Discussions on ‘The Economy of Thought’ (Continued from distribution list)

Hi Lere,

My suggestion is, that if you have time and energy to continue this discussion (i hope you do), we should take it offline as we may be going places that others on the list, besides Yvonne, are not interested in going, or do not currently have time for.  Thus I have posted this same reply to you at the URL just below, and if you reply to me there, anyone on this list who is interested can participate in the continuing discussion via the forum software there.

https://goodshare.org/wp/discussions-on-the-economy-of-thought-continued-from-distribution-list/

You miss my intended meaning of ‘field’, as in your statement;

“In your ‘field’ approach which is Heideggerian, all swim in the same pool and so individual take on things dont matter. What matters is the Nation which translates to nationalism as a ‘field’.”

There can be no ‘nationalism’ without ‘common belief in the local existence of the ‘nation’.  There are no ‘local objects’ in a fluid-dynamic worldview (energy-field-flow worldview) other than those we create by superimposing word-based definitions and name-labels on the flow-features that attract the anthropocentric focus of our observational attention.   In this energy-field-flow view, the ‘nation’ does not exist (it is a idealization that depends solely on ‘common belief’ and ‘the force to back it up and ‘make believers out of others’’).  Thus, the ‘field of nationalism’ is certainly not the sort of field I am talking about.  I am with Einstein when he says; ‘Nationalism is an infantile disease, it is the measles of mankind’.

In my view of ‘field’, the individual ‘x’ is unique virtue of being a whorl in the energy-field-flow that is uniquely situationally included within the energy-field-flow.  In this case, as in transfigural mathematics, there can be many different ‘x’ s arising from their unique and particular situational inclusion in the ceaselessly, innovatively unfolding energy-field-flow aka ‘spacetime continuum’.

You say, in a similar fashion;

“In transfigural geometry we have different structures of space and so, let any thing be x, there are different types of the same x. And so, you have X for all types of x which are local in the X that is nonlocal. I agree that the space of physics is not as developed as I showed in transfigural geometry and so for this reason it is possible to lump all into holistic one with the result that ONE is lost in ALL. “

What I see as being a difference yet to be resolved (if it is possible) between my view and yours, is that i relate the difference between the x’s NOT to their behaviour but to their consciousness.  The ‘three body problem’ says that no individual x has a behaviour-of-its-own (when three or more x’s move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, there is no solution for the behaviour of a particular ‘x’.  But what I am saying is that each ‘x’ DOES HAVE a unique consciousness that ties to their unique situational inclusion in the dynamic world-space.

So, each ‘x’ has its own consciousness but not its own behaviour.  And our consciousness gives us direction that transcends our language based imposing of identity on APPARENTLY LOCAL entities such as ‘other x’s’.   I say ‘apparently local’ because while the visible material motion appears to be local, it is not ‘coming from the x’s; i..e. it is not locally originating, internal process driven behaviour.  As we know, as an individual ‘x’, we can let our behaviour be shaped by the dynamics of space we are uniquely situationally included in, putting our movements in the service of sustaining harmonious flow.  We will swerve for the rabbit and the lamb and the tortoise and for our brother humans so that the flow will be sustained in a harmonious fashion.  When we are swerving for one another (moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence) the notion of ‘our own behaviour’ loses all meaning, but not so our own consciousness.  Our consciousness that is at the helm as we seek to sustain harmony in the flow we are included in, keys to spatial-relations rather than to ‘local things and their movements.  Our consciousness orients to an awareness of spatial openings that represent possibility for us to move and act, and the particular identities of the objects that line the ever-transforming borders of the spatial openings are secondary.  Likewise, our consciousness informs us that the guy stuck behind the truck in the slow lane would love to have a spatial opening, open up for him so that he would have the possibility to move on and do his thing, so by letting our own movement be such as to open up a ‘bubble’ to possibilitize some action on his part, we are conscious of our facilitating harmony in the spatial relational flow we share inclusion in.

We, as one of these ‘x’s, … do not have ‘our own behaviour’ but we do have our own consciousness which derives from our unique and particular inclusion in the spatial relational energy-field-flow dynamic.

So, as you know, this question of ‘consciousness’ is what the physicists developing the ‘new physics’ (relativity, quantum wave dynamics) bumped into, and so while physics per se does not itself supply the needed richness, physics, being ‘our creation’, has balked and spoken back to us (Copenhagen non-accord [since schroedinger has never agreed]) saying to us; “Boss, i have gone as far as i can, now its time for you to speak to how you fit into the scheme of it all”.

That is, ‘physics per se’ does not inform us as to whether our consciousness should belong to the space-time continuum or to the emergent features, x’s, the gather and are regathered within it.  My view is that it makes sense to associate consciousness with the energy-field-flow or space-time continuum.

So, I am not sure how consistent this is with your view (transfigural mathematics) as I suspect the same ‘question’ of ‘consciousness’ pops up there, too.  In your following statement there is large agreement re the spatial-situational distinction between the x’s but, once again, you have missed my intended meaning of ‘field’.  In my ‘fluid-dynamic worldview’, ‘field’ is the spatial-relational motive influence immanent in spatial-relation transformation, the ‘real’ world of our experience;

“What transfigural geometry is saying about different structures of space that are different and same as a result of which figures which they include are same and different….is demonstrated clearly in cultural space. Cultural space are spaces in space and these spaces condition what is in them as what is in them condition these spaces. And so cultural spaces are spaces within spaces. In physics, we haven’t this kind of richness of space simply because the mathematics that produced the geometries are not other-inclusive in their foundations in the sense of the voice of one being important and audible in the all and the all having its stamp in every one. The concept of ‘field’ is inadequate for the spaces within spaces, figures within figures and spaces in figures and figures in spaces of space … which results in the diversity of one inside and through the ground and the ur-ground as obtains, amongst others, in transfigural geometry of TfM.”

For me, ‘figures’ are what we create using language based definitions and name-labels.  They are not ‘real’ IN THE SENSE THAT THE WORDS INSIST; I.E. THAT THEY ARE LOCAL, INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING ENTITIES WITH THEIR OWN BEHAVIOUR.  the whorl in the flow we call Katrina (a ‘hurricane’) is certainly ‘real’ as a ‘whorl-in-the-flow’ but it is not real as a ‘figure’, as a ‘local figure’ in the manner we personify it and impute to it ‘its own local behaviour’.

From whence does its behaviour derive?  In my view from the invisible nonlocal influence that is always immanent in the world dynamic, the tensional field that precedes the earthquake (we see the earthquake and the tsunami but not the invisible, nonlocal tensional fields that spawned them).  As Wittgenstein said (if not Heraclitus) “alles fliesst’ (everything is flux).and thus there is nothing ‘local’ to impute local force to.   Local force is a useful abstraction to cut into the flow and make things appear to have local beginnings, … but it is nevertheless an abstraction/idealization that should not be confused for reality.

My interest is thus in seeing whether it is possible to make a mapping between ‘figures-in-space’ as in ‘transfigural mathematics’ and ‘figures in space’ as in ‘hurricanes in the common flow’, since in my view the ‘figures’ are not ‘real’, they are artefacts of our rationalizing intellection, while the flow is real (we can feel our inclusion in it)..  in a ‘fluid-dynamic worldview’, one cannot impute persisting ‘identity’ to a local flow-feature.  the local flow-feature, insofar as it is ‘local’,  is the imposition of our mind which we concretized by our imposing of language-based definitions and name-labels.  This is not to say that ‘there is nothing there’, but it is to say that ‘there is nothing local there’; i.e. ‘there is no locally existing thing with its own behaviour’ there, what is there is a feature gathering in the energy-field-flow that attracts our anthropocentric interests (our conscious reflection ignore the flow features called viruses and it ignores the spiralling flow-features called galaxies because of our limited observational spectrum [wave-length/period]).  ‘Figures’ as in ‘the invariable solids of geometry’ are abstractions that have no FOUNDATIONAL place in an energy-field-flow or fluid-dynamic but they are useful and convenient for our modeling of the world dynamic in that we can impose them over transient flow features such as the material aspect of human organisms so that we can ‘objectify’ these flow-features and treat them as ‘real figures’ with ‘their own behaviour’ when all that they can rightly claim as ‘theirs’ is their ‘consciousness’, ‘their’ material bodies and ‘their’ behaviour’ not being ‘theirs’ but being spatial-relational flow-features within the ceaselessly innovatively unfolding fluid-dynamic world continuum.

Again, ‘field’ is a word that I use to describe the sourcing of the world understood as spatial-relational transformation that has no dependency on ‘local figures’.  I refer to that sourcing as ‘energy-field-flow’ which seems to map into the ‘new physics’.  The ‘figures’ that we observe, I agree with Schroedinger are ‘appearances’ (transient flow-forms that we objectify as locally existing and that we endow with ‘local behaviour’ for the convenience that comes from re-rendering the world dynamic in this way, as if it arose from locally existing things, their behaviours and their interactions, rather than acknowledging the deeper foundations of dynamics in terms of energy-field-flow (the fluid-dynamic worldview).  So, where you say;

The concept of ‘field’ is inadequate for the spaces within spaces, figures within figures and spaces in figures and figures in spaces of space … which results in the diversity of one inside and through the ground and the ur-ground as obtains, amongst others, in transfigural geometry of TfM.”

… You essentially ground this view in terms of the ‘reality’ of local figures, while I move the grounding back upstream to ‘consciousness’ which creates these local figures from out of the energy-field-flow continuum in which they are ‘flow-features of anthropocentric interest to us..

* * *

One additional note, on another offline thread to this discussion, there is this suggestion, as in Mach’s economy of thought, that all instruction manuals can be thrown away after we have written them, so that the understanding that produced them is ‘the keeper’ and the economy of thought that characterizes their rules and principles is a tool of convenience for us that we should not confuse for ‘understanding’ but which could be picked up as knowledge by those who have not achieved the understanding necessary to develop the rules and principles (e.g. TfM) in the first place.  This, I believe, relates to our discussion on TfM because the understanding needed to develop TfM is where the student wants to get to, and it appears to me that that understanding is what is under discussion at the moment.

regards,

ted

[email addresses removed]

From: Lere Shakunle
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:21 AM
To: ted lumley; kirby urner
Cc: Nicholas French; Howard Ward; John Flach; Walter Gremillion; Alan Rayner; Donald Kunze; doug caldwell; geoff haselhurst; miso zo; yvonne aburrow; Jim Martin; GREGORY FRANKLIN
Subject: AW: a new angle on the same topic?

Ted,

lere,

yes, i understand your critique of fuzzy logic and it takes me back to my motivation to show the picture with the four hurricanes so as to consider the dynamic relationships of multiple dynamic figures within a common ground-flow, because when we consider a single figure within a common ground, the logical contention that develops in our mind.  e.g. if we are an astronaut observing the rotation of the earth is the apparent rotation because the earth is moving or because we, the observer, are moving).  we can say that ‘both are true’ (it is a fuzzy question) since if we put ourselves in a polar orbit like the GPS satellites, the polar ice caps will be rotating around an ‘axis’ through the plane of the earth’s equator, the view being like that of a dancer doing a pirouette, a dancer that has one breast growing forward from her chest and the other breast growing backwards out of her back.

clearly it is not about ‘man’ versus ‘space’ and which of us is doing ‘most’ of the moving, as fuzzy logic would have it.

resolution comes when we expand the scope of our inquiry to acknowledge that both our ‘self’ and the earth are inextricably situationally included in some more complicated dynamic wherein many things are moving under one-another’s simultaneous mutual influence.  as far as conventional mathematics goes, this takes me into the three-body problem wherein there are no solutions that resolve the dynamic into the respective contributions of the individual participants, therefore we cannot think in terms of the influence that sources the dynamic as coming from the individuals, the influence sourcing the dynamics must be coming from ‘beyond the individuals’ and for this, in physics, we have the concept of ‘field’.

so, at this point, i am thinking that your tranfigural mathematics must provide solutions to the three body problem in some meaningful way, although my mathematical aptitudes are not developed to the point that i can yet understand your transfigural mathematics.

meanwhile my inquisitive energies don’t just stop when they hit the ‘three body problem’ since i have no problem in acknowledging ‘field’ as being a deeper source of dynamics than ‘local things’.  my life experience screams out at me that it is the tensions that develop amongst people that is the sourcing influence of behaviour, just as it is the tensions amongst sandgrains that is the sourcing influence of avalanches, and the gravitational field as in ‘relativity’ that sources the movements of many more than ‘three’ bodies that appear to move under each other’s simultaneous mutual influence, such coordinated action not coming from the material bodies themselves, but from the same source as created them, the resonant energy charged field-flow.

how shocking it would be, but only for we have have been subscribing to our western model of our ‘self’ as a local organism with its own locally originating intellect-and-intention-directed behaviour, to face up to the fact that such (absolute) motion does not exist and that our motion is shaped by the dynamics of space that we share inclusion in and that the coordination amongst things that develops naturally (e.g. ecosystems, food webs) within this common space derives NOT from the diverse multiplicity of objects/organisms, but from a deeper substrate, ‘field’, so that we would have to see ourselves as gathering of energy within the field, in the manner of the hurricane or the flow-torus which resembles the lines of force that surround a magnet, giving us a sense of something real, but something which is INVISIBLE and NONLOCAL but which we acknowledge is a real shaping influence on the form, behaviour and organization of tangible things.   relativity and quantum physics takes us farther (following faraday and maxwell’s lead in e/m field theory) and says that the apparent coordination of the planets and of material bodies in general comes from the fact that not only does ‘field’ bring material bodies together and take material bodies apart BUT IT MAKES THESE MATERIAL BODIES (they are the gathering of energy in the fields).

it wouldn’t be a shock if a child were brought up with this understanding, it would make a lot more sense than these notions that we are capable of ‘absolute motion’, that our existence is local (absolute) and our behaviour is locally originating (absolute) from within the interior of our self, and notionally ‘intellect and purpose’ directed (and biochemically powered).

i must confess that i find the western model so ‘full of bullshit’ i really cannot fathom how such ‘logic’ can continue to sustain itself within our culture.   when i was a pre-school child in the family home, i fell the tensions that served as the spatial boundaries for my behaviour.  the tensions (including the persisting threat of punishment) that surrounded the cookie jar, for example.  these tensions were ‘spatial’ and they did not FULLY determine my behaviour but they put limits on my behaviour, kind of like an inverse square law in field strength (and in musical harmonies [Pythagorus]).  the force field persisted around the cookie jar even when my parents were far from the house.

it is convenient to say that my intellect was directing my behaviour, … isn’t that what one would have to say if one’s model of the self were a ‘local system with locally originating, intellect-and-intention-directed behaviour, that moved about absolutely and interacted with others in an absolute fixed and empty space?

so, no matter what my behaviour is, this trick of blaming the intellect and the intention always ‘works’, … even when it gets bloody obvious that the dynamics of space that we are situationally included in is shaping our form, behaviour and organization.  the ‘V’ flying formation of the wildgeese flock is not intellection and intention directed behaviour!  if it were, we wouldn’t even have to mention ‘air’ and ‘airflow’ and ‘turbulent airflow’ and ‘resonances that arise between/amongst the dynamics of inhabitants of the airflow and the dynamics of the airflow (habitat).  we can merely attribute the ‘V’ formation to those ‘local systems/organisms notionally equipped with their own locally originating, intellect-and-purpose-directed behaviours.  their organization is thus ‘fully theirs’, deriving from their purposeful actions.

this is bullshit.  the logic that this model is built from (A ≠ not.A ; matter ≠ space) may be fine logic indeed but propositions based on it DO NOT MAP INTO OUR REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE.  our real-life experience is one of inextricable inclusion within a spatial-relational dynamic that can burn our ass, freeze us, blow us around, submerge us etc. etc.  this we know from our experience, how the hell, then, do we sustain belief in our self as a local system with its own locally originating intellect and purpose-directed behaviour?

do we assume fuzzy logic, that our behaviour derives, at the same time, from internal sourcing (intellect and purpose) and from the spatial relational dynamics we are included in (the tornado, the tsunami, that show the superior power of the dynamic habitat over the dynamics of the inhabitants, which, while it is always there applying its innately prevailing form, behaviour and organization shaping influence, men like to forget about and pretend that it is our own locally originating form, behaviour and organization shaping influence that dominates.   the tornado, tsunami, earthquake, flood, fire etc. are wake-up calls that we who survive them are able to quickly forget about so that we can return to thinking of our form, behaviour and organization as been anthropogenically shaped.  genetic engineering is the ‘mad scientist’ extremism that is coming out of this.  that is, the genetic engineer believes that the organism is a local system so that the changes he makes are constrained to changes to the local system, but how could we even define a local system without including its relationship with the dynamics of space it is included in.

can we describe a wheat plant as a ‘ding-an-sich’, on the basis of its genetic make-up and study ‘its behaviour’?

how do we study a behaviour of the organism out of the context of the dynamic space it is included in?  what does the organism do in a vacuum? what does a man do as a ding-an-sich?  (can we put him in the lab and study him, letting him live his life without ever seeing or interacting with a woman?  since we are saying that the man is an internally-driven purposeful system, can we home in on who he is by removing all of the noise of the living space that could pollute our experiment and isolating him so that we can study ‘what he does’, how his biochemicals are produced to power his body and how his intellect (we’ll give him books to read) directs his behaviour).  is it possible to validate this model of man as a local system with his own locally originating, intellect and purpose-directed behaviour, by laboratory experiment?

when we make our engineering modifications to the wheat plant, how do we know that the change is successful?   can we determine this by examining the modified wheat plant on its own?  after all, we claim that it is its genome that makes it what it is.

or do we have to put it in a field with a lot of other plants and douse it with a chemical called ’round up’ to establish the fact that the genetic modification allowed it to live in spite of being doused with this chemical while it killed outright its pre-modified brother and friends?   this would seem to define its behaviour relative to the dynamics of space that it is included in (e.g. the stuff that it continually absorbs and effuses).

how well does the logic of ‘space ≠ matter’ apply in the case of genetically engineering wheat?   in the diagram of the genome, the blank space of the paper is clearly a non-participating space and the electron-microphotographs of the molecular configurations give a rendering of the only active agents in the picture.  over here on the left is the pre-modified gene configuration and over here on the right is the modified gene configuration.   the geneticist explains to us that the behaviour of the one on the left is such-and-such and the behaviour of the one on the right is a different such-and-such.

if we ask; ‘how do know that’?   he will say that is it from studying the behaviours of different plants and correlating them with their genetic structures.

if he shows us how he puts the seeds in soil and waters them and shines lights on them, we might well stop him and say; “wait a minute; you say that the plant is a local system with its own locally originating internal process directed behaviour’, so why are we muddying the waters by adding this soil and water and light?  how are we ever going to be able to isolate the influence of the soil, water and light; i.e. the influence of the dynamics of habitat, on the shaping of form, behaviour and eco-organization of the plant?  if the plant is a local system with its own locally originating internal process and acorn-to-oak-tree-built-in purpose [telos]. why can’t you just study the behaviour of the plant on its own without cluttering the experiment with earth, air, fire [heat] and water, so that the interference of many things could be the shaping influence on the plant’s form, behaviour and eco-participation [organizational participation]?

what kind of logic is this that takes simple correlations such as the correlation between the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the rise in average global surface temperatures and then searches for a simple CAUSAL model (i.e. ‘greenhouse gas model’) that will satisfy this prerequisite for causal relationship?  by this process we can forget about the dynamics of space within which anything ‘local’ including the earth, is a transient gathering of energy (the dynamics of space [celestial dynamics] influences the form, behaviour and organization of the earth-system.

we know what kind of logic it is.  it is the logic of A ≠ not.A (matter ≠ space) as in the diagram of the genomes of the pre-modified wheat plant and the modified wheat plant where the blank space on the drawing paper represents an absolute, non-participating space.  it is the same sort of diagram as the organization chart of a government or corporation except the ‘active agents’ in the organization chart are notional local human organisms with their own locally originating intellect and intention [boss-provided] directed behaviours. and here again we talk about this organization as if it were a thing-in-itself, a local powerboat with steerage and drive-power all inboard so that we can describe its behaviour out of the context of the dynamic space in which it (in operating mode rather than design mode) is situationally included.

how can we talk about ‘its behaviour’, the behaviour of government or corporation?  what logic is involved?  of course, it is the logic of A ≠ not.A (matter ≠ space).

but genetic engineers don’t have to study logic and neither do the bosses and cogs in these organizations because the logic is already built into the social system within which they operate.  the notion of organization in terms of a local central authority that directs the form, behaviour and organization of its parts, is already based on the logic of A ≠ not.A (matter ≠ space).

if we back off and get slightly more realistic, as in ‘realism’ drawn from our real-life experience of situational inclusion within the spatial-relational dynamics of nature, then we get to ‘fuzzy logic’ wherein the behaviour is coming from both the organization and the dynamic space in which is it situationally included.

but as you say (and i agree) this does not go far enough in the direction of ‘reality’.  in reality, it is as if we are too focused on the flow and the whorl as we were too focused on the orbiting astronaut and the rotating of the earth, and we need to increase the ‘dimensionality’ (using the word ‘dimension’ as a bookmark for meaning that transcends words) by seeing the whorls in the flow as themselves sitting in the middle between the thermal energy rich equatorial regions and the thermal energy poor polar regions so that all of this visible local motion is secondary to this ‘feeling’ immanent in space, of the need for dynamic balance (this is otherwise known as ‘field’ and it is invisible and nonlocal and ‘upstream’ of local visible dynamics).

thus the ‘fuzzy logic’ that acknowledges that the movement is due to BOTH the dynamics of the whorl and the dynamics of the flow which as you see leads eventually to one being seen as greater than the other, is not the logic we need.the ‘logic-of-field’ takes us upstream from ‘local visible things’ and the notion that their behaviour is ‘theirs’ to the invisible nonlocal field whose immanent pursuit of dynamic balance is the primary sourcing influence on form, behavour and organization.

this implies that consciousness is immanent in the dynamic resonant-energy charged field-flow space of nature.  this is the ‘one consciousness’ of schroedinger which explains his contention that local matter is ‘schaumkommen’ (appearances).    this brings us back to the shaping role of ‘field’ as is implied by the ‘lines of force’ as manifest in iron filings on a blank sheet of paper beneath which a magnet sits, the magnet being nothing other than a collection of filings whose internal behaviours have been induced by the earth’s magnetic field (the field is still upstream from the earth).  anyhow, the field is something which not only shapes the behaviour and organizing of things but ‘brings things into being/becoming’. those lines of force imply a relation between space and matter that looks like THIS.

so, the logic that relates space and matter is not the A ≠ not.A (matter ≠ space) sort of logic, not is it the fuzzy logic of A = not.A.  i freely admit this and i used it in a poor logician’s attempt to go beyond this logic.  i will say here that i do not know if transfigural mathematics provides the logic that i am ‘fills the bill’ (satisfies the demands of my experience and intuition), but it is obvious to me that that is where your work orients.  because i am someone whose habit is to NOT simply ‘accept’ the thinking of others unless i can ‘get there as well and think  it through by myself’, that is my only holdout on ‘transfigural mathematics’ (and as i say, being an intuitionist, inquiring into the origins of our social dysfunction has not, for me, been firstly by the path of understanding the implicit logic that we employ.   my inquiry has pursued an intuitive understanding as the first priority (e.g. my intuition informs me that social behaviour and organization is shaped by invisible nonlocal tensions or ‘fields’ and that what we SEE people do (local material body behaviour) is secondary to the invisible, nonlocal field.  further, my intuition informs me that a person can’t change something without, in some way, changing himself.  if men modified their genes so that they would be resistant to the harmful influence of a certain chemical and then sprayed the earth so that all women were killed and only men remained, it would appear that our definition of a man would not persist, which says that we are kiddling ourselves to think we can define a man or any organism as a ‘local system with its own locally originating, internal process and intellect and purpose directed behaviour, that moves about absolutely and interacts with other such automatons within an absolute fixed and empty space.’

meanwhile, the difference i ‘bump up against’ with many thinkers that are similarly pursuing a deeper understanding of the dynamics of nature and how our own dynamics relate, .. is that many amongst this minority (amongst walt’s ‘centereds’) head for the shift away from the ‘organism as local system’ to a bipolar definition wherein the dynamic of the inhabitant and the dynamics of the habitat are intrinsically blurred and where one periodically takes over from the other; e.g. the inhabitants pollute the earth and toss around nuclear bombs, and then the climate takes a turn and burns them up or freezes them out (or the earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes that make the atmosphere toxic to men) take over.  this notion, as you have suggested, is the shortfall in fuzzy logic.  that is why, though i use the phrase;

1. conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation

i always try to disambiguate it by stating in full Mach’s principle; “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat, the intuitive thinking tool picture for which is THIS and THIS wherein we GO BEYOND the ‘three-body problem’ so that we are forced to understand the dynamics in terms beyond the behaviour of a local entity having a ‘behaviour of its own’ (A ≠ not.A or  matter ≠ space) and also beyond the behaviour of a single inhabitant have a joint behaviour together with the habitat ( A = not.A or matter = space) though this logic provides a jumping off point, opening the door to a logic wherein the local object/organism has no behaviour of its own, not even in partnership with the space it is included in, as is implied by Mach’s principle

2, “the dynamics of multiple inhabitants condition one another’s dynamics via the mediating role of the dynamics of habitat that are at the same time conditioning the dynamics of the multiple inhabitants’

now before the reader freaks out and claims that this last logic bears no relation to his personal real-life experience wherein he feels as if he is acting out of his own free will, intellect and purpose,  i would ask him whether or not he feels his behaviour is shaped by the tensions that associate with the spatial relations amongst people which nest within tensions as arise from nature’s elements, and if so, whether these tensional fields dissipate as people dissipate (their lives end).  that is, it is our experience that these spatial relational tensions persist as generations of ‘local material bodies/organisms’ move through them (enter and leave). could it not then be that these tensions we feel inclusion in, are the primary source of our form, behaviour and organization?  in this case, these tensional field that was shaping form behaviour and organization would be a kind of ‘consciousness’ that belonged to ‘space’ or ‘nature’ and furthermore, if we are able to tap into it as we evidently do since it shapes our behaviour (though our cultural model of our ‘self’ as a stand-alone internally dirven automaton forces us to claim that it is OUR CONSCIOUSNESS), … then our consciousness is ‘of nature’ or ‘of space’ rather than being something bundled inside of us as part of the notional inboard powerboater equipment.

it is evident that our notion of ‘having our own thoughts’ portrays ourselves to ourselves as observers of nature who scan our ‘surroundings’ for information that we then use our brains to make sense of and to direct our own behaviour accordingly.  this is a picture in which we navigate ‘through’ the space we are included in.  it is not a picture in which we are made of the energy-charged space we share inclusion in (in the manner of the hurricane in the flow of the atmosphere).  it is further evident that the former (popular western view) is one in which we ascribe to ourselves ‘absolute motion’ (we are moving through a landscape that is stationary, thanks to it being included in a notional absolute space), and that if we were able to assume that we were inclusions in energy-charged field-flow-space, neither our thought not our behaviour could be ‘our own’, but our consciousness would be of the one consciousness corresponding to the dynamic One of nature.  if we were made of ‘field’ as in this toroidal spatial relation, then our consciousness would be ‘situational consciousness’ (i, the One consciousness understand what is going on here in association with this relative gathering)

last, but certainly not least, how could this consciousness be tied to our material body to shape its behaviour?

given that the field-flow sourced habitat-dynamic is organizing energy into the human form and making the neural-netted christmas tree we call ‘the brain’ flicker and light up, there would be a path from situational consciousness to the dynamics of self as inhabitant in the habitat in the same manner as must go on with atmospheric flow and hurricane.  the movement of the hurricane derives from a ‘consciousness’ that is co-extensible with the atmosphere that wraps around the earth and into itself, that it expresses that consciousness through the toroidal flow that is visible and tangible yet still an inclusional flow-feature within the flow.

if we were to put a brain in the hurricane, we would put it within the eye of the storm-cell, inside of the ‘skull-like eye-wall’.  of course the direction would not come from inside of the eye-wall, it would come from the consciousness that is co-extensible with the space that hurricane is included in.

in the case of the hurricane, is its behaviour ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ in any way?

yes,  its behaviour satisfies the provisions in walt’s chart; e.g.  “Each [flow-feature] takes responsibility for the well-being of the world, enabling high levels of decentralization and freedom at the local level, and a sustainable harmony at the global level”.

ok, you may think you see a logical contradiction here in that ‘each flow-feature takes responsibility’ … since i have gone beyond the ‘three body problem’ and accepted that the local flow-feature does not have a behaviour of its own, … but there is no logical contradiction here since ‘responsibility’ does not translate into ‘behaviour’.  the hurricane is born for the purpose of healing imbalance in the spatial relational thermal field.  its behaviour emerges from many flow-features moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence so it does not have its own behaviour, but it has its own responsibility, as all flow-features in nature do, and that is to put itself in the service of restoring and sustaining balance and harmony within a ceaselessly innovatively unfolding evolutionary dynamic.   emerson describes this nicely in The Method of Nature’.

insofar as it has its own ‘situational inclusion’ in the manner of the toroidal flow, it has its own responsibility to put itself in the service of cultivating harmonious flow.

we experience this when we drive in the flow of the busy freeway.  everyone is moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, we are beyond the three-body problem and we no longer have a behaviour of our own (our behaviour orients to the unfolding spatial relational dynamcs we share inclusion in).  our behaviour is relative rather than absolute and it is orchestrated by the transforming spatial relations we are situationally included in.

do we feel that we have ‘responsibilty’?  yes, we do.  we feel that we should put our movements in the service of sustaining harmonious flow in spite of the clumsy or even malicious moves those silly bastards all around us.  of course when we swerve to avoid hitting a mother whose child has escaped from the car seat and is covering her eyes as she tries to climb over into the front seat from the back, we become one of those silly bastards to the next guy over and what with all the swerving and dodging, it soon becomes impossible to isolate the good drivers from the evil drivers; i.e. they have no behaviour of their own simply because they put their ‘responsibility’ into precedence over their ‘behaviour’.

the dysfunction that derives from the popular logic of our western culture (  A ≠ not.A (matter ≠ space) ), comes from putting ‘behaviour’ into precedence over ‘responsibility’ [for the well-being of the world] which starts with assuming that our behaviour i; … ‘locally originating, intellect and intention-directed behaviour’.

if ‘transfigural mathematics’ is the missing logic that does what language cannot do; i.e. is a logic whose symbols take us beyond the symbols and their symbolic meaning to understanding in terms of invisible nonlocal influence (‘field-flow’), then that is great in that it can provide a form of ‘proof’ to validate what comes to us, intuitively, from our real-life experience.

regards,

ted