Lou, Alex -- Here is another use of set theoretical brackets (the subsumption hierarchy in evolution): { ? -> {physical world -> {material world -> {biological world -> {social world }}}}}
STAN On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Pedro’s recommendation, I am forwarding this exchange to the list. > Best, > Lou > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com> > *Subject: **Re: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self* > *Date: *April 29, 2016 at 12:12:26 PM EDT > *To: *Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *"Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > > Dear Alex, > In set theory, the empty set can be regarded as ‘framing nothing’. > Thus it is denoted by an empty container { }. > The properties of the container are not relevant, only that ‘it’ manages > the act of containment. > “We therefore take the form of distinction for the form.” > From there, one generates all the multiplicities in mathematics by further > acts of framing. > { } > { { } } > { { }, { { } } } > ad infinitum. > If we said this in LOF it would be essentially the same, but parsimonious > in that the comma as an extra distinction would not be needed. > If A is a set, then {A} is another set obtained by the act of framing. We > see it all as ‘framing nothing’ when the sets are traced back to their > empty origins as in > the layers of an onion. Some layering might have to be traced back forever > alas as in {{{{{…}}}}}. This is why set theorists are not happy to have > sets that are members of themselves at the foundation. Nevertheless, in > order to have language at all, self-reference is necessary. In LOF the mark > < > is seen to be a distinction and to refer to a distinction and so refers > to itself. > At that point one realizes that in the form, the mark and the reader or > writer or observer are identical. Tat tvam asi. > Best, > Lou > > On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > RE 1 Louis Kauffman: Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The form we > take to exist arises from framing nothing. > > RE 2: The objects of our thought and perception are so laden with the > names and symbols that have been shifted to them, that their ?original > nature? is nearly invisible. > > ME 1: Many philosophers of the East, such as Nagarjuna and Adishankara > agree that when one realizes that the real 'Self' has no form (and no > history of change) that this frees the embodied soul from being trapped in > forms that get reincarnated in time. It is the Ultimate Liberating > Realization! > > The Maharishi International University mathematician, Michael Weinless, > formerly an Asst Prof at Harvard, was correspondingly fond of RusselL's > distinction between ϕ and [ϕ]. > > Is this the same as what you are referring to, the 'framing of nothing'? > > ME(2): I suspect that the cognitions of a fully enlightened person is > acutely aware of the additional nonsense that has surrounded the original > simplicity in such cases. > > E.G. In the webinar, I became acutely aware of many layers of academic > comment / prejudice etc. that surround almost every seemingly innocent > discussion question. > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > ____________________________________________________________ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis