Naive RealismBy Bonnitta Roy in The MAGELLAN COURSES (followed by commentary and conversation with various course participants. April/May 2012)I am going to venture some comments on the recent thread between Joel, John and Glistening. I thought I would post in little chunks, rather than stack all my notions in one megablaster – so we might tease out some of what is embedded in the incommensurability that shows up. First let me say, that in my opinion, the place of incommensurability is too often, too quickly rejected as pointing to a flaw or failure of thought. It is often the case that the place of incommensurability arises from the aspects of the embodied person that cannot be shared, that can never be shared. This is often a kind of sacred secret… and it seems to me that it would be sacrilegious to require that these types of in commensurabilities be resolved into some shared “workspace.” It is my opinion that the place of absolute union, does not reside with the immanent or the ideal forms, the embodied or the abstract conceptions – but in the onto-genetic processes of their co-relational arising. This allows for us to relax in the direst incommensurabilities. The reason I bring this up, is because Joel, and John and Glistening each are coming from a place of not only high intellection, but also having been deeply moved and profoundly informed through wisdom that has been fully embodied. What is difficult in this special case, is that the material they are working with – questions of final causation, abstract categories, and mathematical ideas – often lead us to the expectation that their separate world-views will sum-up, neatly, like integers, toward a completed, non-fragmented whole. This however, seems to be why we share the world, the one world, both individually and pluralistically – to disincline ourselves of the incommensurability of “different, but same.” That being said, I am going to start my disposition by examining the notion of naïve realism.

(For students of Buddhist scholastics, you can recognize this examination as similar to the dialectics between conventionally valid (or invalid) cognition and ultimately valid (or invalid) cognition – and I will draw on some of the same points, hoping to expand it further into a process ontogeny.)

Let’s start by looking at simple forms of naïve realism. We use the snake and rope story that the Buddhist use. The first form of naïve realism is completely embodied action-reaction. I see something in the grass, I jump back. My instincts have reacted as if what is in the grass is a snake. If what is in the grass is a snake, this is valid, if not, we call it invalid. To ground all belief in the instinctual reactions of my organism, is a very primitive type of naïve realism, that you see today in people suffering from pathological conditions, such as paranoid hallucinations – the result of this type of naïve realism is that the person projects the “change” into the object, not the subject, so that if he did afterwards see that what was in the grass was a rope, he would interpret this as a snake who could magically change itself into a rope (and vice-versa). This is the world of magic.

A more conventional form of naïve realism that we all understand is when the perception we are receiving is invalid. Like putting a cold hand and a hot hand

into lukewarm water. We don’t’ project the different perceptions into the capacity of water to be “two qualities at the same time” , we don’t create a naïve type of realism that believes what we perceive is what is actually real. A similar example is the refraction effect of putting a stick half-way into the water. The stick looks like it becomes bent at the point where it enters the water. These are easy examples for us to see out of, but this kind of error is committed all the time – in situations that are more complex, we confuse what is changing from what is not changing.

So this is the essence of the notion of any kind of realism, which is created by framing reality into the part that changes with respect to the part that does not change. It is a matter of framing figure from ground. We allow the unchanging ground to be accepted, naively as “real” – and each instance of increasing complexity makes it more difficult to see what we have allowed to withdraw into the background, like the various versions of the gravitational “ether” or the light “ether” or whatever you have.

So the first approach to re-cognizing your realism, is to look at what you have allowed to be “in process” and what you have framed as the unchanging ground in which that process is happening. This will frame the place where your realism becomes “naïve” – now I am not prepared to say “relativized” because the notion of everything being relativized itself depends upon a receded ground that does not change – and that is the virtual or abstract or transcendent, if you will, or stabilized, or grounded category of “the observer, aka POV”.

If we look at process narratives that have been created or discovered through time, we can see an interesting trajectory. It turns out there are only 5 process narratives used to explain final causes – construction, development, evolution, emergence, autopoiesis. The trajectory is from an external agent to individual agent within, to inter-dependent adaptive) agency, to distributed agency, to co-agency. What you see is a progressive bringing-forward of what was the prior ground of the previous version of reality, to the point that we have autopoiesis which attempts to eliminate the figure-ground framework entirely.

Now there is a real question of whether thought can happen without the figure-ground separation. This of course is the question at the edge of the onto-logos hypothesis. The point here though is in terms of incommensurability, and naïve realism, is to be able to state what is the established ground that you are working from. What is the ground that you are occupying, implicitly, as you think? Because not to be able to state this ground makes your position “naïve” of this condition.

From this analysis, what are some of the flags of classical physics that point to a naiveté, albeit, complex. Well, for one thing, the belief in the constants of nature – big yellow penalty flag there. Perfectly obvious. So this is a good thing. We see that as long as we have constants of nature, then we are lacking insight. Some of this has been re-imagined as multi-verse, where the constants are different in different universes. Another flag is the constant

speed of light. Or the notion that happenings occur in space and time, or a space-time background.

So you have with Prigogine, for one, attempting to derive space and time, from the processes, from the happenings, not the other way around. Jason Brown’s model of cognitive microgenesis, attempts the same.

Secondly it seems to me, though I am not prepared to support this opinion here, that paradoxes arise in the process of fragmenting figure from ground. And so wherever you have paradoxical situations, this points to the positing of a ground that is hidden or withdrawn, upon which you have inadvertently allowed a type of naivite to rest. This is also tricky, because one man’s paradox, is another person’s genius at play -- so for example, consider the paradox of the retrograde movement of the planets. For Ptolemy, this was no paradox, as he “successfully” explained retrograde through an ingenius and hyper-complex system. Copernicus resolved the complexity in a new simplicity, a new elegance, by establishing the sun as the center of the movements of the planets (of course the ancients new this long before Copernicus). IMO, this is the same situation with the wave-particle duality. Yes, it can be resolved, through complex mathematics and meta-systematic thinking. But I believe the paradoxical nature should be viewed as a road sign as to where the science is failing us, not as a challenge to hypercomplexify our theory. IOW, we need to establish a new vantage point from which to inquire about nature.

So these are just some preliminary thoughts on the notion of naive realism. I will post further ideas about systems, processes and time , eventually....

Joel Morrison So, in general, we can see this move from naivety into deeper and more aware forms of realism (approaching the real, on its own terms *as* the real) in the cycle of differentiation and integration. Naivety is the state of fusion prior to the differentiation. But the simple differentiation is only part of the process and we have to come full circle to a new integration. Also,I am noticing that there is often a higher more subtle level of fusion and naivety that must be noted at the paradigm level, in that the use of the concept of naive realism can be naive if it is fused to the theory it is meant to elucidate. We can come to define naivety simply with any deviation whatsoever with current dogma, assuming that the dualisms and difficulties present can have no deeper integrations. This is naivety at the paradigm level. A fusion between theory and its means of paradigmatic reception of new thought as well as new empirical data, as it winds its way through the statistical manipulations needed to make “sense” of the data in terms amenable to the pre-conceptions of the theory.

In reading further in Prigogine’s End of Certainty last night, some key quotes (below) sing to your points, Bonnitta, of the value and function, and indeed the need to open the foundations of the theory to a new integration in a process and complexity foundation. Note in what follows that Prigogine is saying very clearly (along with others) that current Quantum Mechanics (the science, not speaking about the various metaphysics surrounding and reconciling it) is

fundamentally dualistic (i.e. “paradoxical”), and classically non-dynamic in that it is not founded on a process formulation. Time in quantum theory is *fundamentally* timeless, reversible, and has no arrow, no creativity in nature and no novelty. This doesn’t mean that quantum theory cannot model process by introducing more complexity at a higher level, as it indeed does. Again, we are speaking of digging beneath the problematic (dualistic) foundations. And this also doesn’t mean that quantum theory cannot be integrated to whatever degree into an over-riding process metaphysics. It simply means that the science itself does not do that job ... yet ... and taken on its own, the science does not match a process ontology. But philosophy has been doing this for a long time and indeed, as Prigogine shows, can help point the way, as he opens our reception to this process with the help of Bergson, Whitehead, and others.

The science is simply incomplete, as to be expected, and Prigogine is pointing into the direction of its completion and doing a great deal of the preliminary work. What excites me is that he is pointing precisely in the direction that Sorce Theory is heading, and so I find it valuable for my own work in bridging the far-flung intuited qualitative unification with the more grounded cusp of the fringes of orthodoxy. Note that Prigogine, in comparison, is saying that the current formulation is deterministic or reductionistic, and that we need to dig into the deeper details of the model to open them to a truly dynamic formulation. He does this by moving from the deterministic wave function to the dynamic notion of Poincare resonances, and hence we have no problematic collapse or the dualism surrounding it. Everything is now process based. This is revolutionary! But he’s not stopping with quantum mechanics and its deterministic/reductionistic underpinnings. He’s also showing that this dynamism and process underlies all of classical physics....as we should expect of a true revolution. All of physics must be integrated into a unified whole from this deeper level of “active matter” and infinite difference underlying true complexity.

Bonnitta Roy Yasuhiko Genku Kimura. There are 3 major ways that physics of today commit errors of naivite. 1) The observer is "in" space and time. This one assumption creates the necessity that space and time relativize everything else. We put this premise into our framework of inquiry, and then do all these complex computations and say "hey look its a paradox that space and time are relativized!"...So even though with the use of creative imaginaries, we can work out the relative realities of all these virtual observers (inertial frames)... we can't get the observer outside of space and time. 2) From the POV of the virtual observer where space and time is *in her* -- we get entirely different happenings, because the organization of everything changes quite radically. If you have ever had an OOBE in which all phenomena arise within you, you have a direct observation experience of what this means. If you pellucid dream, you have an analogous experience. Modern day physics needs to incorporate these other POV/frames coherently into the theory. Which they can't, because of the naive position on space and time. From this POV, where the structures of cognitive enfoldment reconfigure, so that all phenomenon arise "inside me" --- there is no movement, and their is no time. This is a direct

observation/experience of the conflation of space,time, movement, or what Gebser would call the "spatiation of time"... Now, once you get to THIS realization, the entire notion that "the further out we look into space, the further into the past we are looking" becomes rather strange, because it is seen to be a trivial tautology -- because if and when we spatialize time, then ipso facto, we will conflate distance with time events.... so we are discovering nothing but the foundational assumptions that have not left us. Now the spatialization of time is not a highly specialized or advanced intellectual understanding. Zeno's paradox, and the paradox of the "number line" all point to the problem with spatializing time. The truth now comes down to the fact that we don't have any idea at all what time is (other than its psychological manifestation). 3) The arrow of time. We need to de-psychologize the arrow of time. We disentangle the arrow of time from the sense of temporics, or something moving along a time line. Because from the POV of the disembeded observer, there is no temporics, but there is phenomenon, and phenomena are asymmetrically related - which is the real meaning of the arrow of time. Asymmetrical relations can be constituted by all the relative frames of observation, as well as the POV of the disembeded observer, who turns out to be the notion of the absented god who presences by her absence. This is something Bhaskar talks about, but doesn't tie it into time. IOW, the POV of the observer who can see that everything is relative, must mean that that observer has a virtual (or absented) POV which is outside the relative universe (not inside space and time) and that happens to be the POV of the god-in-absence.

The fact that QM can not make these POV shifts, leads to the paradoxes of wave-particle, irreversibility, etc... This was the basis of Bohm's critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation -- that the observer involved in the experiment is the naive observer, not the observer who can get a POV from the phenomena. You can see that his holomovement, is "seen, from a virtual POV ouside both the implicit and explicit orders" -- a POV which Bohm considered essential for inquiring about causal categories as foundational as space, time, light, quanta... Of course, this sent him directly into inquiring into thought itself as a system -- Also, for the record, please note, I am not using a transcendental argument for any of this.

Yasuhiko Genku Kimura Bonnitta: Thank you for your gift! An excellent onto-logical analysis of naïve realism. As I very briefly wrote elsewhere, naïve realism is deeply embedded in our way of cognition—of thinking and conceiving, and in fact of being—layers below subtle layers. Your onto-logical analysis of it makes it clear. Our pursuit of knowledge and truth, concomitant with the evolutionary quest of consciousness, is the process of increasing precision for reality-approximation in our attempt at reality-comprehension, and in every step of the way we encounter increasingly subtler naïve realism. What you call “error” is a measure of failure in our reality-approximation. My brief comment on your three errors below:

1) This error comes from the confusion of the (“inner”) “mind space” with (“outer”) “physical space.” Interestingly, however, without the “mind space” there would be no notion of the “physical space” either. Julian Jaynes pointed out in his work that the consciousness with which the present human race has operated for the last 3000 years (which Jaynes proposes what “consciousness” properly is) was developed through the process of linguistic construction through generative metaphors with the concomitant developmental changes in the brain. The “I” of our consciousness is the analogue of our visible body which is viewed as moving around and translocating inside the “physical space” as the body is seen to do. He shows that before the advent of (this mode of) consciousness there was no notions of space-time as we conceive them to be. (He calls the now-extinct mentality that preceded our consciousness “the bicameral mind” of which hypothesis I assume you are familiar.) Therefore, this error you point out is embedded in the very working of our current mode of consciousness and therefore of languaging and being.

When we become aware of the whole workings of consciousness-as-such in this way, that is, when we become meta-consciously aware, we become able to do the kind of onto-logical analysis that you have done here. Then, a new way to a higher precision in reality-approximation opens up. Nothing is how it appears to be all the way down! The next stage of evolution of consciousness, along this line, is the evolution into the meta-consciousness level by the development of a meta-language and meta-languaging (“meta” only from our point of view) in which the metaphors that are constructed are of the linguistic-thought activities taking place in the mind-space.

2) This possibility is what I have tried to show, by using common English (or as common as possible), in several of my essays and article in the past, the latest of which was “Consciousness, Space, and the Foundation of New Science” (2009) which Glistening posted in this forum. Traditionally this cosmovision is called (the postulate of) the Primacy of Consciousness or Mentalism which is as old as the Hermetic Philosophy or the Yogāchāra/Vijñānavāda School of Buddhism, none of which is completely free from various forms of naïve realism, of course. Our challenge today is to integrate the scientific aspiration, knowledge, and formulations into coherent thought systems inside such meta-frameworks, for the accomplishment of which we require a new language and languaging. Both science and philosophy, or physics and metaphysics, will become transformed in the process. (I can see that Joel, John, and other scientists in this group have been working along this line.)

Both Jaynes and Gebser use the term “spatiation of time” but subtly differently. “Spatiation of time” is one of the six major features of Jayne’s (linguistically-metaphorically-constructed introspective) consciousness: “spatiation of time” is that with which consciousness developed the concept of time and space as such, as the analogue “I” moved around in space and time both inside the mind-space and (analogically) in the physical space. That is, spatiation is how time as such was first conceived. Whereas Gebser’s spatiation of time seems to point to a different conception of time, akin to Dogen’s time

conception of being-time wherein and wherewith one imperiences/experiences the momentum of eternity (my word). This Dogenian/Gebserian spatial dimension of time I call the “vertical time” in contradistinction to the “horizontal time” of the common conception. That which emerges from the dynamic, harmonic, unified dance between the vertical time and horizontal time is the eternity imperienced/experienced as a momentum (hence a vector).

Zeno’s Paradox arises not only because of the (linear) spatiation of time but also of the faulty notion of the divisibility of a continuum (in this case the continuum of movement or “flow of time”). A new conception of continuum is required to break this form of naïve realism. As I wrote elsewhere in this forum, wholeness is indivisible while totality is divisible. How we understand reality (which is a wholeness and a continuum) is by totalizing wholeness, that is, by reducing the indivisible into the divisible and then reconstructing all the divided into a totality, or “integrating” all the differentiated into an “integral” totality. Thus, the totalization of wholeness is another form of naïve realism.

3) The term “arrow” of time is obviously a physical metaphor, exemplifying the way consciousness (per Jaynes) models the physical world. In fact, consciousness as such (per Jaynes) is a linguistically-constructed, metaphor-generated (internal) model of the (external) world. Time is a conception and a measure of motion and motion is the other side of asymmetry relations, as you point out.

Asymmetries exist in both the one—many axis and many—many axis. The vertical time is the one—many axis or the noumenal simultaneity dimension, while the horizontal time is the many-many axis or the phenomenal diachrony dimension. The “transdimensional synchronization/synchrony” between the vertical, noumenal, simultaneity-time dimension and the horizontal, phenomenal, diachrony-time dimension brings forth an onto-epistemo-logical, non-localized locus at which the onto-logical (per Roy) observation becomes possible. This onto-epistemological, non-localized locus is not the same as the “god-in-absence,” of course. It is the presence or enpresencing arising from the groundless Ground of Being.

This process of enpresencing David Bohm called the “holomovement” (the superimplicate order the implicate order the explicate order) from an→ → onto-cosmological point of view, wherein the superimplicate order is the ontological foundation/ground of being as unconcealed through the transdimensional synchrony, the implicate order is the transdimensional synchrony ontologically conceived, and the explicate order is the two asymmetries as they manifest in imperience and experience.

The holomovement in the order of the superimplicate to implicate to explicate orders is (the process of) creation. Evolution is the holomovement in the reverse order in which that which is the implicate order becomes the explicate order and that which is the superimplicate order becomes the implicate order and that which was hidden and concealed (i.e., the

unconceivable/unobservable) becomes the superimplicate order unconcealed. What we call naïve realism is mistaking the explicate order as the whole of reality without the awareness or cognizance of the implicate and the superimplicate orders.

Yasuhiko Genku Kimura With respect to the issue of incommensurability, for example, energy, mass, and velocity(of light) are mutually incommensurable because they have three distinctly different units of measurement. And yet together they form a beautiful equation: E=MC2. This is one analogy for how we can transform incommensurability into higher unity and harmony.

Bonnitta Roy One of the reasons why I ultimately disagree with Bohm's holomovement is that Bohm needed an infinite regress of ever-more-subtle implicate orders that enformed the next level explicate orders... in my origmai-modelled mind, the two orders are not needed. The continuous process stream (phase, plasmid...) merely folds, unfolds, and infolds, upon itself, creating interfaces. The interfaces can be seen as structures. Tracing relationship between structures is an ontic way of looking at "folds". Jason Brown's process theory of cognition is similar to this view. Prior to the unification of the process into a unit of being that stands in for its becoming (aka the ego), the process enfolds (articulates) from core(source) through whole-part transformations, layers enfolded in evolutionary history... Because Jason Brown is only dealing with conventional waking states, he sees this configuration of structural enfoldment of the cognitive occasion as being either "fixed and healthy" or "disrupted and pathological". What I see is that the configurations of the enfoldments, (which give rise to the illusion of boundaries) are fluid and flexible, and such that although conventionally, our cognitive reality arises as a mind inside a body inside a world, inside space and time, it can also reconfigure to allow the experience of the world, space and time inside of "me"... or "me" inside my body (hypnogogic states)... or me outside my body inside the world of space and time (OOBE, remote viewing)... the range, fluidity, lucidity, and variety of these reconfigurations seems to have something to do with a kind of resonance frequency of energies, perhaps the fold metaphor has some wave-like analogous aspects that can bridge the notion of fold, interface and energy.

For me time any given class of object is discretely identified as the duration of the event over which its onto-genetic (involuted) process arises, from lets imagine, the duration which for the smallest monad translates to the Planck scale (note: a duration is neither a temporal or spatial measurement, but a kind of gather-ing of antecedent history along the existant's path, as it arises into existence and perishes, moment-to-moment, the duration of the "moment" also discrete to the class of existant)... up to the "monstrously complex" class "human", whose onto-genetic "fingerprint" is monstrously huge.... but neither fixed nor given, as it arises and perishes moment to moment.

The movement of the arising, from interior to exterior, across the duration of the articulation, accounts for the psychological aspect of space, and the asymmetric relation of the interface/structures accounts for time (ie. there is an arrow of onto-genetic arising). When a cognitive arising truncates at the affect stage, in deep, pre-dream-state sleep, space and time are altered... when the cognitive arising articulates to waking state, space and time are altered again... etc...

Everything in the background continuum that does not achieve unification of the involuted material across the duration of its potential arising, does not fold (structurate), but "waves".. so that there is interference that effects the potential arisings of the next moment... this gives reality a deeply inter-penetrating co-creative aspect, with an arrow of time...

The wave-particle experiment can be explained as the irruption of the onto-genetic cycle such that the discrete particle does or does not achieve (agentic) unification... ie. enfold at interface, structurate... (something analogous to the ego not appearing in deep dreamless sleep --- analogous only because the processes are self-similar and iterate at different scales, not analogous because of anything like the quantum mind theory)

Although each member in each class of existant (atom, bee, elephant, tree) are discretely identified by the duration of the onto-genetic arising, which accounts for its agentic (subjective)unification (agency, telos)... and therefore share this identity, and also share a range of " psychological time", if "time" can be thought of as psychologizing in a tree.. the arising and perishing cycles are not in sync (except perhaps for some classes of existants, like photons that are coupled) and therefore you can imagine that they are coming and going into reality out of sync with all the others members, so their perspectives are all different, but same (arising through self-similar processes in the one real)

For me this model works fractally from the smallest to the largest scale, across both subjective and objective views... and is consistent with the kinds of new ways of thinking about time, chaos theory, subjects, objects ... deep intuitions about wholeness and unity, as well as uniqueness and authenticity, ... etc....

Glistening Deepwater the question arises as I am feeling into is the inquiry into the 'relationship' between 'ground of being' which enpresences and enlivens, animates, permeates and yet is unaffected by all which arises 'within' it - and the aspects we could describe as "transcendence & immanence" which are polar apprehensions of the intimate yet invisible 'substrate' of being.

So in my mind, the 'transcendent' which includes the immanent is not different to that within which it arises, in essence, (although I acknowledge that it is differentiated from it in order to arise at all) yet I feel I am missing something - simply due to the 'reaction' I see to the term 'transcendent', I must be missing some hidden (to me) meaning related to it. Perhaps I am falling into sloppy thinking or inappropriate use of terms?

I sense a derailment at the point where philosophical discourse and scientific endeavor fail to find adequate grounds for mutual respect. This may well be a difficult cultural shadow emerging in philosophy (quite possibly as an unconscious response to the perceived rigidity of scientific methodology) - I hope to go some way toward illuminating this possible opportunity to "come clean" in my efforts to contribute value to the overall conversation between science and spirituality, which seems to require the mediation of philosophy.

My meta-psychological analysis of the territory in which these fields interact is tending toward this preliminary assessment anyway...

Glistening Deepwater the question arises as I am feeling into is the inquiry into the 'relationship' between 'ground of being' which enpresences and enlivens, animates, permeates and yet is unaffected by all which arises 'within' it - and the aspects we could describe as "transcendence & immanence" which are polar apprehensions of the intimate yet invisible 'substrate' of being.

So in my mind, the 'transcendent' which includes the immanent is not different to that within which it arises, in essence, (although I acknowledge that it is differentiated from it in order to arise at all) yet I feel I am missing something - simply due to the 'reaction' I see to the term 'transcendent', I must be missing some hidden (to me) meaning related to it. Perhaps I am falling into sloppy thinking or inappropriate use of terms?

of course terms and definitions in an inquiry of this nature can be some of the greatest stumbling blocks we have, so I feel compelled to seek clarity in regard to their appropriate use and meaning in the context of the evolving conversation :)

Joel MorrisonGlistening: "What makes the "POV" of presence or enpresencing arising from the groundless Ground of Being "not" transcendent (if that term is recognised as inclusive of that which is immanent) - is this semantics or something deeper?"

Because the ground is groundless all phenomena are both immanent and transcendent. It's essentially a function of perspective which aspect will take precedence. In SZ I touch on this necessity with the problems of "substance and bundle views of Substance," among other places, as well as with the principle of immanence in transcendence.

Glistening Deepwater Thank you Joel, your work has done much to assist in the development of my ability to articulate my understanding as is stands - however I feel there is room for further exploration into this fundamental rootless root of all understandings via the languaging and articulation of a variety of interdisciplinary synthesisers - as the terms are having the tendency to derail

the development of mutual resonance as we approach from our respective POV's...

Joel Morrison You are welcome. Yes, there is always room. I am not seeing the derailment, however, so I thought it would help to throw my pov into the mix.

Glistening Deepwater I sense a derailment at the point where philosophical discourse and scientific endeavor fail to find adequate grounds for mutual respect. This may well be a difficult cultural shadow emerging in philosophy (quite possibly as an unconscious response to the perceived rigidity of scientific methodology) - I hope to go some way toward illuminating this possible opportunity to "come clean" in my efforts to contribute value to the overall conversation between science and spirituality, which seems to require the mediation of philosophy.

My meta-psychological analysis of the territory in which these fields interact is tending toward this preliminary assessment anyway...

John RinglandIt is great to see people actively discussing this topic! That's very rare and very necessary.

I'll take some time to contemplate what has been said here...

Meanwhile, if anyone is interested, here's a description (in simple terms) of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which is just one of the many reasons why more and more physicists are saying things like "Quantum mechanics forces us to abandon naïve realism." (B. Rosenblum and F. Kuttner):http://www.quora.com/In-simple-terms-what-does-the-Stern-Gerlach-experiment-imply-about-the-nature-of-quantum-systems-and-observable-phenomena

And this briefly discusses the role of naive realism in science: http://www.quora.com/What-questions-can-science-not-answer-yet/answer/John-Ringland

And this outlines both a naive realist and non-naive realist approach to the issue of consciousness: http://www.quora.com/What-is-consciousness/answer/John-Ringland

Glistening Deepwater Ok Bonnitta, I followed you well on the responses to the Naive Realism thread up to this point;

"For me time any given class of object is discretely identified as the duration of the event over which its onto-genetic (involuted) process arises, from lets imagine, the duration which for the smallest monad translates to the Planck scale (note: a duration is neither a temporal or spatial measurement, but a

kind of gather-ing of antecedent history along the existant's path, as it arises into existence and perishes, moment-to-moment, the duration of the "moment" also discrete to the class of existant)... up to the "monstrously complex" class "human", whose onto-genetic "fingerprint" is monstrously huge.... but neither fixed nor given, as it arises and perishes moment to moment."

Forgive me if this seems presumptuous, but I have to know!

If the "onto-genetic fingerprint" is to be what that term implies, there must be a structure of some sort passed from moment to moment in order for a discrete anything to exist in a continuous manner, to my mind anyway, there must be some residual build up of "information" upon which the process of moment to moment arising can operate in order to result in evolving phenomena and complex form...

"The movement of the arising, from interior to exterior, across the duration of the articulation, accounts for the psychological aspect of space, and the asymmetric relation of the interface/structures accounts for time (ie. there is an arrow of onto-genetic arising). When a cognitive arising truncates at the affect stage, in deep, pre-dream-state sleep, space and time are altered... when the cognitive arising articulates to waking state, space and time are altered again... etc..."

Interior to exterior in relation to the subjective experience? are space and time altered, or is it the possibility of apprehension that allows the concepts of space and time to arise in relation to it - so it is experienced differently at different stages of consciouness arising to awareness?

"Everything in the background continuum that does not achieve unification of the involuted material across the duration of its potential arising, does not fold (structurate), but "waves".. so that there is interference that effects the potential arisings of the next moment... this gives reality a deeply inter-penetrating co-creative aspect, with an arrow of time...

The wave-particle experiment can be explained as the irruption of the onto-genetic cycle such that the discrete particle does or does not achieve (agentic) unification... ie. enfold at interface, structurate... (something analogous to the ego not appearing in deep dreamless sleep --- analogous only because the processes are self-similar and iterate at different scales, not analogous because of anything like the quantum mind theory)"

Whilst my mind can imagine what you are describing here, these are very abstract concepts for which some more thorough proofs would be required in order that a fully comparative explication be arrived at imo. Is there a more thorough treatment of this material that I can look into yet?

"Although each member in each class of existant (atom, bee, elephant, tree) are discretely identified by the duration of the onto-genetic arising, which

accounts for its agentic (subjective)unification (agency, telos)... and therefore share this identity, and also share a range of " psychological time", if "time" can be thought of as psychologizing in a tree.. the arising and perishing cycles are not in sync (except perhaps for some classes of existants, like photons that are coupled) and therefore you can imagine that they are coming and going into reality out of sync with all the others members, so their perspectives are all different, but same (arising through self-similar processes in the one real)

For me this model works fractally from the smallest to the largest scale, across both subjective and objective views... and is consistent with the kinds of new ways of thinking about time, chaos theory, subjects, objects ... deep intuitions about wholeness and unity, as well as uniqueness and authenticity, ... etc...."

While I love the idea that this all makes sense, we will need to expound upon all the various aspects in relation to other emerging fields of inquiry in order to actually legitimate this approach. Have/can we begin to map out the various aspects of this "onto-logical" view such that the relations to psychology, biology, physics and mathematics are made explicit enough to bear serious analysis by someone approaching the ideas for the first time?

Bonnitta Roy The resulting paradoxical inconsistencies render the agency of change - energy - into an extrinsic force instead of an intrinsic inductive influence.

It is, in effect, the zero viscosity universal ‘medium’ that enables the non-zero viscosity informational ‘message’ of tangible energetic form to configure and reconfigure into myriad shapes and sizes – local ‘figures’ that cannot be isolated or cut away from their spatial ‘ground’ as independent singular entities

The above quotes from Rayner, are exceptional examples of post-dialecct onto-logics. Note especially "figures that cannot be isolated or cut away from their spatial ground" -- PRICELESS!

Glistening Deepwater - please note, I am not doing physics, I am writing philosophy -- the potential value of it is to science is to identify and describe theories, models that demonstrate systems thinking that are not based on dualistic frameworks -- so that those who are doing physics, or biology, or theology, can in a sense "start over" from there, from the new paradigm ... it cannot directly answer the paradoxes that arise within the old paradigm -- it can alleviate those paradoxes. So for example, in my tutorial videos I predicted that the final resting ground of all dualistic or polarity frameworks is the separation of figure and ground. Now, I have never before the above quote by Rayner, witnessed this being made explicit as a foundational correction to physics... but there you have it. Where did Rayner get this idea? Probably from thinking philosophically, as Bhaskar likes to say, where philosophy "underlabors" for science -- creates the ability to disengage and deconstruct the limiting foundational assumptions of the existing paradigm. When Darwin thought of evolution -- he saw things in a new light that didn't fit anywhere in the existing cave of understanding. When Darwin thought of evolution, except

for a few people thinking closely like him, the only process narrative that humans had to look at change was construction or development -- they couldn't even imagine the process dynamics that drive and account for evolutionary change. Darwin teased that into existence, through a whole new mind. 200 years later, we are still filling in the blanks, and this process is telling us that there's a lot that evolution has got wrong. Hence the emergence of EDS (evolutionary developmental systems theory). This is what Kuhn pointed out -- that science itself has neither the muster nor the motivation to create paradigm change from within. There is always a rift, a complete change in the foundational assumptions, that need to "bail out science" as it were, into the next wave. That's just the way it happens. So here I am, the gadfly as it were, peskering those who have studied harder, perhaps, invested more, perhaps, understood a whole lot more, for sure... and asking them to put most of that aside, for a while, and try out a whole new mind. My hope is that in doing so, in seeking and finding others that are doing so from within a specific discipline, like physics or psychology or theology, we will be able to "name the process" that is finding its way through us, and facilitate its emergence. Because I think this can contribute to this knowing, this unraveling of what pieces of the old framework need to be let go of, and what kinds of categories can replace them, to the benefit of knowledge, understanding, opening our choice field to solve problems. I don't expect you to swallow my own imperfect models hook line and sinker. I hope they work as models for what an onto-logical system looks like, what an origami fold might be, in translation to a specific domain... I hope they offer thought experiments that can be used to reorient the way we think about science, how we fit the phenomena together in a meaningful way...

I think also, that there might be individuals who are working in a specific domain who can benefit from the affirmation of others, like a Joel meeting a Rayner... for these individuals to see they are a part of a larger emergence across multiple domains... and to support similar work even when it is not entirely subsumed by their own theories or ideas... to become endlessly innovative in science...

Troy Camplin Paradoxes are fundamental to the universe. I ascribe to an ontology of information. Information is that which is without form, which gives form (inherently paradoxical). It gives rise to a quantum physics made of particle-waves (digital-analogue, and thus paradoxical).

http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2010/08/beauty-and-paradox-from-my-diaphysics.html

http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2012/03/summary-of-history-of-cosmological.html

http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2009/10/beauty-and-paradox.html

Troy Camplin http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2006/03/informational-ontology.html

Joel Morrison Well, we have to understand what "paradox" is. In my view, it's simply a view at nonduality or polarity which doesn't integrate at the deeper level. In SpinbitZ, for example, I show the deep polarity underlying all of mathematics which gives rise to the dual diction in contra in the paradoxes of the infinite, notably Zeno's core paradox of plurality. While the polarity never goes away, it can be "tuned and triuned" and understood and made sense of at the deeper level, and in this sense, the "paradox" or friction is resolved into an understanding of the core polar/nondual nature of reality....through the lens of proto-conceptual and proto-ontological mathematics.

Troy Camplin It is the dynamic nonresolution of pardoxical binaries that give rise to a more complex third. "The one gives rise to the two, the two gives rise to the three, and the three gives rise to the multitude" -- Tao Te Ching. Self-referential, self-paradoxical information gives rise to paradoxical relations that interact to give rise to a series of ever-more-complex states.

Joel Morrison Yes, I think we are talking about the same thing, Troy. I reference this quote from the Tao in the outline of the embryogenesis of the concept used throughout SpinbitZ. Very cool, thanks!

Bonnitta Roy Welcome Troy Camplin - I hope you find something of value in our courses ... the purposes of which are to overcome the impression that thinking and reasoning must occur within the formal operations based in dualistic categories, polarities or paradoxical tension. Our working hypothesis is that prior to the mental structure of consciousness, there was no dialectical reasoning, and therefore, there is no need to believe that we are forever limited to its constructions. The quote from the Tao Te Ching is completely misinterpreted, in my opinion, having studied Daoism and Hua-Yen Buddhism (its scholastic counterpart in China) and your dialectic interpretation -- although preferred by the Kyoto school of Zen which was equally enamored of the Hegelian triology-- is an anathema to the Daoist mindset, which is not a pyramidal type of reasoning structure... hence the one begets the two which begets the third -- and then the multitude, means exactly that -- a proliferation of forms, not a function ascendance to a synthetic third or triunity. This is not dialectic thinking anymore than 5 element theory (which is also based in Daoist metaphysics) is dialectical. Yes, there is movement and interpenetration, but nothing at all like "cumulative" interpenetration... So yes, there is certainly the kind of reasoning that you are describing! It is certainly most pervasive at this period in history. And it results in a particular type of ontology that is welded to its formal operations. Here on this journey we are interested in the possibility for post-formal types of reasoning, that represent a major break with the mental structures of reasoning, where the key characteristic would be the reconciliation of the categories into asymmetrical homologies contextualized by the process dynamics of their onto-genesis,

namely by the asymmetrical contributions of onto-genetic processes and ontological processes -- the former associated with involutionary dynamics, the latter with evolutionary (or evolutionary-developmental) ones.

here is an easy to watch video on the evolution of dialectical reasoning and the potential for post-dialectical forms of reasoning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fIrTJaj8DTcPart 2 Dialectical Reasoning and Mental Structure of Consciousnesswww.youtube.comPart 2 of the What is the Magellan Course: Dialectical Reasoning and the Mental Structure of Consciousness

Matthew Wesley I am no physicist, but I understand that there are a number of folks who are toying with the questions about the explanatory power of two dimensional models of the universe based on information encoded as an event horizon and that this could hold the key to cutting through a number of what are currently very puzzling cosmological issues in physics. I can see immediately that this would open significant directions for both philosophic and phenomenological frameworks and the trajectories of conversations. I bring this up because it seems that, as a creative imaginary, this framework has massive implications for questions of naive realism, perception, coming to agreements, emergent waves of development, and so on. For those of us who don't have the background, could any of you who do comment on these models?

Matthew Wesley Following up...I am intuitively finding myself wanting to go to place in response to Lauren's posting of 20 hz and the subsequent discussion of it and Flux where a great deal of what is "happening" has to do with the con-fusion of reciprocal illusions - none of which is "real". If we are literally seeing "nothing" but images and are part of that imaginal systems itself in ways that sustain and support and express that matrix of information flow, is it any wonder we find ourselves meandering in a world where we attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable - it is like asking how one "reconciles" da Vinci and Monet...how does one "reconcile" or synthesize the imaginal? It becomes a matter of play and agreement - much as a little child's game of make believe - and it then becomes a matter of shared language games and references that allow one to collude in one anothers' illusions within larger illusions in a continual but variable state of "flux at 20 hz." It seems to take notions of "objectivity" or "substance" and time and dissolve these into two dimensional issues...we are no longer discussing objective reality on which we can "agree" (or even consider ourselves subjects in a four dimensional world). But rather that we are having conversations within and about constantly shifting flows of information that compose themselves in process based on informational affinities and associations. We would sit as constitutive pieces of information that are shaping other information in flows of infolding and unfolding. It would then be pretty obvious that it is impossible to reconcile your hologram with

mine - indeed the question very wouldn't even make sense - we could however shift the experience of the hologram's experiencing of itself by listening to one another and creating new social holograms that unfold novel combinations of information. Autopoesis would, it seems, become a collapse into one possible coherence of information states. Again, this is probably an incredibly naive set of questions and possible implications and I look forward to hearing some responses by people who understand the physics and who can set me straight. ; ) I really do look forward to getting feedback on all of this.

Bonnitta Roy Matthew Wesley - priceless! this is the function of art, I think, as opposed to systems thinking... there is a kind of incommensurable uniqueness that gives life to art, to imaginaries, to felt-sense, to experiences of open wonder, that curiously also evoke a sense of inter-nascence, or inter-being... that wonder can be shared as an immanent field of inter-subjective awareness, a coherence, yes, where the ambiguity of the object-without suggests an intimacy within.

in fact, in many ways, this is what it is for an object to be an object for a subject -- to express its realness as being shared in a direct and immediate way. the object belongs to this felt-sense of realness...

i think we can't rest on the properties of naive realism, but i think we must rest on the properties of naive realness

Andrew Wait ...the "felt presence of immediate experience". That's what's real.

Matthew Wesley Bonnitta Roy mmm...basking...thanks. I find myself humbled that you think this worthwhile.

Bonnitta Roy or Joel Morrison or anyone - care to comment on the physics? what sense do you make of the science behind this stuff? or does that matter?

Joel Morrison Yes, Matthew. This is a fascinating topic. And there is a deep grain of truth in this move to reducing/unifying dimensionality, especially to a polarity. And indeed this is the axis of Tao. And this is also what I do in SpinbitZ, but I do so in the context of the embryogenesis of the concept, where dimensionality itself takes on a much different understanding at the interface between ontology and epistemology. In SZ there are two core dimensions unfolded at this deeper, proto-conceptual level, and their con-fusion (conflation of a pre-fusion) is the key cause of the paradoxes of the infinite. Two core types of infinity in implicit polar operation, and contra-diction in the process of differentiating them out before their higher-level integration.

But in SpinbitZ II this is all becoming more explicit in the embryogenesis of dimensionality proper, and in the context of a catalysis of what I consider the

cutting edge of physics and cosmology, namely Sorce Theory, and Electrical/Plasma and Self-Similar Cosmologies. In these models, together, I am tracing out the embryogenesis of dimensionality, the embryogenesis of the states of matter, in the process of elucidating the unification of the forces in a immanent-causal and qualitative understanding of the relevant quantitative and empirical findings taken beneath the many confused attempts at interpretation to this point.

Bonnitta Roy I think the holographic framework arises from a deep seated collective unconscious intuition of interpenetration-- IOW, the science comes up *through* the framework, not the other way around. This is something I was reading again just yesterday from the article Mark Frazier posted about Charles Sanders Pierce -- the power of hypothesis (or creative imaginaries) to carry science forward in a way that the framework is transparent to the discovery... and what we know from JB is that the felt sense is always already alive and foundational to the image, which is foundational to the abstraction (another way to say this is through Joel Morrison 's notion of the embryogenesis of the concept) ... so the framework -- what we want to see, what we need to see-- is part of the involutionary-given feeling of the real, and yet this can be allowed to float up into awareness and become fluid and creative -- so in terms of holographic framework, holographic appreciation... very deep involutionary history here, upgraded to fit/meet new data and new epistemes, so yes, comes close to universal appeal:

here is Steve Odin on Hau-Yen Buddhism text Ocean Seal (circa 625-702):

The dialectical interpenetration of unity and multiplicity or subjectivity and objectivity in Hua-Yen Buddhism essentially represents a microcosmic-macrocosmic model of reality wherein each dharma or event becomes a living mirror of the totality, reflecting all other dharmas -- past, present and future alike -- from its own standpoint in nature, so that the flowery splendor of the one universe is multiplied ad infinitum in a paranamic and kaleidoscopic spectacle of simultaneous-mutual-reflections ... may be expressed in terms of contemporary "holographic" model as a three-dimensional multi-colored laser projection, bright and vivid, yet wholly transparent, wherein each part is an image of the whole.

Joel Morrison So, I'd say, if you are interested in the cutting edge of cosmology, I'd invest time into the Electric Universe model. It has been having spectacular predictive/explanatory success lately, especially in comparison to the gravitocentric Big Bang model in use by NASA, in predicting the findings of its probes.

See http://www.thunderbolts.info/ http://www.thunderbolts.info/ www.thunderbolts.info

Joel Morrison So, another key difference with my pov and that in the common cosmologies is that the embryogenesis I am discussing is not a temporal sequence. It's not a cosmogeny or an origin story so much as a move into the structure of the unfolding of the complexity simultaneously and asynchronously throughout an infinite and eternal cosmos. Imho, there is no evidence at all for an expanding cosmos, and no reason to assume it had a beginning. All of that is interpretation and falsified over and over, with much simpler and down to earth explanations, which have more predictive power. But this is a topic worthy of deep analysis in its own right, of course.

Johan B Holm Bonnitta:What if we can agree that naive realism is actually only pointing to a starting point. "Pure innocence". It took 4600volts , high amperage, a steel stand on rubber wheels with a 20X20ft metal frame attached , bare feet and cardiac arrest to wipe the slate clean so that, when I came back into life, I could witness and experience perfection. No name, no past history and no identity, but with a clear awareness of a "self" present. This experience became my starting point on my journey through life leading towards "innocence" being replaced by consciousness. It has been one heck of a journey so far and joining The Magellan Courses is turning out to be a precious gift.Thank You Bonnitta from the bottom of my heart.

Glistening Deepwater Bonnitta, this; "we can't rest on the properties of naive realism, but i think we must rest on the properties of naive realness" speaks deeply to me of the experience of embeddedness, the core deep knowing that "I Am That". As the naive object of experience itself. From this place of "self-acknowledgement", the factor which allows for the credulity required to participate can be gently teased out into awareness.

I think we are making progress ♥

Johan B HolmGlistening Deepwater:I am not at all sure that it is naive realness that we should rest on. From my own experience I am much more inclined to rest on the "knowing" of "I Am and I Know That I Am". By including the knowing with I Am there is no longer separation. This can now become the ground that I can rest on and also from which the knowing can begin to participate and manifest.When this is held in my awareness it will of its own accord begin to find ways in which it can participate and manifest. When it does,it will not cause reaction as it will evoke responses that are of a kindred nature.

Glistening DeepwaterJohan, you express a deeper level of awareness of being than most 'folk' are ready to attain - so as a good and necessary (imo) step in that direction, we could realise ourselves as that which thinks it is that which appears to be (or is experienced as being). This way we build a bridge from the naive to the illumined mind - with the benefit of being able to share the process of bridge

building and gift that to to 'folks' in general...

Joel MorrisonFrom:http://www.protevi.com/john/Delanda-Protevi.pdf

DeLanda: ... Deleuze’s main contribution to philosophy, it seems to me, is to have rescued realism (as an ontological stance) from the oblivion in which it has been for a century or more. In some philosophical circles to say that the world exists independently of our minds is tantamount to a capital crime. Non-realist philosophers (from positivists to phenomenologists) have created a straw man to kick around: the naive realist, who thinks we have unmediated access to the external world and who holds a correspondence theory of truth. So the key move here was to create a viable alternative form of realism to deprive non-realists of that easy way out. Similarly, when it comes to defend the autonomy of non-human entities (atoms, molecules, cells, species) the crucial manoeuvre is to account for their mind-independent identity without bringing essences into the picture. To take the most obvious example, the real identity of a hydrogen atom is usually treated by realists (like Bhaskar, for example) as founded in the possession of an essence, having one proton in its nucleus, given that if we add another proton it loses its identity and becomes helium. Deleuze’s process ontology, however, cannot afford to do that. The identity of any real entity must be accounted for by a process, the process that produced that entity, in this case, the “manufacturing” processes within stars where hydrogen and other atoms are produced. When it comes to social science the idea is the same: families, institutional organizations, cities, nation states are all real entities that are the product of specific historical processes and whatever degree of identity they have it must be accounted for via the processes which created them and those that maintain them.

Glistening Deepwater I wonder if, from the emerging structure of consciousness that Bonnitta describes in the tutorial videos, we will be able to simultaneously entertain the seemingly opposing yet equally valid views of both the transcendent and the immanent approaches to 'reality'?

Perhaps when we have developed the capacity to accept that there are multiple accurate reflections of that which gives rise to the experience of 'reality', we will be able to get beyond labeling and defending our positions, and engage with that which is in the acknowledgement that there are myriad valid views.......one day.......

Joel Morrison Are we not doing that already, Glistening?

Glistening Deepwater we few are moving in that direction, but I don't think even we are fully there yet - and so much of the material we have to draw on in order to relate viewpoints to each other are still framed in a way which does not support us to

do so - I am grateful that we at least are taking up the challenge but I see the difficulties arising all the time, especially when we need to bring in the work of so many conflicting approaches in order to convey our ideas

Joel Morrison I personally feel the immanent and transcendent approaches are integrating quite well, and quite optimistic in the interfacing, but clearly you are feeling some conflicts. Can you elucidate them a bit? What are the conflicting approaches? And is not conflict an opportunity in itself for new creative ground?

Glistening DeepwaterIt's subtle Joel, I am still feeling my way into it, I have an (admittedly dysfunctional) aversion to conflict so that may well be precipitating my feelings - for one thing - and there is a tiredness in me when I face the "wall of philosophical discourse" (as it appears to me) upon which the "graffiti" of generations of thinkers has been etched in layers so thick that is feels like armor plating on the "universal mind".

My mind is longing for the simplicity that it knows is at the heart of all the inquiries - to encounter raw, naked truth, free of all the interpretive baggage .... ho hum .... ♥

Joel MorrisonAhhh, well I am just frolicking I'm the complexity as it's pointing to a larger simplicity for me, and granted I may have an opposing penchant for enjoyment in both complexity and creative conflict. At any rate, I felt the quote offered some simple clarity on the deleuzian thread here, one which you had dipped into as it interfaced complexity itself recently in this group. Maybe reread it again with an eye to what it simplifies instead of what arises in you as conflict? Personally I would word things differently than DeLanda so as to effect a more balanced feel across the idealistic/materialistic divide so common in be circles I seem to find myself in, but I'm not sure if that's what's at the heart of your reaction.

Glistening Deepwater I think it is this interface between materialism and idealism that feels so dense and impenetrable at times - and it is philosophy's role to integrate these dichotomous approaches - I have seen many well intentioned attempts to do so, some more coherent than others, some more complex than others, and this is work I value highly and enjoy immensely - there is also a "dark side" to all this, where super intellects go into battle as if their very lives depended on their idea being right and true, and this can give rise to arguments that are almost identical being used for opposing points.

I am not suggesting that this is what is happening here necessarily, (in fact this forum is refreshingly open minded and egalitarian) just that these are trends I have observed over time, and that I hope we will be able to surpass in our lifetimes :)

When ideas can be expressed into the intersubjective space without 'personal' attachment to cognitive objects, we may be able to innovate more and experience conflict less...and not just in philosophy!

Joel MorrisonThere will never be an end to difference of opinion, and we will hopefully never lose our passion for our personal paths and the ideas that empower us. And so long as those remain, conflict of some sort is inevitable. I'm just not seeing much of a problem with it at Magellan. And this thread is a great example of the creative outcome of some of the conflict that has happened here. And frankly, if there never is conflict at all, then I'd be more concerned that boundaries are not being pushed enough! I'd rather be in a space open to conflict than one so afraid of it that nobody is ever challenged. But, it all feels healthy and creative to me here, especially in this thread.

Glistening DeepwaterI agree with you and I understand the point and value of conflict - I am being transparent for the sake of being an example of how subjectivity can effect an inquiry! I am much more able to work with challenge now than in the past, because I am aware of this subtle conflict aversion and I take it into account when feeling into my reactions.

Thank you for participating with me as I open up these areas of my psyche, it is the trust I have that we are willing to challenge ideas without having personal conflict attached that encourages me to do so.

Bruce KunkelLovely ~ Appreciate your sentiments, Glistening (and Joel). I feel we are practicing here with great intention to probe, explore, exercise and strengthen promising paths of an authentic *yes/and* way of being/negotiating more inclusive understandings - sensitive and alert, committed to sharing with one another the traps everywhere that would snag our explorations in their nets, as well as those occasional brilliant lanterns that rip through the dark, the opaque, with luscious clarity - even if only momentary. Practice! Language itself, along with it's imbedded stealth *authorities* and discursive cosmic habits is a prime candidate for modification for more "effectatious" inter-subjective broadenings. Loving this special company madly! The all-of-us on this scent of next!

Bonnitta RoyI remember at my 2010 ITC presentation, where I first introduced the term "onto-logics" and afterwards Bruce Kunkel asked me "how can we facilitate this progress of moving away from dialectic, discursive thought?" ... well here we are....

I think that the paper Weinbaum (Weaver) [ why does he have two last names? ] paper on Deleuze and the philosophy of becoming is a prime candidate for describing onto-logical reasoning. I never heard Deleuze talked

about this way -- and Weinbaum is describing his interpretation of Delanda's interpretation of Deleuze -- so maybe int his trifecta, Delueze's ideas move toward a more onto-logical flavor.

Here are some clear indications (based on the chart I have for onto-logics) as Weinbaum describes Dz (deleuze)

1. Dz doesn't care about the truth of a system, but its usefulness -- ie. he is using creative imaginaries, rather than theories or meta-theories. What makes them valid in Dz's mind?

2. Ideas are situated in the real through the very same way that all existents are -- ideas are multiplicites, and multiplicites are immanent. So creative imaginaries, as arisings from the process field, have an implicit validity via that situatedness -- IOW, they are equally "real"...

3. The foundation of Dz's ontology is "difference" -- as a process term -- which has no opposite.

4. Time and space are inter-generated within the arising--

Dz seems not (yet- I haven't finished the article) to contextualize time and space, but his singularity seems to be an "arrow of time", his virtuals seem to be onto-genetic whereas the actual is ontological.

One thing that I feel is detracting from Dz model -- and this is the same problem with Bohm -- is the way that folding, enfolding and unfolding works. This might merely be a problem with Weinbaum's terminology. However, it seems to me to be problematic when the explicit real ( Bohm's explicate, Dz's actual) UNfolds from the implicit (Bohm's implicate, Dz's virtual domain) -- because that sets up the scene where you have to account for the enstructuration (enfoldment) of the implicit order, which leads to an infinite regress.

The way I like to detangle the folding problem is to go simpler on step, and describe the "real" or the "actual" or the "explicit" as structural folds, or enfoldment, or deeper and deeper parcellations into infinite depths of the real-- this depends upon what we were talking about the other day -- that infinite parcellations of the real does not mean diminutive-ness -- the structures do not get somehow "smaller and smaller" , and there is enough "space" to accompany them and accomodate them -- in fact, the way the ideas work, is that increasing parcellation of the real with respect to the ideas gives the impression of "greater and greater wholes" -- and it is this seeming paradox (that only arises if you are hung up on a constructivist notion of parts and wholes) which limits our thinking from making this leap into a pure process onto-logics.

But of course, there is not just one thing enfolding... there are multiplicities enfolding... and these processes inter-face, and in terms of the "folds" they

infold (embrace, spiral) with each other, or can be imagined as ripples that create standing waves when they meet.

This infold-ing then is onto-genetic to the arising of the next moment -- so it can give the impression of an "implicate order" relative to the agent that is arising... but this is not a structuration of the foundational process -- it is a structuration of the arrow of time, which is onto-genetic to the actual arising from the prior moment.

So alternately, the infolding is onto-genetic time, and the enfolding is ontological time -- one is a spatial metaphor, the other is a temporal metaphor IOW time and space are mutually arising.

Joel MorrisonBonnitta, thank you. Yes, I found Weinbaum's exposition refreshing, and very much in harmony with my own exploration the Deleuzian lineage in SZ. The difficulty, it seems, is that Deleuze himself is so hard to pin down, shifting to completely new fields of terminology with each new work, where, for example, as DeLanda says (from the article above), "the virtual dimension becomes a “plane of consistency” in one, a “body without organs” in another, a “machinic phylum” in another and so on) and never ever gives explicit definitions (or hides them well)." And so, while the terrain seems roughly the same, it has an extraordinarily different feel in each work. My exploration of the Deleuzian lineage thus far has been focused on his interfacing of Spinoza and Leibniz, in Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, and The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, respectively, as they flesh out the abstract rudiments of a framework for exploring the ontic-epistemic interface. And I am very gratefull to Glistening for this timely segue into the more ontological expositions in Deleuze's A Thousand Plateaus as exposed and expanded by DeLanda in Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, which will be a large focus on SZII in grounding and unifying the science excursions in an overarching framework, as is the capacity and role of philosophy, in my view.

This being said, however, I don't believe either Deleuze, Weinbaum, or DeLanda are really falling into the problem of the infinite regress. But the key issue I see with this "planar" metaphor for the "virtual" is the planar connotation itself, as expressed already in SZ in terms of the "plane of immanence." While it points correctly in the orthogonal direction away from the subject/object polarity and thus to the immanent/transcendent polarity (not symmetry), it simultaneously *appears* to flatten it into a foundationalism. And, as I show in SZ, such a foundationalism is exactly what engenders the problem the infinite regress. This is why I dealt with this regression problem explicitly with the use of the immanent/transcendent axis and the discussion on the "substance and bundle views of Substance". But, again, this is only a problem when one takes the "virtual plane" not as a surface of infinite depth (and transvolutionary emergent fractal recursion, I might add) but as, well a geometric plane.

Also, thank you Bonnitta, for pointing out these more ideal aspects of the

Deleuzian thread, as I feel it is important in this greater inquiry into a more balanced interface of the common tendencies to collapse either to an idealism or a materialism, as we approach beyond the common straw-man of naive realism (unfortunately) to a more critical realization of the problem and into the deeper forms of embodied evolutionary understanding in grappling with the complexity of which we are a fractal recursion.

Yasuhiko Genku KimuraFriends: While I was away for a little over a week, much seems to have transpired in this and many other threads in this exciting forum. To just catch up with all this may take a liefetime! Also, the subjects of two of your tracks are very intimate to me (Geothe via Steiner and Levin via Guenther-Heidegger). So I look forward to reading and learning from some of your postings here and Magellan website. In the meantime, I shall respond with my thought to Glistening on tanscendence-immanence and Bonnitta on holomovement later this week. For now, I just want to cast the following, a part of which I shared during the second ATCE I symposium retreat I led over the last week/weekend:

BE-CAUSE:

(1) The Triune Symmetry in the Imperience-Experience Continuum: Being = Knowing = Creating.

(2) The Trilogical Symmetry: Onto-logic = Epistemo-logic = Cosmo-logic.

(3) The Tridisciplinary Symmetry: Spirituality = Science = Art.

Also, the subject of the symposium was Freedom. We explored the realm of being in which “Being = Knowing = Creating” as shown above and also the possibility of a “Language of Freedom” in which, for instance, all the “should” and its linguistic-mental infrastructure is entirely absent, for someone who is free thinks, acts, and lives in a world where there is no “I should,” “we should,” “you should,” or “they should.”