Re: Physics and Metaphysics - systems and environment

Hi John,

Ah, ok. You seem to be using some subleties that are confusing to me. Can you expand on this?:

It is not true, wholeness IS differentiated, while interconnected. That does not mean it is parcellized or partitioned.

To me, "differentiated" and "partitioned" are essentially synonymous.

Regards,

Tim

P.S. - I think you meant "Dan", not "Don", in your remarks.

P. P.S - I was also initially confused by your use of the term "grits". Because for me, that is the name of a kind of food from the American south made from corn meal. "Grit", meaning something like "fine particles", is already plural with no 's' appended. :)

-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:00 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Physics and Metaphysics - systems and environment

Tim and Don,

I tried several times the texts of both of you (especially Tim's first) and I am still not sure that I got it.

"Going back to the quote Judith gave from Life Itself, the dualism between self and not self is "the most fundamental dualism, which all others presuppose."

I find it unfortunate that RR used the word 'dualism', not some equivocal (!) synonymous metaphor expressing our innate disposition for reductionism: to view the world in our models, which the mind can handle. What be a 'non-dualism' in this sense? the undifferentiated wholism, the immordial grits. (oops: I formulated the negation of what is antedated in primordial).

It is not true, wholeness IS differentiated, while interconnected.

That does not mean it is parcellized or partitioned. We are in a construct where strong defining characteristics should be avoided, before we learn more about it.

If "I" feel my thoughts (experience, views, etc.) more relevant than the gravitational surge of a supernova, it is not dualism.

I tried to touch on that in a 'corrective' paper to my KJF article (Networks of Networks) on 'influence' - readable in my website:

http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/influence.html - indeed only an attempt to raise these ideas.

In common sense one thinks in 'dualism' the mind-body folly, or Descartes' extension - soul defensiveness. What we talk about is - as Don remarked - "requiring two or more models, descriptions or presentations" more: unlimited. He expressed this precisely in the 3-part Tao style circumscript.

I raised my voice against the formal dualism of "here I am and look around at 'them', the environment" but in accordance with the above RR quote, "I" am thinking for myself in my models - about a subtly differentiated wholeness, where "I" feel like closest. No grits. We are still 'our selves'. 1st persons.

And no solipsism, feeling like the wholeness by myself, undifferentiatedly.

Tim, you wrote:

"So, I consider [ - ] a partition of the whole into self and not-self....[later[ so I have partitioned the world into that which is self and that which is not-self. "

---SAIS WHO?---

I am not ashamed of being my self, even if I have a hard time to describe it. But I don't 'partition' it, simply trying to differentiate aspects.

Finally in the multiplicity (Don) I feel the word 'dualism' insufficient. (Like 'bifurcation' from unlimited choices. )