> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of
> slerner@macalester.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 November 2000 11:05
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD Language Constraints in Overcoming SOM
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is my view that we are and must be active participates in the
> world we create. In an absence of consciousness nothing can exist. If
> something were to exist in a space devoid of observers, then certainly we
> must treat it as if it never existed at all, for it will never be
> discussed
> by us(who have never observed it).
> That said we are, it seems, essentially limited in overcoming the
> SOM by our own language structure, which gives the main emphasis to
> subjects and objects. If we are always destined as sentient beings to
> project ourselves outward to form our world, then how do we overcome this
> seemingly impenetrable barrier without a vast reformation of
> something that
> has been engrained within us for thousands of years?
> In his masterwork, WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE
> ORDER(which I highly
> recommend for anyone interested in empircal data against SOM), David Bohm
> briefly confronts this dilemma and proposed the Rheomode, which basically
> is a new structure of language giving emphasis to the verb and not to
> nouns.
The results of this, from a behavioural aspect, are already predictable and
includes an increase in depression :-) Our culture, or the range of cultures
at the moment, reflect the continuum behind the
noun(object)/verb(relationships) dichotomy. In the English language you find
nouns that are like verbs and verbs that are like nouns, demonstrating the
entanglements of the original distinctions. Finnish and Hungarian have
differences that make them standout from the other more Indo-European
languages in that they seem to be able to capture meanings that are
expressed like Rhemodes. (or so I understand :-))
The process (!) of nominalisation acts to objectify verbs (IOW
relationships) and as such serve to alienate. We nominalise people in that a
person mothering, fathering, policing etc become mother, father, police
where the person and their relational emphasis are linked to become an
object, static, eternal and so we more than often fail to see mother or
father as people, as 'john' or 'jane' with personal, unique, characteristics
that identify them as individuals; we fail to see the MANY aspects of the
individual to see them as ONE aspect.
If you treat all objects as manifestations of waves in the form of
superpositions or even strange attractors this can give you a different
perspective but even then out of all of that complexity emerges 'hard'
elements suggesting that our method of analysis, the emphasis on objects,
'dots', has an element that is invarient, there seem to be 'archetypes'
present such that emphasis on verbs will not change much, just add more
aspects. (At the turn of the 19th century there was the concept of 'vortex'
atoms; atoms were not 'things' but like tornados, very 'hard' but also
'nothing'. Rutherford's 'splitting' of the atom changed the idea, but it
keeps coming back since, I believe, the idea reflects a particular aspect of
our method of analysis.
Imagine a wave biased course in mathematics where +1 and -1 are no longer
'things' but waveforms such that their superposition (where these waves
occupy the same space) allows for the concept of 'zero' that does not
meaning 'nothing' but more so 'this position contains only all potentials'
rather than 'actuals'.
Thus A + ~A = 0 (aka the excluded middle) does not mean 'nothing' it means
'there are no actuals here, only potentials'. The 0 is a place marker where
no values can be expressed, what is manifest is 'worthless' but the
potentials are still there. 0 is complemented by infinity which means 'all
potential values for this position have become actuals, they are all
expressed at the same time and this is symbolised by 'infinity'. This allows
for infinity to be expressed at EVERY position in the order of numbers and
ties in with infinity linked to the concept of 'priceless' (as well as
Cantors collection of infinities! :-)).
By using the wave approach you can get some insight into emotions and the
structuring of meaning in that the approach allows for superpositions, you
'break' the Pauli Exclusion Principle that makes us all 'different' in that
we cannot occupy someoneelses 'space'. It is emotions that allow us to share
the same space through emphathy, through resonance, and that is sourced in
feelings and feelings can easily be linked to waveforms.
Relational space is 'wave' space just as object space is 'particle' space.
Note how if you adopt the different perspectives then one (objects) favours
a sense of 'ONE' and internal linkage (self bias, particular species bias)
whereas many (relationships) favours external linkage (others bias - we are
all linked together regardless of species).
The wave approach does not 'overcome' SOM since it emerges from it as a
result of cooperative processes (feedback, recursion). Things can fall back
into SOM through oppositions...
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST