbors.
This is the art of cybernetics — goal-focused governance that cultivates and harvests feedback, continuously monitoring "progress" in light of hierarchies of facts and values, including ultimate objectives. Law is the quintessential cybernetic calling."[292]
"Rich and poor Athenian Citizens were political and legal equals: each citizen was an equal voter (isopsephos), enjoyed an equal rift to public speech (isegoria), and an equal standing before the law (isonomia), political and legal equality (isotes) ... others were granted remission of the head-tax ordinarily paid by resident foreigners (isoteleia). ... Indeed, even the story of the Athenians as a pure "earthborn" race was counterbalanced by the equally well-known and celebrated story of Athenian receptiveness to foreign immigrants in mythological times."
"Isoteleia or isopoliteia was a term used for the set of privileges to which Metic could be granted. This personal privileges were:
ἐπιγαμία/epigamía, the right to a mixed marriage;
ἔγκτησις/enktêsis,the right to purchase land;
ἀτέλεια/ateleia, exemption from taxes, especially ἀτέλεια μετοικίου/ateleia metoikíou, a tax levied on the policy resident Metic.
All these privileges were all included in the right isoteleia ("equal responsibility") or isopoliteia ("equal citizenship") and the people who enjoyed this right were ἰσοτελεῖς/isoteleis. They had the same burdens as citizens and could call in the courts or trading without the intervention of the προστάτης/prostátês."[293]
"At Athens all resident aliens had to pay a tax (metoikion or xenikon telos) which we may term protection-tax, because it was the price for the protection they enjoyed at Athens; but as it was the interest of the state to increase commerce, and for that purpose to attract strangers to settle at Athens, many of them were exempted from this tax, i. e. enjoyed the ateleia metoikiou, (isoteleia equal rights) (Dem. c.Aristae): p. 691), and some were even exempted from custom duties, and the property tax or eisphora from which an Athenian citizen could never be exempted. The ateleia enjoyed by Athenian citizens was either a general immunity (ateleia apanton), such as was granted to persons who had done some great service to their country, and even to their descendants, as in the case of Harmodius and Aristogeiton; or it was a partial one exempting a person from all or certain liturgies, from certain custom duties, or from service in the army."[294]
"Focusing on the analysis of Athens' relations with both Greeks and non-Greeks as recorded in extant fourth-century decrees, this paper challenges the applicability of the notion of Greek/barbarian antithesis to the interpretation of formal diplomatic exchanges between Athens and the non-Greek states. A comparison of the types of decrees and honors reveals a remarkable uniformity in the forms of Athens' foreign relations irrespective of the ethnicity of honorands. The distribution of honors among individuals and groups of recipients within single decrees further demonstrates that the Athenian honorific system typically elevated individuals over communities they represented, suggesting that political differences between Athens and non-Greek states did not adversely influence the methods of exchanges between them. Apart from the provisions contained in the decrees, this paper also considers their function within the city as monuments that attest to the important place of philobarbaric discourse and practice in fourth-century Athens."[295]
"isotely: in ancient Athens, the granting of some of the rights of Athenian citizenship to noncitizens."[296]
"Lysias, then, went to Thurii with his brothers Polemarchus and Euthydemus. He is said to have studied under the Syracusan rhetorician Tisias. After the loss of the Athenian armies in Sicily, 413 B.C., Lysias and his brothers were among three hundred persons accused of ‘Atticizing,’ and were expelled from Thurii. They returned to Athens in 412 B.C. From this year till 404 B.C., the brothers lived in prosperity and happiness, making a considerable fortune as proprietors of a shield-factory, where they employed 120 slaves. They had many friends; they belonged to the highest class of aliens—the isoteleis—and the evidence of Plato and Dionysius makes it clear that they mixed with the most cultivated society. They took pride in the performance of all public services which fell to their share. Fortune changed for the sons of Cephalus when in 404 B.C. a successful revolution brought the Thirty into power; the orator himself gives a graphic description of the way in which their ruin was brought about." [297]
"It may well be the case that the nation-state has largely served its generation and that for business leaders the map of the world is divided into markets, materials, labour and profitability - all transcending political boundaries. It has already become apparent that individual nation-states can no longer effectively support their people except in cooperation with other states. This is leading to a blurring of the political map “locally” and the rise of regional and even global governance. In some Masonic rituals there is a charge to the initiate with appeals to him or her as “a Freemason” being “a citizen of the world” and “an individual”.
Does Masonic Initiation make one a citizen of the world? Does it instil a sense of loyalty to the global good first, leaving individual interests secondary? A Mason, citizen of the world, is charged “to pay due obedience to the laws of any State which may for a time be the place of his or her residence.” This perhaps is picking up on the lines of St. Paul in the New Testament where he twice refers to Christians as ambassadors and says that their citizenship is in heaven – the recipe for otherworldliness. The charge also advises that nature has implanted in the breast a sacred and indissoluble attachment towards that country from whence derived birth and infant nurture. Well of course, nature has done no such thing - nurture might have."[298]
"It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings."[299], One Country
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Isotelesis
WHY A WORLD STATE IS INEVITABLE: TELEOLOGY AND THE LOGIC OF ANARCHY
"Long dismissed as unscientific, teleological explanation has been undergoing something of a revival as a result of the emergence of self-organization theory, which combines micro-level dynamics with macro-level boundary conditions to explain the tendency of systems to develop toward stable end-states. On that methodological basis this article argues that a global monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence – a world state – is inevitable. At the micro-level world state formation is driven by the struggle of individuals and groups for recognition of their subjectivity. At the macro-level this struggle is channeled toward a world state by the logic of anarchy, which generates a tendency for military technology and war to become increasingly destructive. The process moves through five stages, each responding to the instabilities of the one before: a system of states, a society of states, world society, collective security, and the world state. Human agency matters all along the way, but is increasingly constrained and enabled by the requirements of universal subjectivity.
...
Against the perpetual war of Realism and the contingent perpetual peace of modern Liberalism, I have argued that a world state is inevitable. Its cause is the teleological logic of anarchy, which channels struggles for recognition toward an end-state that transcends that logic.
As such, the argument reverses social scientists’ traditional “rearview mirror” perspective on time and causation (Wendt, 2001), since it suggests that “the ultimate organizing principle [of the system] is in the outcome of the process and not its genetic origin.” One might even say, then, that the logic at work here is that of recognition, not of anarchy. It is natural at this point to ask whether a Hegelian world state would be desirable.
Although this question is not directly relevant to my argument and cannot be dealt with adequately here (see Griffin, 2003), on my view the answer is yes. Other things being equal, it seems difficult to argue that a world in which recognition is unequal and the right to engage in organized violence is privatized would be normatively superior to one in which recognition is equal and violence is collectivized. That does not mean that a world state would satisfy all demands of justice, but it would be at least a minimum condition for a just world order. I have argued that a world state will emerge whether or not actors intend to bring it about. Since this might be criticized for implying that there is no role for agency in world politics, by way of conclusion I want to show that this is not the case, at either the micro or macro-level. At the micro-level agency matters just as much here it does in non-teleological theories.
Struggles for recognition are intentional, and there is nothing in the logic of anarchy that forces them to go in one direction or another at any given moment. Anarchy is (still) what states (and other actors) make of it, and so they are still ethically and politically responsible for the quality of life in world politics. Moreover, in addition to the intentionality of actors struggling for their own recognition, there is also the possibility for a more globally-oriented intentionality in the form of actors who believe in the inevitability of a world state, and try to speed it up. To be sure, this kind of agency is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, belief in the inevitability of a world state would give actors reasons to intentionally redefine their interests in terms consistent with it, thereby facilitating the process. On the other hand, such a belief could also be used to justify trying to force history along, and even for war against those who refuse to see the light. Some of the worst historical excesses of human agency – Nazism, Bolshevism, and so on – have been based on just such a teleological faith. But if anything that seems to provide more reason for ethical and political vigilance on the micro-level, not less.
Moreover, my argument has an interesting policy implication for grand strategy. Grand strategies should be based on a correct theory of where the world system is going. If Realists are right that anarchy is “programmed” for war, then it makes sense to define one’s sovereignty and interests in egoistic terms and act on that basis. International law is irrelevant or an impediment to the national interest, and one should pursue a unilateralist policy whenever possible. On the other hand, if “Idealists” are right about the system’s end-state, and – importantly – that it is not so far off as to be meaningless for policy, then a different grand strategy emerges. Rather than go down with the ship of national sovereignty, states should try to “get the best deal” they can in the emerging global constitution. That requires multilateral participation in the process of world state formation, not fighting it unilaterally. Ironically, if Idealists are right, such states will do better for themselves in the long run than those that take a Realist view. If a world state is inevitable, better to “get with the program” than wait around on the sidelines till it gets to you.
Finally, there is an intriguing but more controversial possibility for agency at the macrolevel, in the form of the world system being an agent in its own development. I have not argued that here, limiting my treatment of the macro-level process to its non-intentional aspect. On the other hand, however, like states today, a world state would be a subject. Such a subject could not intend its own creation (that would be backward causation), but it seems counter-intuitive to say that prior to its emergence there would be no intentionality at the system level, until it suddenly appears in a world state. Instead, it is more plausible to suggest that the process of world state formation involves a progressive “amplification” of intentionality from individuals and groups to the global level (cf. Gabora, 2002). Early on the degree of global intentionality is quite low, but as the system matures it acquires more and more attributes of subjectivity. This invites a reading of world state formation as the system becoming conscious of itself, and so increasingly able to participate as an agent in its own development. While necessarily imposing boundaries on the agency of its members, it only in this way that they can fully realize their own subjectivity."
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/03wendt.pdf
"Concrete Universal (Metaphysics): A term introduced by Hegel to correct the traditional view that a universal is abstract through referring to the common nature of a kind of entity by abstraction. Hegel held that a universal is concrete rather than an abstract form. A true universal is not a mere sum of features common to several things, but is self-particularizing or self-specifying.
A universal is not isolated from particulars, nor does it transcend them. Rather it inheres in particulars as their essential determination. Hegel even claimed that particulars are nothing but dialectical relations among universal concepts.... Further, a universal concept is not isolated from other universals, but can be derived from them and, hence, is one item in a system. In Hegel's logic, each category contains its contrary and develops into that contrary. Together, the category and its contrary are synthesized into a third category, which becomes a member of a new triad. The absolute idea is the culmination of this development as the largest concrete universal.
“End … is the concrete universal, which possesses in its own self the moment of particularity and externality and is therefore active and the urge to repel itself from itself.” Hegel, Science of Logic
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067954_ss1-155
"Introduction: "Bad Platonic Metaphysics"
Consider the following example of "bad metaphysics."
Given all the entities that have a certain property, there is one entity among them that exemplifies the property in an absolutely perfect and universal way. It is called the "concrete universal." There is a relationship of "participation" or "resemblance" so that all the other entities that have the property "participate in" or "resemble" that perfect example, the concrete universal. And conversely, every entity that participates in or resembles the universal also has the property. The concrete universal represents the "essence" of the property. All the other instances of the property have "imperfections." There is a process of removing imperfections so that by removing all the imperfections, one arrives at the essence of the property, the concrete universal. For instance, if the property is "whiteness," then the concrete universal (if it existed) would be something that was "perfectly white" and so that anything else would be white if and only if it resembled (in terms of color) that perfect example of whiteness.
To the modern ear, all this sounds like the worst sort of "bad Platonic metaphysics." Yet there is a mathematical theory developed within the last fifty years, category theory, that provides precisely that treatment of concrete universals within mathematics."
http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Maths/Conc-Univ.pdf
"In spite of it successes, the Model theory did not enter into a “tool box” of mathematicians and even many of mathematicians working on “Motivic integrations” are content to use the results of logicians without understanding the details of the proofs.
I don’t know any mathematician who did not start as a logician and for whom it was “easy and natural” to learn the Model theory. Often the experience of learning of the Model theory is similar to the one of learning of Physics: for a [short] while everything is so simple and so easily reformulated in familiar terms that “there is nothing to learn” but suddenly one find himself in a place when Model theoreticians “jump from a tussock to a hummock” while we mathematicians don’t see where to “put a foot” and are at a complete loss.
So we have two questions:
a) Why is the Model theory so useful in different areas of Mathematics?
b) Why is it so difficult for mathematicians to learn it ?
But really these two questions are almost the same – it is difficult to learn the Model theory since it appeals to different intuition. But exactly this new outlook leads to the successes of the Model theory. One difficulty facing one who is trying to learn Model theory is disappearance of the “natural” distinction between the formalism and the substance. For example the fundamental existence theorem says that the syntactic analysis of a theory [the existence or non-existence of a contradiction] is equivalent to the semantic analysis of a theory [the existence or non-existence of a model].
...
This tension between an abstract definition and a concrete construction is addressed in both the Category theory and the Model theory. The Category theory is directed to a removal of the importance of a concrete construction. It provides a language to compare different concrete construction and in addition provides a very new way to construct objects as “representable functors” which allows to construct objects internally. This construction is based on the Yoneda’s lemma which I consider to be most important result of the Category theory."
http://dialinf.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/model-theory-and-category-theory/
"Like many of his colleagues, Isham wants to reconcile the two pillars of 20th-century physics: General Relativity and quantum theory. But unlike the majority of theoretical physicists, Isham believes the answer
can be found in a new mathematical language called topos theory.
Introduced by the German mathematician Alexander Grothendieck, topos theory – unlike regular philosophy and theology – is able to handle concepts that can be partially true, instead of just true or false. But topos theory can be frustratingly hard to explain, says Isham. “I could give a seminar on topos theory here at Imperial College, but not many people would understand it.”"
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Isham_Christopher.pdf
Topos Theory in a Nutshell
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topos.html
"MU, the minimum and most general informational configuration of reality, defines the relationship holding between unity and multiplicity, the universe and its variegated contents. Through its structure, the universe and its contents are mutually inclusive, providing each other with a medium.
...
MU expresses syndiffeonic symmetry of syntax and content on the spatiotemporal level of reality.
...
Telic recursion is the process responsible for configuring the syntax-content relationships on which standard informational recursion is based; its existence is an ontological requirement of reality. The telic-recursive cross-refinement of syntax and content is implicit in the “seed” of Γ-grammar, the MU form, which embodies the potential for perfect complementarity of syntax and state, law and matter.
Since this potential can only be specifically realized through the infocognitive binding of telesis, and localized telic binding is freely and independently effected by localized, mutually decoherent telic operators, deviations from perfect complementarity are ubiquitous. SCSPL evolution, which can be viewed as an attempt to help this complementarity emerge from its potential status in MU, incorporates a global (syntactic) invariant that works to minimize the total deviation from perfect complementarity of syntax and state as syntactic operators freely and independently bind telesis. This primary SCSPL invariant, the Telic Principle, takes the form of a selection function with a quantitative parameter, generalized utility, related to the deviation. The Telic Principle can be regarded as the primary component of SCSPL syntax…the spatiotemporally distributed self-selective “choice to exist” coinciding with MU."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
"Unity in Diversity
Acceptance and Integration in an Era of Intolerance and Fragmentation
The political and social climate that prevails in the world today emphasizes difference, disunity, and destruction rather than the qualities of unity and productive and constructive energy that are required to sustain human societies. These negative processes and forces have perpetuated our alienation from the basic material roots of our existence, the natural world of which we are a part. This paper presents a way of looking at the world that enables us to foster the diversity inherent in the human species as it exists today without perpetuating our alienation from nature and from each other. By exploring the concept of unity in diversity as an expression of unity without uniformity and diversity without fragmentation, this paper offers a resolution to many of the concerns felt by those who are resistant to the spread of one particular cultural hegemony and those who fear that awareness of differences can lead to greater intolerance. It is one of the basic premises of this paper that fostering the ecological factors that are inherent in the human condition at the same time as we maintain a vision of humanity's unique place in creation will help to resolve not only our ongoing problems in living harmoniously with our natural environment but our ongoing difficulties with each other as well.
. . . the best hope of humankind is to maintain as rich a diversity of social types as possible, with the expectation that each of these experiments in the human future will cross-fertilise with others, and thus maintain the vital diversity essential for indefinite survival. . . . Competition for ascendancy in world trade, power, or military might are simply empty, meaningless concepts for the future. By encouraging diversity elsewhere, each society ensures a rich source of ideas and techniques for its own future. --Mary Clark
The remarkable compatability between all fields of science, whether they deal with inanimate objects or with living things has implications that affect deeply the culture of our times. The validity of these implications is supported by the fact that the various scientific disciplines strengthen each other when, perchance, they can establish contact. Despite the immense diversity of creation, we all accept that there exists in nature a profound underlying unity. The search for this unity provides the motivation for the lives of many different men--some who, like Einstein, search for it in general natural laws and others who, like Teilhard de Chardin, would trace cosmic evolution to a divine origin. --René Dubos
The use of the phrase unity in diversity and similar concepts is not a new phenomenon. Its roots reach back hundreds of years in non-Western cultures such as indigenous peoples in North America and Taoist societies in 400-500 B.C. In premodern Western culture it has been implicit in the organic conceptions of the universe that have been manifest since the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations through medieval Europe and into the Romantic era. In contemporary times, the phrase has been used in a variety of areas including a bibliography of libertarian publications and an interdisciplinary academic symposium, in which the following articulations of the concept appeared:
Unity in diversity is the highest possible attainment of a civilization, a testimony to the most noble possibilities of the human race. This attainment is made possible through passionate concern for choice, in an atmosphere of social trust. (Michael Novak, epigraph opening Unity in Diversity: An Index to the Publications of Conservative and Libertarian Institutions [1983])
. . . the disparate experiences of practitioners of various disciplines studying man as a social being, even when they do not have a common measure or a commonly stated objective, nevertheless share a unity of intent in understanding man in his social context--a unity that over time will lead to greater integrative approaches. Indeed, the technological imperatives of the end of the twentieth century demand an integrative approach to man's myriad undertakings, demand a Renaissance approach, one whereby the human mind can transcend the fragmented understanding of the parts that the explosion of knowledge and its collection has fostered. Whether this will be a systems approach, such as General System Theory, or an integration of different modes of consciousness, or something else, or a convergence and integration of some or all of these, we do not know. What we do know is that the search must go on. (Introduction to Unity in Diversity: The Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Research Seminar at Wilfrid Laurier University [1980])"
http://bahai-library.com/theses/unity.diversity.html
"The Bahá'í teachings stress the fundamental harmony of science and religion. This view derives from the belief that truth (or reality) is one. For if truth is indeed one, it is not possible for something to be scientifically false and religiously true. 'Abdu'l-Baha expressed forcefully this idea in the following passage:
If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation."
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html
"Holopantheism is the logical, metatheological umbrella beneath which the great religions of mankind are unknowingly situated. Why, if there exists a spiritual metalanguage in which to establish the brotherhood of man through the unity of sentience, are men perpetually at each others' throats? Unfortunately, most human brains, which comprise a particular highly-evolved subset of the set of all reality-subsystems, do not fire in strict S-isomorphism much above the object level. Where we define one aspect of "intelligence" as the amount of global structure functionally represented by a given sÎS, brains of low intelligence are generally out of accord with the global syntax D(S). This limits their capacity to form true representations of S (global reality) by syntactic autology [d(S) Éd d(S)] and make rational ethical calculations. In this sense, the vast majority of men are not well-enough equipped, conceptually speaking, to form perfectly rational worldviews and societies; they are deficient in education and intellect, albeit remediably so in most cases. This is why force has ruled in the world of man…why might has always made right, despite its marked tendency to violate the optimization of global utility derived by summing over the sentient agents of S with respect to space and time."
http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
MIND AND REALITY
"Now, finally, with the cognitive equation and the theory of belief systems under our belt, we are ready to return to the "crucial connections" of Chapter Six -- to the intimate relationship between language, thought, reality, self and consciousness. In this chapter I will present several different views of the relationship between psychology and the external world.
In Section 1, using the ideas of the past two chapters, I will present the radical but necessary idea that self and reality are belief systems. Then, in Section 2, I will place this concept in the context of the theory of hypersets and situation semantics, giving for the first time a formal model of the universe in which mind and reality reciprocally contain one another. This "universal network" model extends the concept of the dual network, and explains how the cognitive equation might actually be considered as a universal equation.
Finally, in Sections 3-5, I will put forth a few speculative suggestions regarding how one might reconcile this idea with our contemporary understanding of the physical world. I will confront the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics, and argue that the resolution of these paradoxes may lie in the idea that the world is made of pattern. If this idea is correct, it will provide a basis for integrating the idea that reality is a belief system with modern physical science."
http://www.goertzel.org/books/logic/chapter_eleven.htm
"I've been studying AI since the 1970s. After working in the field for a quarter of a century, I became interested in the question of whether, if we really did manage to succeed, but built a machine that only thought in a goal-directed, rational way, wouldn't we have just succeeded in building a (possibly superhuman) psychopath? -- and would this really be such a smart thing to do?"
http://mol-eng.com/
"Please God, that we avoid the land of denial, and advance into the ocean of acceptance, so that we may perceive, with an eye purged from all conflicting elements, the worlds of unity and diversity, of variation and oneness, of limitation and detachment, and wing our flight unto the highest and innermost sanctuary of the inner meaning of the Word of God." (The Báb)
"If the flowers of a garden were all of one color, the effect would be monotonous to the eye; but if the colors are variegated, it is most pleasing and wonderful. The difference in adornment of color and capacity of reflection among the flowers gives the garden its beauty and charm. Therefore, although we are of different individualities, different in ideas and of various fragrances, let us strive like flowers of the same divine garden to live together in harmony. Even though each soul has its own individual perfume and color, all are reflecting the same light, all contributing fragrance to the same breeze which blows through the garden, all continuing to grow in complete harmony and accord. Become as waves of one sea, trees of one forest, growing in the utmost love, agreement and unity.
...
And when you pass by a garden wherein vegetable beds and plants, flowers and fragrant herbs are all combined so as to form a harmonious whole, this is an evidence that this plantation and this rose garden have been cultivated and arranged by the care of a perfect gardener, while when you see a garden in disorder, lacking arrangement and confused, this indicates that it has been deprived of the care of a skillful gardener, nay, rather, it is nothing but a mass of weeds." (‘Abdu'l-Baha)
"Because our three principles correspond to the 3 C’s, and because they all begin with the letter M, we might as well call them the “3 M’s”: M=R, MAP and MU, respectively standing for the Mind Equals Reality Principle, the Metaphysical Autology Principle, and the Multiplex Unity Principle.
The M=R principle, a tautological theoretical property that dissolves the distinction between theory and universe and thus identifies the real universe as a “self-reifying theory”, makes the syntax of this theory comprehensive by ensuring that nothing which can be cognitively or perceptually recognized as a part of reality is excluded for want of syntax.
MAP tautologically renders this syntax closed or self-contained in the definitive, descriptive and interpretational senses, and in conjunction with M=R, renders the universe perfectly self-contained in the bargain.
And MU tautologically renders this syntax, and the theory-universe complex it describes, coherent enough to ensure its own consistency (thus, the “C” corresponding to MU actually splits into two C’s, consistency and coherence, and we have four altogether). To each of these principles we may add any worthwhile corollaries that present themselves.
(Note that while this seems to imply that the 3 M’s are “axioms” and therefore independent, the premise of axiomatic independence is itself a rather flimsy concept. These principles are actually rather strongly related in the sense that they can to some extent be inferred from each other in a reality-theoretic context.)"
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
Observational Heterarchy as Phenomenal Computing (2010)
We propose the notion of phenomenal computing as a dynamical pair of a computing system and the environments of executing computation. It is expressed as a formal model of observational heterarchy inheriting robustness against structural crisis. Observational heterarchy consists of two different categories connected by pre-adjoint functors where inter-categories operations are defined as pre-functors. Owing to the attribute of prefunctor, the model reveals robust behaviors against perpetual structural changes.
http://en.scientificcommons.org/54920748
In general: Dynamical wholeness What is wholeness? We generally evaluate the notion of parts and whole in science. Such a notion sounds like something misleading. In starting from the notion of parts and whole, it looks as if we could comprehend the concept of wholeness. A concept is generally defined as the equivalence between Intent and Extent.
http://www.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp/study/list/nonlinear/gunji_e.html
Chu Spaces, Concept Lattices and Information Systems in nDimensions:
http://tinyurl.com/26j77pl
Grothendieck topologies on Chu spaces:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/07307820038558n3/
On Game Formats and Chu Spaces:
"Both games and game forms- the latter being ‘games without preferences’ i.e. models of pure interaction structures— come in a large variety of formats. In fact, this is clearly the case even when only the most commonly used extensive, strategic and coalitional formats are considered, and some more exotic variants are ignored. This circumstance immediately raises the following question: does there exist any available mathematical structure which happens to be general enough to accommodate —i.e. to specialize to— game forms and games of each ‘basic’ format as mentioned above?
Since games and game forms are typically described in common, informal set-theoretic language, the category Set of sets and functions is a first obvious candidate. Another, perhaps more interesting, possibility is provided by certain categories of Chu spaces. Chu spaces may be regarded as abstract representations of classifications of certain classes of ‘objects’ in terms of certain classes of ‘types’: indeed it has been explicitly suggested that the universe of games essentially amounts to the category Chu(Set,2) (see e.g. Lafont and Streicher (1991) and Pratt (1995))."
http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/quaderni/417.pdf
"Were there really such a thing as absolute intrinsic value, the resolutions given for the Kraitchik and 2-envelopes paradoxes would be final. Each player could reason strategically from an elevated multi-frame perspective to avoid the essential fallacy of these paradoxes. Unfortunately, economic uncertainty makes assessments of absolute value all but impossible; the Kraitchik rationale in effect becomes a subjective vote of confidence in one’s own opinions and projections, and all one can hope to do is allow for the dynamics of interacting subjective frames. Although the Kraitchik and 2-envelopes paradoxes deal with games whose rules seem artificial, these rules turn out to be general; interframe differentials in subjective value account for the ubiquity and validity of the Kraitchik rationale in games which locally appear to be 0-sum, but need not be so in the wider contexts to which the players are subjectively linking them…contexts that ultimately merge in the global economy, precipitating cooperation and competition leading to expectative conflicts. Indeed, relativism based on subjective value differentials expressed in a global “spacetime” of transactions or "economic events" is what allows a locally 0-sum game to be globally advantageous, contributing to an overall win-win scenario in which the economy undergoes real expansion.
Once we suspend the 0-sum criterion that makes the Kraitchik rationale “fallacious”, its status changes from that of a fallacy to that of a true “law of economics”. Being the distributed basis of collective demand-pull and cost-push inflationary scenarios – the former works in specialized subeconomies whose players compete for resources to produce a certain kind of salable item, while the latter pushes the resulting inflation outward across the subeconomic boundary - this law drives inflation; but since the creation of wealth is driven by subjective motivation, it is also what drives legitimate economic expansion. Two real-world conditions, ambiguity of value and value differentials between subjective frames, create relativistic scenarios whose expansive and inflationary effects diffuse throughout the economy via inflationary mechanisms whose subjective basis was previously not well-understood. In self-interestedly betting on themselves and the futures of their local subeconomies, players create the global economy and determine the global parameters of value. Here, the Kraitchik and 2-envelopes paradoxes give way to an economic analogue of paradoxes involving sets that both determine and are determined by their elements, e.g. the paradoxes of Cantor and Russell.
What, then, are the rules in terms of which frame-invariant economic calculations should be made, and these abstract economic paradoxes resolved in the real-world economy? Unfortunately, the answer – a general theory of economic relativity - will have to be the subject of a future paper."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/EconRel.html
"The goal of my research is to develop a multi-agent system based model for the context-aware exchange and processing of information in an AmI system. The model will be conceived considering the requirements and restrictions that come from other layers of an AmI architecture, taking into account, for instance, user mobility, device heterogeneity, network instability and security concerns. The model will comprise the formal speci cation of the agent types and behaviour, the representation of the agents' beliefs, goals, plans and context information, the communication and coordination mechanisms, as well as the overall system architecture. The model will be implemented, leading to experiments within a simulated environment, but also in more realistic scenarios including the deployment on several computing devices."
http://aimas.cs.pub.ro/people/andrei.olaru/doc/PhDProposal.pdf
"Much work in the design of multi-agent systems ( MAS ) has focused on the design and engineering of individual agents; for example, the problems of designing and implementing effective trading strategies for agents participating in e-commerce market places, or the design of effective learning algorithms for adaptive agents. However, increasingly attention is being turned to the design of the infrastructure, or the environment, underlying the interactions between individual agents in a MAS ; for example, the problem of designing rules governing the operation of an e-commerce market institution, or the design of interaction protocols governing agent argumentation. The justification for the latter approach is that often as MAS designers we are responsible for engineering open systems, in which we do not have control over the exact behavior of the agents connecting to our system; these agents are, after all, autonomous. Rather, we build a set of standards and protocols that define a framework within which our agents are free to interact, and if we have designed this framework to be robust, the system as a whole will exhibit our desired design properties despite the fact that it consists of possibly millions of autonomous agents interacting with each other in ways we have not prescribed in advance.
Such systems are known as self-organising complex systems ( SOCS ) (Heylighen, 1999). Examples of such systems are market places, ecosystems, nervous systems, neural networks, co-evolving systems, and of course, multi-agent systems. They are complex, in the sense that they consist of many parts with many interactions between them and exhibit non-linear, hard-to-predict behaviour, and they are self-organising in the sense that macro-level stabilities emerge despite the underlying complexity. As an example, consider a stock market consisting of hundreds of thousands of traders. Each trader is an autonomous agent, free to trade using whatever strategy they want. Individual prices at any given time are determined by the trading behaviour of all of other agents trading in the market; thus the actions of each agent can potentially influence all other agents; there are many interactions between the components of the system. Many aspects of the market’s behaviour are chaotic or hard to predict, for example the price of an individual stock, or the profits of an individual trader.
Yet despite this complexity, the variables that the stock-market “designer” is interested in, for example the overall market efficiency, remain at consistently satisficing values. Additionally, such systems are robust to exogenous perturbation; for example, after the stock market has been subjected to a shock, such as a market crash, the system eventually settles back into a state in which the design variables, for example market efficiency, are held at desirable values despite the fact that there is no explicit top-down control mechanism for achieving this. Such self-healing or homeostatic behaviour is typical of SOCS in general. These systems possess state-space dynamics with attractors and stable states (also known as equilibria) that lead the system to homeostatic states — that is, states in which our design variables are maximised or held within desirable ranges.
As designers of a multi-agent system, we are therefore tasked with ensuring that the
complex system embodied by our MAS possesses attractors or equilibria in which our design objectives are met. But how can we affect the dynamics of our system if we are not allowed to prescribe the behaviour of individual agents? What free variables are at our disposal? The answer, of course is outlined above; in MAS design problems we typically have some control over the environment or infrastructure in which third-party agents interact. This can take the form of, for example, rules governing an auction mechanism, or the protocols used by agents for argumentation. Small changes in these rules or standards can have dramatic effects on the behaviour of the agents using these rules, and can radically alter the underlying dynamics of the system in surprising ways. By altering the underlying dynamics, we are sometimes able to adjust the system so that the stable states of the system exhibit the homeostatic properties we desire. For example, in a market-design context, by tweaking the rules of the market, we are sometimes able to design systems in which optimal allocative-efficiency is an emergent stable macro-property of the system."
http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~parsons/projects/mech-design/publications/jaamas.pdf
"The currency of telic feedback is a quantifiable self-selection parameter, generalized utility, a generalized property of law and state in the maximization of which they undergo mutual refinement (note that generalized utility is self-descriptive or autologous, intrinsically and retroactively defined within the system, and “pre-informational” in the sense that it assigns no specific property to any specific object). Through telic feedback, a system retroactively self-configures by reflexively applying a “generalized utility function” to its internal existential potential or possible futures. In effect, the system brings itself into existence as a means of atemporal communication between its past and future whereby law and state, syntax and informational content, generate and refine each other across time to maximize total systemic self-utility. This defines a situation in which the true temporal identity of the system is a distributed point of temporal equilibrium that is both between and inclusive of past and future. In this sense, the system is timeless or atemporal.
A system that evolves by means of telic recursion – and ultimately, every system must either be, or be embedded in, such a system as a condition of existence – is not merely computational, but protocomputational. That is, its primary level of processing configures its secondary (computational and informational) level of processing by telic recursion. Telic recursion can be regarded as the self-determinative mechanism of not only cosmogony, but a natural, scientific form of teleology."
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
"The Origin of Man
Know that it is one of the most abstruse spiritual truths that the world of existence, that is to say this endless universe, has no beginning.
We have already explained that the names and attributes of the Divinity themselves require the existence of beings. Although this subject has been explained in detail, we will speak of it again briefly. Know that an educator without pupils cannot be imagined, a monarch without subjects could not exist, a master without scholars cannot be appointed, a creator without a creature is impossible, a provider without those provided for cannot be conceived; for all the divine names and attributes demand the existence of beings. If we could imagine a time when no beings existed, this imagination would be the denial of the Divinity of God. Moreover, absolute non-existence cannot become existence. If the beings were absolutely non-existent, existence would not have come into being. Therefore, as the Essence of Unity, that is the existence of God, is everlasting and eternal--that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end--it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing; the universe would not be disordered nor destroyed; on the contrary, existence is eternal and perpetual. As each globe has a beginning, necessarily it has an end, because every composition, collective or particular, must of necessity be decomposed; the only difference is that some are quickly decomposed, and others more slowly, but it is impossible that a composed thing should not eventually be decomposed.
It is necessary, therefore, that we should know what each of the important existences was in the beginning--for there is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one, and that one matter appeared in different aspects in each element; thus various forms were produced, and these various aspects as they were produced became permanent, and each element was specialized. But this permanence was not definite, and did not attain realization and perfect existence until after a very long time. Then these elements became composed, and organized and combined in infinite forms; or rather from the composition and combination of these elements innumerable beings appeared.
This composition and arrangement through the wisdom of God and His pre-existent might, were produced from one natural organization, which was composed and combined with the greatest strength, conformably to wisdom, and according to a universal law. From this it is evident that it is the creation of God, and is not a fortuitous composition and arrangement. This is why from every natural composition a being can come into existence, but from an accidental composition no being can come into existence. For example, if a man of his own mind and intelligence collects some elements and combines them, a living being will not be brought into existence, since the system is unnatural. This is the answer to the implied question, that, since beings are made by the composition and the combination of elements, why is it not possible for us to gather elements and mingle them together, and so create a living being. This is a false supposition, for the origin of this composition is from God; it is God who makes the combination, and as it is done according to the natural system, from each composition one being is produced, and an existence is realized. A composition made by man produces nothing, because man cannot create.
Briefly, we have said that from the composition and combination of elements, from their decomposition, from their measure, and from the effect of other beings upon them, resulted forms, endless realities, and innumerable beings. But it is clear that this terrestrial globe in its present form did not come into existence all at once; but that this universal existence gradually passed through different phases until it became adorned with its present perfection. Universal beings resemble and can be compared to particular beings, for both are subjected to one natural system, one universal law and divine organization. So you will find the smallest atoms in the universal system are similar to the greatest beings of the universe. It is clear that they come into existence from one laboratory of might under one natural system, and one universal law; therefore they may be compared to one another. Thus the embryo of man in the womb of the mother gradually grows and develops, and appears in different forms and conditions, until in the degree of perfect beauty it reaches maturity, and appears in a perfect form with the utmost grace. And in the same way, the seed of this flower which you see was in the beginning an insignificant thing, and very small; and it grew and developed in the womb of the earth, and after appearing in various forms, came forth in this condition with perfect freshness and grace. In the same manner it is evident that this terrestrial globe having once found existence, grew and developed in the matrix of the universe, and came forth in different forms and conditions, until gradually it attained this present perfection, and became adorned with innumerable beings, and appeared as a finished organization.
Then it is clear that original matter, which is in the embryonic state, and the mingled and composed elements which were its earliest forms, gradually grew and developed during many ages and cycles, passing from one shape and form to another, until they appeared in this perfection, this system, this organization and this establishment, through the supreme wisdom of God.
Let us return to our subject that man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power. It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty, and this grace. There is no doubt that the human embryo did not at once appear in this form, neither did it then become the manifestation of the words: "Praise be unto God, the best of Creators." Gradually, it passed through various conditions and different shapes, until it attained this form and beauty, this perfection; grace, and loveliness. Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and divine law.
That is to say, the embryo passes through different states and traverses numerous degrees, until it reaches the form in which it manifests the words: "Praise be to God, the best of Creators," and until the signs of reason and maturity appear. And in the same way, man's existence on this earth, from the beginning until it reaches this state, form, and condition, necessarily lasts a long time, and goes through many degrees until it reaches this condition. But from the beginning of man's existence he is a distinct species. In the same way, the embryo of man in the womb of the mother was at first in a strange form; then this body passes from shape to shape, from state to state, from form to form, until it appears in utmost beauty and perfection. But even when in the womb of the mother and in this strange form, entirely different from his present form and figure, he is the embryo of the superior species, and not of the animal; his species and essence undergo no change. Now, admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist, this is not a proof of the impermanence and the non-originality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed. Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal. So, if the embryo of man in the womb of the mother passes from one form to another, so that the second form in no way resembles the first, is this a proof that the species has changed? that it was at first an animal, and that its organs progressed and developed until it became a man? No indeed! How puerile and unfounded is this idea and this thought! For the proof of the originality of the human species, and of the permanency of the nature of man, is clear and evident."
http://bcca.org/bahaivision/BWF/0701theoriginofman.html
"For in fact, if we read Hegel’s book as presenting simply three models of time – Being (progression), Essence (splitting), and Concept (atemporal genesis) – we in fact read the three sections merely under the mode of thought appropriate to the first section of the work, that is, the ‘lens’ of Being. We hypostatize the three forms, without considering them through the lenses of Essence or the Concept. If we then try to fix this by viewing the three approaches to time (Being, Essence, Concept) through the lens of Essence, we get another three models of time – Being (progression as produced from an original scission which is its essence, thereby giving rise to all three models presented under the lens of Being – Zizek’s reading of Hegel, as it were), Essence (a scission of time into a progression and atemporal genesis, thereby giving rise to all three models presented under the lens of Being), and Concept (a scission which gives rise to progression, scission, and atemporal genesis, thereby giving rise to all the previous models . . .).
Taking this chain of logic to its final, hypercomplex conclusion, we need to be able to see how this all plays out form the perspective of the Concept – Being (a progression through all three models of time till we finally understand it as atemporal genesis, thereby giving rise to the previous models – the common caricature of how Hegel’s works function), Essence (a series of intertwining scissions leading up to the folding of atemporal genesis into itself, thereby giving rise to the previous models . . .), and finally, well, the most fundamental model of all, or the Concept of time as understood under the lens of the Concept itself. But what might this be?
The Concept of Time under the form of the Concept is in fact rather similar to what quantum physicists might describe as the varying forms of the disjunct-relation between micro and macroscopic levels of time. That is, the time of the Concept, understood ‘Conceptually,’ is in fact all the other eight models just mentioned, all at once, both understood as unity (Being), giving rise to each other (Essence), and Concept (as all of these both in unity and difference). That is, we have yet another fractal threefold division within what previously seemed to be the final category."
http://orbismediologicus.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/ars-combinatoria-the-chronotope-of-the-digital-age/
Timeless Decision Theory
"Disputes between evidential decision theory and causal decision theory have continued for decades, with many theorists stating that neither alternative seems satisfactory. I present an extension of decision theory over causal networks, timeless decision theory (TDT). TDT compactly represents uncertainty about the abstract outputs of correlated computational processes, and represents the decision-maker's decision as the output of such a process. I argue that TDT has superior intuitive appeal when presented as axioms, and that the corresponding causal decision networks (which I call timeless decision networks) are more true in the sense of better representing physical reality. I review Newcomb's Problem and Solomon's Problem, two paradoxes which are widely argued as showing the inadequacy of causal decision theory and evidential decision theory respectively. I walk through both paradoxes to show that TDT achieves the appealing consequence in both cases. I argue that TDT implements correct human intuitions about the paradoxes, and that other decision systems act oddly because they lack representative power. I review the Prisoner's Dilemma and show that TDT formalizes Hofstadter's "superrationality": under certain circumstances, TDT can permit agents to achieve "both C" rather than "both D" in the one-shot, non-iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Finally, I show that an evidential or causal decision-maker capable of self-modifying actions, given a choice between remaining an evidential or causal decision-maker and modifying itself to imitate a timeless decision-maker, will choose to imitate a timeless decision-maker on a large class of problems."
http://singinst.org/upload/TDT-v01o.pdf
"In the standard Big Bang model, there's nothing cyclic; it has a beginning and it has no end.
"The philosophical question that's sensible to ask is 'what came before the Big Bang?'; and what they're striving for here is to do away with that 'there's nothing before' answer by making it cyclical."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5548...02-cosmos-may-show-echoes-of-events-before-big-bang
"As to thy question whether the physical world is subject to any limitations, know thou that the comprehension of this matter dependeth upon the observer himself. In one sense, it is limited; in another, it is exalted beyond all limitation...s. The one true God hath everlastingly existed, and will everlastingly continue to exist. His creation, likewise, hath had no beginning, and will have no end. All that is created, however, is preceded by a cause. This fact, in itself, establisheth, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the unity of the Creator."
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, LXXXII, p. 162-163)
http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/articles.pl?article=222
Time Travel and Consistency Constraints
"The possibility of time travel, as permitted in General Relativity, is responsible for constraining physical fields beyond what laws of nature would otherwise require. In the special case where time travel is limited to a single object returning to the past and interacting with itself, consistency constraints can be avoided if the dynamics is continuous and the object’s state space satisfies a certain topological requirement: that all null-homotopic mappings from the state-space to itself have some fixed point. Where consistency constraints do exist, no new physics is needed to enforce them. One needs only to accept certain global topological constraints as laws, something that is reasonable in any case.
...
3. What’s the Problem with Time Travel? The usual stock of time-travel
paradoxes begs us to distinguish between global and local possibility. In stories where the protagonist time travels into the past to kill himself as a youngster, it is purportedly paradoxical how the time traveler can kill himself. Yet, the resolution of the paradox is well known. The time traveler can kill his earlier self in the local sense because given only the local physics, the time traveler is no less capable of murder for his time traveling: he has his trusty sword, the requisite malice, etc. It is impossible for him, though, to kill himself in the global sense because there is no possible world (barring resurrection) where he dies as youth and then later journeys back through time. Conflicting intuitions about the abilities of the time traveler arise only by equivocating between local and global possibility.
The global/local distinction makes the world safe for time travel."
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/Douglas_Kutach/Kutach_TimeTravel.pdf
A Quantum Computational Approach to the Quantum Universe
We discuss an approach to quantum physics and cosmology based on Feynman's vision of the universe as a vast form of self-referential quantum computation, replacing the conventional geometric view of spacetime with a pre-geometric setting based on quantum information acquisition and exchange.
...
A particular issue in quantum cosmology is the "problem of time". The application of constraint mechanics and canonical quantization leads to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, in which the state of the universe appears to be frozen in time. How can a universe which appears timeless on one level appear to be the dynamically changing universe that we see on the local human level? Directly related to this problem is the unresolved issue of what the "state of the universe" means, given that there are, by definition, no observers external to the universe."
http://tinyurl.com/32a4blx
Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective:
Abstractshttp://www.astro.sk/~msaniga/ZiF_05/ZiF_abstracts.pdf
Limitology
..."The three oldest limit statements are — perhaps — the "flaming sword" of the Bible, the notion of "Maya's veil" in India and Anaximander's claim that the Whole (One) is unrecognizable from within (only a cut is recognizable).
The first modern limit statement also takes the form of an interface statement. Boscovich's (1755) principle of the difference predicts that "the impressions generated" are invariant under certain objective changes of the universe (as when it "breathes" (increases and decreases in size) along with the observer and all forces. A century later, Maxwell (1872) recognized that a being who is part of a Hamiltonian universe cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics by performing micro observations followed by appropriate shepherding actions (like watching a gas of cold uranium atoms and setting barriers or removing them in an educated fashion using advanced modern gadgetry), whereas a being who is outside the same universe — a "demon" — can easily do the same thing. He thereby was able to predict that micro motions will in general be "impalpable" (p. 154 of his Theory of Heat, 1872). After this prediction had come true, half a century later, Bohr (1927) claimed that his own "complementarity principle" marks the limit of what an internal observer of a classical-continuous world can hope to measure. Four years later, Gödel (1931) discovered his discrete limit (an inaccessibility in finitely many steps of certain implications of a formal system from within). Unlike Bohr's intutive principle, Gödel's is a hard theorem. However, Bohr's also is harder in a sense because it asserted a contradiction between the inside and the outside view, while Gödel only found that a separating boundary existed between reachable and unreachable truths. Bohr's limit would be a "distortion" limit, Gödel's an "inaccessibility" limit.
Distortion limits were subsequently also found by Ed Moore in 1956 (an analog to uncertainty in certain dissipative automata) and Donald Mackay in 1957 (irrefutability of certain false statements, like the attribution of free will, to deterministic automata). The subsequent limits of Bob Rosen in 1958 (to self-reproduction in category theory), Rolf Landauer in 1961 (to dissipation-free computation) and Ed Lorenz in 1964 (butterfly effect in chaotic dynamics) appear to be inaccessibility limits again. The same holds good for the finite combinatorial inaccessibility (NP-completeness) discovered in the 1970's. The most recent limit of Yukio Gunji (inconsistency of language games) appears to be a distortion limit again.
Do these findings justify the introduction of a new discipline? Two points are in favor of the idea. First, new limits become definable in the fold of the new paradigm. For example, "ultraperspective" (which is inaccessible to animals) plays a fundamental role in both mathematical economics and science. The very notion of limits implies the adoption of two perspectives simultaneously. Second, any distortion limit "splits" the single (exo) reality into many different internally valid (endo) realities. Some of the objective features become interface-specific. This allows a new question to be asked: Can the "mirage properties" implicit in a distortion limit always be identified ("tagged") from the inside, even though they of course cannot be removed by definition? If so, relativity may turn out to be a first example in physics. Related observer-objective phenomena should then occur and be identifiable on the micro level (micro relativity). The famous Goldstein–Kerner "no interaction theorem" (which precludes a frame-dependent description of gases) would acquire a deep significance. Two previously incompatible fundamental theories of physics, namely relativity and quantum mechanics, would be unexpectedly unified by limitology.
A third point is in favor of limitology: distortion limits always leave a loophole. They exist because an objective picture (which no longer depends on the observer) can only be obtained by making the observer explicit — a feat impossible to accomplish from the inside. Nevertheless the impossible can be achieved — on the modeling level. The "artificial universe approach" to the real world therefore qualifies as a new type of measurement. At the same time the computer acquires an unexpected fundamental role."
http://ebooks.worldscinet.com/ISBN/9789812817303/9789812817303_0018.html
On the origin of R -species
"In this note we formalize certain aspects of observation process in an attempt to link the logic of the observer with properties of the observables structures. It is shown that an observer with Boolean logic perceives her environment as a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold, and that the intrinsic mathematics of the environment may differ from the classical mathematics (i.e. the mathematics of the topos of sets).
Introduction.
Topos theory offers an independent (of the set theory) approach to the foundations of mathematics. Topoi are categories with set-like objects, function-like arrows and Boolean-like logic algebras. Handling these generalized sets and functions in a topos may differ from that in classical mathematics (i.e. the topos Set of sets): there are non-classical versions of mathematics, each with its non-Boolean version of logic. One possible view on topoi is this: abstract worlds, universes for mathematical discourse, inhabitants (observers) of which may use non-Boolean logics in their reasoning. From this viewpoint the main business of classical physics is to constructmodels of the universe with a given bivalent Boolean model of the observer, and choose the most adequate one. In a sense, our task is inverse: with a given model of the universe, to construct models of the observer, and find out how the observer’s perception of the universe changes if his logic is changed. Thus, it is not the universe itself, but rather its differential is what interests us here."
http://members.cox.net/vtrifonov/research/FourD.pdf
Endophysics, the fabric of time and the self-evolving universe:
"It is argued that a new understanding of time arises through a paradigm shift in physics, particularly in the areas of astrophysics and cosmology, viz. the change from the exo- to endo-physical perspective. This claim is illustrated/substantiated by discussion of some of the currently most pressing issues of theoretical physics related to the evolution of the universe: the nature of time and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is demonstrated that the endo-physical (or first-person) view is a fertile ground for getting important insights into the structure of the perceived/subjective aspect of time as well as for inferring a possible connection of the latter with its physical counterpart. Concerning quantum mechanics, the endo-physical perspective sheds fresh light on its interpretation and the measurement problem. This opens up a window for novel cosmological scenarios, such as a description of the universe as a self-evolving quantum automaton."
http://www.ta3.sk/~msaniga/pub/ftp/AA28.pdf
The Inside and Outside Views of Life
"Biology is, better than anything else, about existence in time. Hence biological reality cannot be defined without reference to a temporally situated observer. The coupled or detached character of this observer (with respect to the own time variable of the system) provides a link between the observer and the observed. This connections delimits the kinds of scientific descriptions that can be given at all by an observer. In particular, two fundamentally different forms of description, corresponding to different epistemological attitudes and different philosophies of science, called endo- and exo-physics, can be distunguished. Two old puzzles, the Omniscience Problem (illustrated here on the example of Internal Chemistry) and the Chameleon Problem (originally an argument against philosophical functionalism) are reconsidered in the light of these distinctions. As application, the question, in what sense computer models of life can be suitable for studying life, is examined."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.25.842
Endophysics and The Thoughtbody Environment – An outline For a Neo-computational Paradigm:
http://projects.visualstudies.duke.edu/billseaman/pdf/tb_endoNeo-1.pdf
Structure of Space-Time:
http://www.ta3.sk/~msaniga/pub/space-time.html
Time and the dichotomy subjective/objective. An endo-physical point of view.
"The process of collecting information from the observed phenomena occurs in the subjective time of all individuals who communicate to each other their own interpretations. Intercommunication between individuals constitutes a loop of knowledge by which single views are mediated toward constructing an “objective view”, agreed within the human society. During the last centuries this process of intercommunication has been made extremely efficient by Science but the generally adopted exo-physical perspective have often raised to the rank of absolute concepts the achieved objective views, stripping them of their evolving human nature and risking to rise expectations that cannot be satisfied. It is argued here that an endo-physical outlook fits better with the actual situation of humans imbedded in the world and heavily interacting with it. Within this framework, the dichotomy subjective-objective is conceptually overcome and the classical notion of “universal“ time may be seen as one of the results of the loop of knowledge occurring inside the human society. A general developmental scenario is also discussed in connection with the Eakins & Jaroszkiewicz’s “stage paradigm”, where classical spacetime and observers “emerge” in a universe running by quantum jumps."
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/buccheri_time.htm
T.S. Eliot: "Time present and time past. Are both perhaps present in time future, And time future contained in time past. If all time is eternally present ..."
9 comments:
Hi,
I really appreciate your blog even if I don't understand everything. I'm trying to understand CTMU and I naturally pass through your site while googling.
The "jellyfish" animation was a must to understand conspansive duality.
Can you please explain me what is a "telon" ?
"Telons" are state-syntax relations formed among "syntactic operators". Simplistically, they are a kind of self-scaled attribute or metric. I am interested whether this can be exemplified by the interchangeability of edges and verticies in a dual hypergraph.
Can you please help me understand on the first sentence : "Telons" are state-syntax relations formed among "syntactic operators".
Have you an easy to understand example of :
1). a "state-syntax relation"
2). a "syntactic operator"
How can I use this in a daily life situation so that I can grasp fully.
thanks,
Placido
State-syntax relation: perceiving something as being red (attribute).
Syntactic operator: that which connects the perceiver (subject) with that being perceived (object).
Syntax = Law
State = Content
What are the laws of thought? Do they correspond with the laws of the world? How much content about the world can be transduced?
"Consider a standard soft-drink vending machine, designed and built in the United States, and equipped with a transducer device for accepting and rejecting U.S. quarters. Let's call such a device a two-bitser. Normally, when a quarter is inserted into a two-bitser, the two-bitser goes into a state, call it Q, which "means" (note the scare-quotes) "I perceive/accept a genuine U.S. quarter now." Such two-bitsers are quite clever and sophisticated, but hardly foolproof. They do "make mistakes" (more scare-quotes). That is, unmetaphorically, sometimes they go into state Q when a slug or other foreign object is inserted in them, and sometimes they reject perfectly legal quarters--they fail to go into state Q when they are supposed to. No doubt there are detectable patterns in the cases of "misperception". No doubt at least some of the cases of "misidentification" could be predicted by someone with enough knowledge of the relevant laws of physics and design parameters of the two-bitser's transducing machinery, so that it would be just as much a matter of physical law that objects of kind K would put the device into state Q as that quarters would. Objects of kind K would be good "slugs"-- reliably "fooling" the transducer."
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/intentio.htm
"Aristotelian metaphysics is universal, containing in principle all Ui-relevant information (Ui-potential) U*. A theory of metaphysics M is an open inferential system which, because necessarily universal, reduces to a Ui-recognizable tautology T on U* heritable in M via generalized rules of inference (where "generalized inference" is just logical substitution). As specific information equates inductively to ancestral generalisms, and U* is both unique and Ui-indiscernible from T, the identification M = T = U* is practically unconditional. Now suppose that there exist two Ui-distinguishable true metaphysical theories M and M’; i.e., two Ui-distinguishable Ui-tautologies T and T’. These can only be Ui-distinguishable by virtue of a nonempty Ui-informationa1 disjunction: i.e., disjoint information d = (T ∪ T’) - (T ∩ T’) > ∅ recognizable in/by Ui (where the information in T or T’ equals the scope (image) of its univer sal quantifier, and ∅ is the null set). This information d, being the distinction between two Ui-perceptible truths, exists in Ui and thus U*. But as it is disjoint information, one member of the pair (T, T’) does not contain it. So this member does not cover U*, is not a U* tautology, and thus is not a theory of metaphysics. On the other hand, M = Uj = 1, 2... Mj, where the jointly U*-exhaustive Mj are all "true", Ui-distinct, and M-nonexluded, does and is.
So the assumption fails, and there can be only one correct theory of metaphysics at the tautological level. This, by definition, is the CTMU. I.e., the CTMU takes this existential proof of metaphysical uniqueness and uses the implied system as the identity of a transductive algebra meeting the conditions for human cognition by its homomorphic relationship to the human cognitive syntax. So for the human cognitive equivalency-class, the universe is generalistically identical to the CTMU tautology."
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Supertautological_Adjointness
"Traditionally the "problem of perception" has been the problem of how our internal perceptual experiences are related to the external world. I believe we ought to be very suspicious of this way of formulating the problem, since the spatial metaphor for internal and external, or inner and outer, resists any clear interpretation. If my body including all of its internal parts is part of the external world, as it surely is, then where is the internal world supposed to be? In what space is it internal relative to the external world? In what sense exactly are my perceptual experiences ' in here ' and the world 'out there'? Nonetheless these metaphors are persistent and perhaps even inevitable, and for that reason they reveal certain underlying assumptions we will need to explore."
http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/searle-en=intentionality=ann.htm
"Heraclitus is famous for his insistence on ever-present change in the universe, as stated in his famous saying, "No man ever steps in the same river twice" (see panta rhei, below). He believed in the unity of opposites, stating that "the path up and down are one and the same", all existing entities being characterized by pairs of contrary properties. His cryptic utterance that "all entities come to be in accordance with this Logos" (literally, "word", "reason", or "account") has been the subject of numerous interpretations.
...
Hepesthai to koino, "follow the common"
People must "follow the common (hepesthai tō ksunō)"[46] and not live having "their own judgement (phronēsis)". He distinguishes between human laws and divine law (tou theiou "of God").[47]
He removes the human sense of justice from his concept of God; i.e., humanity is not the image of God: "To God all things are fair and good and just, but people hold some things wrong and some right."[48] God's custom has wisdom but human custom does not,[49] and yet both humans and God are childish (inexperienced): "human opinions are children's toys"[50] and "Eternity is a child moving counters in a game; the kingly power is a child's."[51]
Wisdom is "to know the thought by which all things are steered through all things",[52] which must not imply that people are or can be wise. Only Zeus is wise.[53] To some degree then Heraclitus seems to be in the mystic's position of urging people to follow God's plan without much of an idea what that may be. In fact there is a note of despair: "The fairest universe (kallistos kosmos) is but a heap of rubbish (sarma, sweepings) piled up (kechumenon, poured out) at random (eikê)."[54]
Influence
Plato
In Heraclitus a perceived object is a harmony between two fundamental units of change, a waxing and a waning. He typically uses the ordinary word "to become" (gignesthai or ginesthai, root sense of being born), which led to his being characterized as the philosopher of becoming rather than of being. He recognizes the changing of objects with the flow of time.
Plato argues against Heraclitus as follows:[55]
How can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? ... for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other ... so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state .... but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever ... then I do not think they can resemble a process or flux ....
In Plato one experienced unit is a state, or object existing, which can be observed. The time parameter is set at "ever"; that is, the state is to be presumed present between observations. Change is to be deduced by comparing observations, but no matter how many of those you are able to make, you cannot get through the mysterious gap between them to account for the change that must be occurring there."
http://www.answers.com/topic/heraclitus
This is so accurate and brilliant working. Thanks for sharing this post.
kitchen sink and base unit all in one Near me
Post a Comment