Digest April 14, 2017

15 views
Skip to first unread message

BMP

unread,
Apr 14, 2017, 7:31:48 AM4/14/17
to Online Sadhu Sanga
BMP                 April 13
Re:[Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolith of consciousness  

Dear Serge,

Namaste. What may appear to be a problem for you is really just a different epistemological approach to how we obtain knowledge.
 
One of the key points in the article Beyond the Modern Monolith of Consciousness involves the important distinction between  two different ways or paths by which we obtain knowledge. One is by the consciousness-centered empirical-inductive method (L. ordo cognoscendi) and the other is by the ab initio  or primary principle-deductive method (L. ordo essendi). These two methods give very different results about the nature of reality. The article in question uses the second method.
 
It may also be helpful to note that Indic philosophy tells us that there are many different epistemological methods beyond the two above mentioned. The Sanskrti terms pratyaksha, paroksha, aparoksha, and so one indicate such methods as direct experience of the empirical process, induction, deduction, knowledge derived from authentic sources other than oneself, dialectical process, and direct spiritual realization. 
 
Due to habits of knowing we develop as a result of our environment and training it may not be possible to recognize all these different paths. Especially those trained in scientific thinking will find it difficult to get beyond the consciousness-centered empirical process. However, other methods do exist whenever we wish to study them.
 
Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Facebook

==========================================================
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal,    April 13
Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)  
 
Quantum nonlocality is apparent (not real); physical information cannot travel more than the speed of light. See
de la Peña, L., Cetto, A. M., & Valdes-Hernandez, A. (2015). The Emerging Quantum: The Physics Behind Quantum Mechanics. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   
The four justifications for quantum nonlocality being apparent (not real) are as follows (adapted from my current manuscript in preparation).
 
"1. As per (de la Peña, Cetto & Valdes-Hernandez, 2015), QM is an approximation of the phase space (p,x,t) to configuration space (x,t) or (p,t), which misleads to nonlocality. In other words, quantum nonlocality is an artifact of this approximation and hence it is unreal.
 
2. As elaborated before, Susskind argues that QM appears nonlocal because Bell’s inequality is based on classical logic; QM is based on quantum logic; so with or without experiments, they will differ. In my view, if we assume CM (classical mechanics) is real (in MIR world out there) and local (v≤c) then QM has to appear as nonlocal (v>c) in our minds because of subjective probability, uncertainty, and superposition. Therefore, we need to derive Bell's like inequality based on quantum logic. In other words, we should try to investigate nonlocality based on some other yardstick. We cannot take orange seeds and try to create apple out of it. Classical logic and quantum logic are of a different kind; it is a category mistake to use the former for investigating the latter. Do we have the violation of Bell’s inequality in CM?
 
3. There is a third way to deny nonlocality in QM, which is by introducing the third measurement called ‘comparision’ measurement of (Tipler, 2000). He used this concept in the MWI, but this can be used in any interpretation of QM. As per (Tipler, 2000), “Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the [commutative] laws of classical mechanics, while observed systems obey [non-commutative law of] quantum mechanics.”
 
4. The quantum nonlocality is an artifact of a peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998). When we open our eyes, we have phenomenal experience of the whole visual field in our mental space with a subjective feeling of almost instantaneously from the 1st person perspective (1pp). It takes less than 50 msec stimulus presentation (Sperling, 1960) for non-reportable phenomenal consciousness; it takes about 500 msec for reportable access consciousness."
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

==========================================================
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal,             April 13
Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Materialization by Yogis     
 
If yogis can benefit the world by materialization (if this is true!), it will be a great service to mankind, in my view. This will also motivate many people towards acquiring such powers along with attaining samadhi states. India will again lead the world in this field! One can write a book on the benefits of materialization.
 
I hope that readers will make some effort towards this project.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
 
On Thursday, 13 April 2017 7:49 PM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
I think the views of Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey are not very convincing.  This type of demonstration of power gained by Yogis is just for the sake of convincing us to believe in the science of yoga, science of meditation and science of concentration.  Perhaps Dr. Ram has not so far met any 'Augharh' of Baba Keena Ram Sect, Varanasi.  Every 'augharh' after undergoing few years of spiritual training according to their system got such powers and they also demonstrate their powers.  But I agree that demonstration of such powers is not desirable and must be discouraged in ordinary circumstances.  There is no harm of demonstration of such powers for the benefit of the people.
 
Best wishes
 
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi
 
==========================================================
Menas Kaftos                  April 14, 2017
Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012) 
 
I meant philosophy came before science. We now have an updated science which nicely fits with perennial philosophy, the science of qualia
 
On Apr 13, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com> wrote:
Tons and tons of papers and books have been written on non-locality. An incontrovertible fact of nature. If the mind thinks locality is reality, we are talking about Cartesian and Newtonian Physics. Back to the 17th century.
 
 
 
==========================================================
bob@cosmic-mindreach                                           April 14
Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)         
 
Dear Stan, Jo and others,
 
There is another more consistently inclusive way to look at QM, Relativity and reality.  
 
All languages including the language of mathematics derive in some way from sensory experience which makes the implicit presumption that there are such "things" as space and time which have a continuous nature in which physical material and events are embedded. There is no evidence for this a priori assumption. We measure space as the distance between physical things and time by the rotation of the Earth. We derive them a posteriori to creation. Then we attempt to use these concepts derived from creation to mathematically explain their own creation. It is bootstrapping on a universal scale. These are arbitrary belief systems.
 
Late in life Einstein doubted that physics could be based on continuous structures ... "Then nothing remains of my entire castle in the sky, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of modern physics.” (in a letter to Michele Besso the year before he died)
The ONLY possible option is a discontinuous universe in which atoms everywhere are synchronously projected as a series of still frames in a cosmic movie. Because light is the only action in each atomic still frame and since it derives from atomic processes, it can only transmit a specific linear external distance with respect to the spherical inner space of a primary hydrogen atom. There are no other universal measuring rods out there. Light speed is thus universal with respect to each atomic still frame projection. It is quantized. It transmits as a series of pulses consistent with Planck's constant.
 
This requires that neutral atoms that constitute the physical shapes that we see around us are synchronously projected as closed intimately related triads: namely spherically closed photon energy shells, electron particles, and proton particles. All three are physically distinct and yet they are intimately linked, even to the ends of time and space when electrons exceeds the ionization limit. The resultant photon linking accounts for electrodynamic effects in the integrated fabric of space and time. Neutrons and neutrinos are introduced through fusion and decay processes that are likewise of a triadic nature.      
 
Mass has an energy equivalent (E=mc2) because the alternate mode of each still atomic frame is a timeless and boundless quantum energy equivalent that constitutes an element of the Void. Because the Void is timeless and boundless the space frames in the movie close ranks to preserve the illusion of continuity albeit riddled with boundless irrational seams. Atoms in relative motion thus display as waves and particles at the same time.  http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Atomic_structure.html.  A Quantum Relativity necessarily follows: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Gravity.html. A new paradigm is introduced.
 
The uncertainty principle derives from the fact that position and momentum cannot possibly be known at the same time because exact position can only be known in one synchronous still projection of matter everywhere at once, whereas momentum requires a sequence of linear projections. We cannot reduce reality to language derived from sensory experience. But our intuitive right brain can holistically grasp the ontological structural basis of All Being from which sensory experience derives according to context.
 
The Void is not synonymous with the hypothetical vacuum of theoretical physics. The Void is a real orthogonal quantum field to what we perceive as the integrated fabric of space and time. That is why the mass-energy relationship is the square of light speed in vacuum. The Void is a timeless and boundless whole associated with Mind that spans and integrates history. The quantum elements of the Void are subject to synchronous recall according to the way the three brains of our nervous system have evolved to function. Recall is synchronous with respect to the whole discontinuous projection of the physical universe.
 
The quantum energy equivalents of the whole physical universe are boundless, timeless and therefore ONE in the Void and also distinct and MANY as separate atoms in what we perceive as the integrated fabric of space and time, at the same time. These mutually contradictory realities must find resolution in the sequential projection of the cosmic movie in which we participate. The result is the mutual attraction of separate atoms that exhibits itself Frame by Frame in the linear sequential projection of the Universe. There is no graviton. There is no causal linear explanation for gravity in the integrated fabric of space-time because it is implicit in the timeless projection of Each Frame of the movie. There is no alternate explanation that is fully consistent with all of the evidence.    
 
The cosmic order is timeless. It cannot be arbitrarily contrived or recreated in language. Although it never changes it determines the nature of all change. Electrodynamics and gravity cannot be mathematically unified because the former derives from events evident in the integrated fabric of space and time while the latter derives from the synchronous projection frame by frame of space and time itself.
 
Foucault's pendulum confirms that inertial velocity is completely distinct from gravitational attraction. This results from the discontinuous projection of matter, everywhere at once. There is no explanation for it in continuous space-time in either Newtonian or Relativity Physics. A change in the inertial velocity requires the expenditure of energy as work but since inertial velocity is independent of gravity there is no other force acting upon it and no need to explain the enduring inertial shape of galaxies. The universe is in no danger of undergoing gravitational collapse. A spinning top does not fall over.
All this derives from the empirical fact that all we can ever know are active interface processes between a universal inside and a universal outside, neither of which can ever be known to the exclusion of the other. Physics has traditionally acknowledged only a universal outside as the hypothetical space-time vessel in which phenomena are embedded. The mind is largely believed to be an emergent property of physics accordingly. But we know that our nervous systems reconstruct a subjective virtual reflection of objective reality outside from the unique sensory perspective of each of us. This reality is not consistent with the methodology of traditional physics or mathematics, nor with Big Bang cosmology.
 
Truth is not a physical thing. It is a value. Roger Sperry’s classic experiments on split brain patients confirmed that our mute, intuitive, and holistic right hemisphere is value oriented. As Einstein put it:
 
“I see on the one hand the totality of sense-experiences, and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions which are laid down in books. The relations between concepts and propositions among themselves and each other are of a logical nature, and the business of logical thinking is strictly limited to the achievement of the connection between concepts and propositions among each other according to firmly laid down rules, which are the concern of logic. The concepts and propositions get “meaning,” viz., “content,” only through their connection with sense-experiences. The connection of the latter with the former is purely intuitive, not itself of a logical nature. The degree of certainty with which this relation, viz., intuitive connection, can be undertaken, and nothing else, differentiates empty fantasy from scientific “truth.”(From "Autobiographical Notes," written at age 67.)
 
Best regards,
Bob
 
=========================================================
Deepak Ranade           April 14
Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest for April 13, 2017 
It is a privilege to be a part of such an elite group. I am a consultant Neurosurgeon and i please request the administrator to keep me in this mailing list. 
Dr Deepak Ranade 
 
=========================================================
jo.edwards                      April 14
Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012) 
 
Really, Menas?
I would be interested to have an example.And what is wrong with Descartes and Newton in comparison to Tononi or Edelman or Buzsaki or whoever? At least Descartes had a rigorous approach to what happens where.
 
Maybe it is time we treated the 17th century with a bit more respect. Leibniz’s understanding of locality seem stop me a lot better than von Neumann etc.
If non-locality is so incontrovertible why are students in physics at the University of Cambridge (Newton and Hawking’s place) taught that theory is now properly local for the first time. Maybe you are talking different definition of locality from them? Maybe you are a naive realist? 
It all sounds a bit like handwaving to me without some actual arguments, Menas.
 
Very best wishes
 
Jo E
 
 
 
On 13 Apr 2017, at 19:43, Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com> wrote:
 
Tons and tons of papers and books 
have been written on non-locality. An incontrovertible fact of nature. If the mind thinks locality is reality, we are
talking about Cartesian and Newtonian
Physics. Back to the 17th century.
=========================================================
Jo.edwards                        April 14, 2017
Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] back to Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012) 
 
I don’t think so Bob. Hegel appears to be ignoring all the subtleties of what an ‘entity’ and finite might mean that Leibniz explored so well in his discussion of the various meanings of infinity - infinity of number, actual infinity, infinity of potentiality and so on. Hegel is making the sort of mistake that Russell came up against with his paradox - the assumption that natural language can handle things like set theory without being properly adjusted in the way Carnap showed it needed to be. This is precisely why I prefer Leibniz. Deep down his statements link to a non-verbal logical structure, because he spends years checking the words work properly. Hegel seems to belong to a tradition, perhaps started by Kant, that thinks you can rely on natural language (with its whiff of stuffism) and vernacular meanings of things like finitude to do metaphysics. Leibniz’s system has the power to explain all the mysteries of modern physics. None of the eighteenth or nineteenth century philosophers get near this.
 
Best wishes
 
Jo
 
 
On 13 Apr 2017, at 18:04, Robert Wallace <B...@robertmwallace.com> wrote:
 
Hi Jo,
 
You write:
 
God is just the totality of necessity (which includes room for manoeuvre by monads) and that explains the entire history of the actual world. That means that God is not other than the physical world, because He is an entity of a different category. The physical world is entailed within God. God is not someTHING other than it. In a sense Hegel has fallen into the stuffiest trap and wanting all entities to have the same token status.
 
Leibniz’s God is not a “thing,” you say (and I say, So far so good!), but his God is an “entity” (“of a different category”). If his God is “an entity,” I take it he is not the same “entity” that the created world is. Here we have the problem that Hegel brings out: as soon as there are two entities, they are both finite, each limited by not being the other. 
 
Best, Bob 
=========================================================
Jo.edwards                       April 14, 2017
Re: {SPAM?} [MoM] Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012) 
 
 Thanks for that nice quote Ram.
 
If I read it right, this is essentially what I am saying - that non-locality in QM is an illusion due to people trying to force the theory into a classical Newtonian framework. The irony is of course that Newton bemoaned the fact that his theory of gravity was non-local - much spookier than QM.
 
If people are using the term non-local to take Leibniz’s view that every fundamental dynamic relation involves, and in a sense is, the whole universe, then I would agree with the view but that is not what non-locality means to most physicists.
 
Jo
 
 
On 14 Apr 2017, at 03:44, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 
Quantum nonlocality is apparent (not real); physical information cannot travel more than the speed of light. See
de la Peña, L., Cetto, A. M., & Valdes-Hernandez, A. (2015). The Emerging Quantum: The Physics Behind Quantum Mechanics. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
 
[clipped]
=========================================================
Shafiq Khan                April 14
Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] back to Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012                      
 
Hello Everybody,
                           A different perspective of consciousness & conscience is described in the first chapter of the book 'Natural World Order & The Islamic Thought' which could be read free at https://www.slideshare.net/mohammadshafiqkhan1/natural-world-order-the-islamic-thought.
 
With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
 
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear Bruno, 
Thanks for the comments.
 
[clipped]
 
 
=========================================================
Eric (contact@ howgravityworks)  April 14, 2017
RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness hype 
 
Consciousness.
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness
hype
From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Date: Wed, April 12, 2017 8:23 pm
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com"
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
V simple question 
What came first 
Consciousness or Science and Philosophy ? 
=========================================================
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 14, 2017, 4:14:58 PM4/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B M Puri Mahajara, Namaste

Following the thread of discussions on "consciousness", I am left with the strong impression that most of the metaphysical discussions 
presented in this forum are very much constrained by the hegemonic assumption of dualism, and attempt to do away with considering that Spirit and Nature are identical as their non-dual logophysics common to both, as already envisaged -through dialectics- in Hegel's Science of Logic.

Thank you for your contribution.

Cordially,

Diego Lucio Rapoport

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 17—18, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 6:33:56 AM4/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Diego,

I agree with you that there is an undercurrent of accepting dualism as a hypothesis even by those who claim to be physicalists or monists. But I would disagree with you on the use of the term 'non-dual' because by using this term you are also conceding the plausibility of the dualist hypothesis, namely, going back to Descartes, that the mind and body are distinct, and categorically distinct. Pre-dualist is a better term as it does not accept the plausibility of dualism. In this position it is common sense to accept pluralism, in that there are many distinct entities and phenomena in the world and also some sort of monism in that there is one underlying stuff that is common to all and obeys some laws of nature which science discovers. In your appeal to Hegel you say that according to Hegel, Spirit and Nature are one. But to make such a statement you accept the partition of Spirit and Nature to begin with and then say that they are one. I am not sure this is what Hegel meant, but having read him a little it seems that he wants to end up in an Absolute Idealism. Separating Spirit and Nature to begin with is like partitioning integers into odd and even and then saying they are all numbers. Why should the odd and even dichotomy be more categorical than the division of numbers divisible by 3 and those not divisible by 3 or prime numbers and non-prime numbers? Why should the distinction between mind and body be more categorical than the distinction between the left and right hemispheres of my brain?

Priyedarshi Jetli 

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear B M Puri Mahajara, Namaste

Following the thread of discussions on "consciousness", I am left with the strong impression that most of the metaphysical discussions 
presented in this forum are very much constrained by the hegemonic assumption of dualism, and attempt to do away with considering that Spirit and Nature are identical as their non-dual logophysics common to both, as already envisaged -through dialectics- in Hegel's Science of Logic.

Thank you for your contribution.

Cordially,

Diego Lucio Rapoport
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017

Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 11:12:33 AM4/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyerdarshi Yetli

Thank you for your comments. I would agree to the use of "predual" in terms of a metaphysical usage instead of "non-dual" would not be the case that the latter is very much determined by the logophysics not amenable to classical two-state logic which I refer to, which I found to be  common to pure thought, creative thought and nature,(Hyper Klein and Klein Bottle) logics of locus. 
Such logics are  ontologically more fundamental than those asociated to the notion of logical value.
The latter is epistemological, the former is ontological
This realizes the proposal of Hegel in his Science of Logic of a unity of Spirit and Nature, but in a different setting, as he took the latter. So the metaphysics that decurs from this conception  i intuit to differ with Hegel's, and i have not elaborated it yet.

Cordially,
Dieg


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 7:51:38 PM4/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego,

I am not sure what you mean by 'logic'. Hegel was usually not talking about formal logic, especially when he was talking about two-state logic. Rather, he was talking about some ontological commitments based on only two values. As you may be aware three-valued, many-valued and fuzzy logics have developed as extensions of classical logic. And these were developed not by Hegelians but by formal logicians.

Priyedarshi Jetli

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOKhh%2BU5QKO4K7tsLmPP3zAoBVA%3D_nxs%3D1pw5WWZzag4a233rw%40mail.gmail.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 5:43:49 AM4/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi Yetli,
Neither these logics of loci need to the effect of being presented  be formalized in terms of a  symbolic system, as in Hegel, while they do admit several formalizations, and in the case of heteroreference several non-reflective negation operators are considered following Gunther. This is far richer than dialectics. In these cases a particular negation upon self-iteration does not yield the identity operator.
It was Hegelian philosopher and one of the founding fathers of cybernetics Gotthard Gunther, who noted that a logic is a formalized symbolics of an ontology. This is the basis that i chose for departure, albeit as i said not necessarily as a formalized system,
 For more illustration allow me to indicate to you reading my works, especially the latest trilogy whose links i indicated a few days ago, or you may download from the site academia.edu or Research Gate.
Thanks for your interest.
Cordially
Diego 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfDmyMSLO1srZLvvJ2pRibKPcv29zg%2Bxx-zdObvgp0UkMg%40mail.gmail.com.

BMP

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 1:11:28 PM4/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego,

Namaste. The tendency toward either abstract identity or duality, or even 'aspects' is characteristic of what Kant and Hegel identify as the Understanding (Ger. Verstand). The Understanding holds contraries fixed in their opposition as Either/Or. It is this type of practical or analytical thinking that is utilized in most people's daily lives. It thus becomes the most ingrained and habitual mode of thinking and is uncritically carried over to philosophical and scientific thinking as well. 

However, when such thinking is itself made an object of study a meta-thinking becomes revealed that is no longer merely analytical but synthetic and holistic, which philosophy calls Reason (Ger. Vernuft). People surprisingly utilize this function of thought less often than they should. They would rather rely on instinctive and uncritical opinionated thought than carefully reasoned concepts. The result is that such widespread habits in the population produce national leaders with the same mentality and unpredictable consequences.

For Hegel, Nature and Spirit are not identical in any immediate sense. He explains that Spirit is the truth of Nature. When the eternal embraces its own Death on Good Friday, it is the negativity of itself that is embraced, not its annihilation. Likewise it is the negation of Nature that is Spirit, not Nature itself -- which would be pantheism. But it must be clear that the negation of Nature is not its annihilation but the submission, sublimation, or surrender of Nature as an independent existence that is implied. 

The relation of Appearance to Reality bears a similarity to the relation of Nature to Spirit. But this is an involved subject and will take us far from the topic of consciousness, so just these brief comments are all that will be made here.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.




From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017

Vinod Sehgal

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 1:33:36 AM4/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi,

Separating Spirit and Nature can't be like odd/even numbers or numbers divisible by 3 and not divisible  by 3. This bring due to reasons that regardless of the basis of their partition I.e   odd/even  OR  divisibility by 3 or not, all are numbers with no difference  in their nature. Once  you ignore the basis of this partitioning, all difference in the nature of two divisions  vanish. In other words, difference is an apparent one with no difference at the ground stage fundamental level. Two sides of a face also  belongs to such categorisation since behind both sides  of the face, there lies the reality one face. Such  types of ""dualness"" lies behind Advaita Vedanta where underlying reality is the absolute  cosmic  consciousness.

Real dualness is found in Sankhya where both Purusha/Spirit and Prakriti/Nature have fundamental identity of their own. This dichotomy  is akin to the dichotomy  of letters if English alphabet  and natural numbers. In the dichotomy of Advaita Vedanta  3 stage or multi value logic may be relevant but in the Sankhya's dichtomy, there is strict two stage logic. Which dichotomy  is correct has been a subject of discussion  and non-agreement between scholars  and philosophers  since millennia.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal
.
From: priyedarshi jetli
Sent: ‎16-‎04-‎2017 05:20
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017

[The entire original message is not included.]

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 6:25:57 AM4/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Diego,

I can understand what you are saying but I just do not accept that logic has anything to do with ontology. In fact it makes not ontological commitment. This is the logic developed by Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole, Frege and others. Formal logic mainly has to do with inferences, what inferences can legitimately be made and which cannot. This is what is behind computability as well. How many values you have, two or three or many or not sure how many does not effect the heart of logic. All non-classical logics are not only extensions of modern classical logic but with some pains can be demonstrated as extensions of Aristotle's syllogistic logic as found in the Prior Analytics. Paraconsistent logics are often built on a weaker negation, intuitionistic logic denies excluded middle (which Aristotle himself brought into doubt). But all of these can be shown to be extensions of classical logic as long as we do not bring ontology or epistemology into the picture.

Priyedarshi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOKhh%2BW4ty%3DJ6QLo7xC08-Ts734TnTeK1jiyX%2BM6%2BJF-zs9tXw%40mail.gmail.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 7:07:18 PM4/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi

Namaste.

Thank you for your comments. I was aware that you cannot accept that logic operates as an ontology. 

This is the most remarkable single  cognitive blackspot  of almost all scientists even upon applying metaphysics. 
The latter is in my understanding very much of an attempt for surmounting this, and due to its inherent limitations it keeps circling around the subjects it discusses.

Attempts to resort to dual logic to heal what it already has broken operating as metacognition are also visibly failures since it
would require to understand that dual logic operates as a projection of the nondual Klein Bottle logic which unifies Outside and inside. I disagree with B M Puri in this regard.

You conceive logic in terms of cognitive value, i.e. an epistemology, to the effect of producing knowledge about.

In that sense it is the same whether it is dual logic, quantum logic, paraconsistent logic, fuzzy logic, choose your pick.
You are absolutely right at that. 

I conceive logic otherwise. Basically as generative, and as such linked to physics and information as a logophysics.
It starts by producing a notion of space tied to self and hetero-reference, and that produces a protosemiosis. (Actually, some of this was the subject of my Ph.D. thesis in mathematical physics, in Tel Aviv/Harvard. What appeared was non-duality, and i was obliged to drop the final chapter in which this was elaborated, or else, to chose some other activity rather than mathematical-physics).

However, this conception is not an abstraction. The examples of it in the sciences of nature  are symmetries (also in cognition!), crystals, in particular liquid crystals so pervasive to biology, the configuration of molecules and molecular motors (in the Topological Chemistry pardigm, vortical structures which are the single most pervasive structures (even in cognition!) and without which there is no non-linearity in nature (!) (please compare this with the attempt to introduce "consciousness" in terms of linear Hilbert structures through duality), 
nor the bodyplans of all organisms having a mouth-annus tube, no phenomenology as they are basic to perception,no harmonics without which the  Universe and the genome would be happenstance, etc, etc

And for the relation between the imaginal and reality -which all formal logics do not even mention, this is the embodiments of this non-dual logic. Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in his own contorted way already identified them as generative (to thought and language, and real day action, the very structure of the psyche), very much as in my work, 

He had anthropologist Levi-Strauss to thank for their discussions. He was the great scholar who identified that for the "primitive savages" (in the standard Western ethnocentrism) Bororos of Matto Grosso, Brazil, myth, cosmology, social structure, art and  architecture, were one single structure. (For us it is the same, but what we get, this broken world, is of the making of dual logophysics).  

With respect to metaphysics and the relation between the imaginal and reality which formal logics do not embody, following the works of philologists, historians  and religionists, it is known that the ancient world (including as recent as the Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations) lived practicing a single Tradition, very much alike the Bororos. Only particular interpretations and emphasis was the case. 

Two "dimensions" regulated their life. The "horizontal -earthly-  dimension" of appearances and the spiritual "vertical dimension" associated to the phenomenology of light and the precession of the equinoxes (a natural cosmological phenomenon, basic to the helical conception of historical processes and the intermittence of manifestation and withdrawal of the Spirit) as the vortical logophysics which structured this Tradition. 

Very much of a fusion of the imaginal and real domains, which to the ontoepistemology of the Klein and HyperKlein Bottles it is difficult if not impossible to determine a complete dominance of any of them in their interarticulations.Chosing dominance as the criteria for this seems quite an inpoverishing, for that matter).

Certainly not formal logics nor it seems the Hegelian conception neither.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

PS For some of all this you may read my works,  or still  my forthcoming four-volume monograph, or nothing, of course.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfBNZFk_5r4ZcreDVuF_R4YGYz27PUZAtacfgnFwVsjS2A%40mail.gmail.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 3:22:20 AM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi,

Namaste,


Forgot to mention the most omnipresent example of a logic, actually dual logic, operating as an ontology. 

It is the epitome of hegemonics.

Just think of how much of science, philosophy and cognition is produced in terms of the CONTAIN image-schema which starting from a distinction/boundary it fractures the world into Inside and Outside, rather than the Klein Bottle logic which integrates both through intermmediary states.

Almost everything.

Mathematics in terms of set theory for one example, and all what followed as metamathematics as an attempt to redeem it from the paradoxes which were produced from it. Instead use category theory; dual logic is no longer the case.

This is the rock bottom example, however it is massively unbeknownst.

Wittgenstein observed that this image-schema plays a morphogenic role as the  fracturization mode, which cannot be recomposed from its usage. No metacognition will serve in this context to recompose the wholeness which has by default been broken.

This is where we stand today, our predicament.

Perhaps  this was the "original sin".evoked by the Scriptures.

Sincerely,

Diego Lucio Rapoport


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-04-17 10:33 GMT-03:00
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 3:22:20 AM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi,

On 17 Apr 2017, at 11:20, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Diego,

I can understand what you are saying but I just do not accept that logic has anything to do with ontology. In fact it makes not ontological commitment. This is the logic developed by Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole, Frege and others. Formal logic mainly has to do with inferences, what inferences can legitimately be made and which cannot. This is what is behind computability as well. How many values you have, two or three or many or not sure how many does not effect the heart of logic. All non-classical logics are not only extensions of modern classical logic but with some pains can be demonstrated as extensions of Aristotle's syllogistic logic as found in the Prior Analytics. Paraconsistent logics are often built on a weaker negation, intuitionistic logic denies excluded middle (which Aristotle himself brought into doubt). But all of these can be shown to be extensions of classical logic as long as we do not bring ontology or epistemology into the picture.


Strictly speaking intuitionist logic is not an extension of classical logic, but a proper subset. I guess you are alluding to the fact that intuitionist logic and intuitionist arithmetic can be translated into classical logic/arithmetic.

Many sub-logics of classical logic, like intuitionist and quantum logic can also be translated in modal logic extending classical logic, like the modal logic S4 which can represent intuitionist logic (faithfully and completely) or like the modal logic B which recast a minimal quantum logic in a classical setting.

I agree that classical logic is very important, and does not commit itself in an ontological commitment. Now, computationalism implies we do assume explicitly the numbers, if only to explain what is a digital machine or the Church-Turing thesis. Then it can be shown that not only that is enough, but adding anything leads to inconsistencies or to non-mechanism. (Mechanism is my working hypothesis in (deductive) theology. I don't defend that mechanism is true).

Bruno







To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

BMP

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 9:08:55 AM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego

Namaste, Logic and onto-logy as well as epistemo-logy are certainly interrelated. But the logic or topo-logy of hyper-Klein bottles, torus or doughnut-like living beings, provide only two-dimensional manifolds of a single [monistic] space, i.e of surfaces. If we imagine surface or space as Being, and spaces internal to other spaces you have still not provided any notion of essence, or what we might call ontological interiority or implicitness. Topology tells us nothing of the bottle, whether it be made of glass or plastic. The shape of a doughnut tells us nothing about the tasty substance that is the real interest of that object. 

There are three spheres that Hegel;s Logic deals with: Being, Essence and Concept. It is not clear how your can use topology, or the logic of surfaces to deal with essence and concept.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 7:06 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
 
On Thursday, 13 April 2017 7:49 PM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
I think the views of Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey are not very convincing.  This type of demonstration of power gained by Yogis is just for the sake of convincing us to believe in the science of yoga, science of meditation and science of concentration.  Perhaps Dr. Ram has not so far met any 'Augharh' of Baba Keena Ram Sect, Varanasi.  Every 'augharh' after undergoing few years of spiritual training according to their system got such powers and they also demonstrate their powers.  But I agree that demonstration of such powers is not desirable and must be discouraged in ordinary circumstances.  There is no harm of demonstration of such powers for the benefit of the people.
 
Best wishes
 
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi
 
============================== ============================
Menas Kaftos                  April 14, 2017
Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012) 
 
I meant philosophy came before science. We now have an updated science which nicely fits with perennial philosophy, the science of qualia
 
On Apr 13, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com> wrote:
Tons and tons of papers and books have been written on non-locality. An incontrovertible fact of nature. If the mind thinks locality is reality, we are talking about Cartesian and Newtonian Physics. Back to the 17th century.
 
 
 
============================== ============================
bob@cosmic-mindreach                                           April 14
Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)         
 
Dear Stan, Jo and others,
 
There is another more consistently inclusive way to look at QM, Relativity and reality.  
 
All languages including the language of mathematics derive in some way from sensory experience which makes the implicit presumption that there are such "things" as space and time which have a continuous nature in which physical material and events are embedded. There is no evidence for this a priori assumption. We measure space as the distance between physical things and time by the rotation of the Earth. We derive them a posteriori to creation. Then we attempt to use these concepts derived from creation to mathematically explain their own creation. It is bootstrapping on a universal scale. These are arbitrary belief systems.
 
Late in life Einstein doubted that physics could be based on continuous structures ... "Then nothing remains of my entire castle in the sky, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of modern physics.” (in a letter to Michele Besso the year before he died)
The ONLY possible option is a discontinuous universe in which atoms everywhere are synchronously projected as a series of still frames in a cosmic movie. Because light is the only action in each atomic still frame and since it derives from atomic processes, it can only transmit a specific linear external distance with respect to the spherical inner space of a primary hydrogen atom. There are no other universal measuring rods out there. Light speed is thus universal with respect to each atomic still frame projection. It is quantized. It transmits as a series of pulses consistent with Planck's constant.
 
This requires that neutral atoms that constitute the physical shapes that we see around us are synchronously projected as closed intimately related triads: namely spherically closed photon energy shells, electron particles, and proton particles. All three are physically distinct and yet they are intimately linked, even to the ends of time and space when electrons exceeds the ionization limit. The resultant photon linking accounts for electrodynamic effects in the integrated fabric of space and time. Neutrons and neutrinos are introduced through fusion and decay processes that are likewise of a triadic nature.      
 
Mass has an energy equivalent (E=mc2) because the alternate mode of each still atomic frame is a timeless and boundless quantum energy equivalent that constitutes an element of the Void. Because the Void is timeless and boundless the space frames in the movie close ranks to preserve the illusion of continuity albeit riddled with boundless irrational seams. Atoms in relative motion thus display as waves and particles at the same time.  http://www.cosmic-mindr each.com/Atomic_structure.html .  A Quantum Relativity necessarily follows: http://www.cosmic-min dreach.com/Gravity.html. A new paradigm is introduced.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org /Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org /Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Oliver Manuel

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 9:09:08 AM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks in large measure to the late Paul K. Kuroda's keen analytical mind when a 19-year old student at the Imperial University of Tokyo on 13 June 1936, a logical error in Drs. Weizsacker's and Chadwick's 1935 concept nuclear energy is ending after eight decades. 

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 8:33:38 PM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B M Puri,

Thank you for your demand for further elaboration.
First an important point: experience and even the body that sustains it is through a Klein Bottle bodyplan which has been elicited both anatomically and  in the neurosciences study of the topographic maps on the neurocortex of the sensorium. 
The latter as its representation which has been proved to topologically be embodied as a Klein Bottle. Two-dimensional at that. 
This is the case of the visual and somatosensory modes.As for olfaction, which as the other two modes seems to be extremely high-dimensional, the fact that at the olfactory bulb a radial symmetry appears to be operating, with antipodal points being identified, this is a projective structure, which also produces the Moebius strip one-sided structure.

(a disgression; when yesterday I commented that Hilbert space could not be used to explain consciousness through duality and linearity, I meant what is well known in mathematical physics but ignored by most theoretical physicsits is: 
What matters is the projective Hilbert space, not the Hilbert space itself. Twisted,  it allows still to superpose linearly, as is the case of quantum physics. As for the formal representation of "consciousness" in this setting, i will not discuss it here.)

To resume, phenomenologically, experience is two-dimensional, and anatomically, the bodyplan which sustains it is a recurrent overlaying of this two-dimensionality which unifies Outside and Inside as a Klein Bottle, independently whether it is flesh, bone or connective tissue, or still as a unity of action and perception. Actually the liquid crystal structure of the connective tissue is crucial to this body integrity.

As for the quality of this flesh, bone or crystal connective tissue, its "taste", i only know that it is experiential too.

So allow me  to address the other issue you raised in your comment with regards to concepts. I am afraid that for the following you will need to read the Part I of my trilogy, which several times i gave the links to it in this forum. But at least i hope to do my part in fullfilling  this demand as follows. 

There is no I without Other, as the HyperKlein bottle. 

This is already the case at the most elementary generation of semiotic space, where the torsion closing a ruptured-space-by-the-singularity through a loop, one can be taken as the Self (say, the torsion) and the singularity (as the Other), and interchangably so. (Please see fig 1 of Part I). Any of them becomes a sign for the other to relate too, and interchangeably at that. It is this interchangeability which sustains doing away with the singularity and keeping the closed-loop-as-torsion which generates the Klein Bottle rather than a two-distinction-Hyper Klein Bottle. 

But now the singularity and this process of represent it has been conceptualized as a torsion geometry which continuizes the discontinuity which the singularity embodies contextually, by closing a dislocated loop. 

The context appears to be transparent which is what conceptualization operates as:
on the one hand establishes a representation for the elements being related (singularity, the dislocation completed by the torsion, the imaginal process which operates it), but then obliterates the traces of this knitting together to provide a representation of the knitting and the elements being related to.

As for the concept:  the Klein bottle is related to the four ontological loci: objects, image as objects, imaginal-process, and time.  
Concepts appear to be generated by a similar process of reflection about Other as just described at the most elementary stage of introducing the torsion geometry and its Klein bottle logic  

Either object, image-as-object, imagination-as-process and time  become signified  by the concept produced as a relation between them. But in no case the concept is independent of this relation which is  imaginal, and as such sustained by the four ontoloical loci of the Klein Bottle. However, as a representation, it manifests in a myriad of material (and cognitive) structures !

Would this be correct, the Klein Bottle logic does provide a locus  for concept. As for "essence", this impresses me as the noumenal being categorized in terms of Inside and Outside, i.e. dual logic again. Perhaps i am being overtly rash (and rushing at that). My apologies for my ignorance. 

 (But, for the KBL and HKBLs the implicit interiority that essence elicits is phenomenological, rather than explainable and conceiveable as a given, an apriori.) I withdraw at this point.

Thank you for your comments.

Sincerely,

Diego




2017-04-18 10:05 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Diego

Namaste, Logic and onto-logy as well as epistemo-logy are certainly interrelated. But the logic or topo-logy of hyper-Klein bottles, torus or doughnut-like living beings, provide only two-dimensional manifolds of a single [monistic] space, i.e of surfaces. If we imagine surface or space as Being, and spaces internal to other spaces you have still not provided any notion of essence, or what we might call ontological interiority or implicitness. Topology tells us nothing of the bottle, whether it be made of glass or plastic. The shape of a doughnut tells us nothing about the tasty substance that is the real interest of that object. 

There are three spheres that Hegel;s Logic deals with: Being, Essence and Concept. It is not clear how your can use topology, or the logic of surfaces to deal with essence and concept.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.


From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
...

[Mensaje recortado]  

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 8:33:40 PM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Diego,

Yes, I guess we have quite opposed views of what 'logic' is. 'Logic' as an ordinary word has many uses and one cannot discard any use of the word. But my concern is with the history of logic, particularly of formal logic from Aristotle to Leibniz to Boole and Frege and others. When they developed their logics they bracketed, ontology, metaphysics and epistemology. I never claimed that logic has anything to do with epistemology either. Logic is basically the structure of inferential or computational thinking, which is a major component of the human mind, but surely not the only one. To expect to develop ontology or metaphysics or science out of logic is unrealistic. When Leibniz envisioned a universal logic he was after a universal language in which we could understand everything. It does not mean that physics is reduced to logic or that we can develop physics out of logic. 

I also do not know what you mean by dual logic or non dual logic. What does it have to do with logic as a science of inferences?

Priyedarshi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOKhh%2BVJL8ueSwQhTtUvdRs5aF7WnFzN%2BUi5Dx0xYqMfoH_LOA%40mail.gmail.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 4:56:03 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,
Indeed, you have an understanding in terms of history and i have one which does and does not follow this history. With regards to inference i already told you -and apparently you skipped it though you told me that understood me- that you may have a system of several non-reflective negation operators and yet which are connected between themselves. For such a system, the double negation does not give you the identity but something else, generalising and extending the dialectical negation. 
Still you may have a Matrix Logic, as conceived by August Stern, closely related to the Klein Bottle logic, in which the logical operators are matrices; particularly important is the Hadamard two by two matrix (the Hadamard gate of quantum mechanics), which is none other than the representation of the Klein Bottle. It allows to express inference as quantum transitions and interchangeably at that. You may produce higher-order logics by taking the tensor products. it has quantum, fuzzy and Boolean logic as subcases.
Seems that the history of logic as you present it is missing some chapters.
I am sorry, but i am not an historian of logic but committed to extend it.
Diego

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfCLNXYsnj5P1shDUogkoCvo8JBMUKqm0W5frSA5WkrL6w%40mail.gmail.com.

BMP

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 7:03:12 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego,

Namaste. I appreciate your attempt to explain for me in a simple way what seems to be your very intricate and imaginative idea of hyperspace logic for piecing together components from a variety of fields. 

You mentioned that neuroscience has proved that a topographical 2-D map on the neurocortex embodies [provides a bodlyplan of] a Klein Bottle formalism. I am not sure that neuroscience has definitely proven or demonstrated that, for instance, a specific area of the neurocortex does actually map to sensory experience. This seems to be the current theory, but it is not accepted by all. There are certainly exceptions noted in the literature, and researchers in this field like Christof Koch, I believe, does not accept this. 

When you say that this representation is 2-D are you referring to the fact that it relates the inner brain part of the body with its outer sense organs? Or that the neurocortex map is a 2-D area on the brain that somehow explains sense experience? I am sure there is much here I don't understand, but I am very skeptical of the claim that neuronal electrical discharges singly or in concert can produce conscious experiences such as sensations. Evidence does seem to point to such a connection, but current ideas about that connection and what is being connected seem wholly inadequate to explain it.If you say that KB logic explains it then you have not really explicated how.It seems that much is missing in such a claim.

All of this, however, does not really answer the question I raised, which was the very simple one of how the HKB equations can be applied to a hyper-Klein bottle itself to explain the substance of the bottle. The answer to this question would provide for me the insight that you might have for using the HKB logic in the first place. It would also prove to me that my skepticism about a topological logic being able to explain 3-D bodes or substances is misplaced. 

The other point you raised about Hilbert space and its projections is something new to me. Where is that explained in the literature? 

I am in complete agreement with the notion that there is no I without the Other. Hegel's philosophy is based on the identity of the different without collapsing their difference, or their identity in their difference. I am not sure how the HKB logic explains this. The difference or negation is essential to this relation.

Perhaps you have explained it in Part 1 of your  trilogy, but I have not read it because I am not yet sure you can explain the simple problem about the bottle itself. Some of the ideas you did mention seem reasonable. One of the main misconceptions that the whole of modern science is based on involves time, which is conceived merely in terms of an arithmetical progression. General relativity theory considers time in a more integrated manner but also in a very mutilated way as an imaginary coordinate [appearing as -icht]. Thus QT and GR are incompatible. 

Your attempt to answer these tough questions in a simple way is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.



From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 8:33 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
Dear B M Puri,

Thank you for your demand for further elaboration.
First an important point: experience and even the body that sustains it is through a Klein Bottle bodyplan which has been elicited both anatomically and  in the neurosciences study of the topographic maps on the neurocortex of the sensorium. 
The latter as its representation which has been proved to topologically be embodied as a Klein Bottle. Two-dimensional at that. 
This is the case of the visual and somatosensory modes.As for olfaction, which as the other two modes seems to be extremely high-dimensional, the fact that at the olfactory bulb a radial symmetry appears to be operating, with antipodal points being identified, this is a projective structure, which also produces the Moebius strip one-sided structure.

(a disgression; when yesterday I commented that Hilbert space could not be used to explain consciousness through duality and linearity, I meant what is well known in mathematical physics but ignored by most theoretical physicsits is: 
What matters is the projective Hilbert space, not the Hilbert space itself. Twisted,  it allows still to superpose linearly, as is the case of quantum physics. As for the formal representation of "consciousness" in this setting, i will not discuss it here.)

To resume, phenomenologically, experience is two-dimensional, and anatomically, the bodyplan which sustains it is a recurrent overlaying of this two-dimensionality which unifies Outside and Inside as a Klein Bottle, independently whether it is flesh, bone or connective tissue, or still as a unity of action and perception. Actually the liquid crystal structure of the connective tissue is crucial to this body integrity.

As for the quality of this flesh, bone or crystal connective tissue, its "taste", i only know that it is experiential too.

So allow me  to address the other issue you raised in your comment with regards to concepts. I am afraid that for the following you will need to read the Part I of my trilogy, which several times i gave the links to it in this forum. But at least i hope to do my part in fullfilling  this demand as follows. 

There is no I without Other, as the HyperKlein bottle. 

This is already the case at the most elementary generation of semiotic space, where the torsion closing a ruptured-space-by-the- singularity through a loop, one can be taken as the Self (say, the torsion) and the singularity (as the Other), and interchangably so. (Please see fig 1 of Part I). Any of them becomes a sign for the other to relate too, and interchangeably at that. It is this interchangeability which sustains doing away with the singularity and keeping the closed-loop-as-torsion which generates the Klein Bottle rather than a two-distinction-Hyper Klein Bottle. 

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 9:24:58 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi

In my thread of previous emails i identified several times "classical" and "dual"  logic; in the history of logic both terms uniquely identify: Aristotelian logic and its algebraic formalization by Boole.

This may came in other guises, such as Spencer-Brown's Calculus of Distinctions restricted to the PLANE, i.e. without considering the reentrance of the distinction on itself, which Spencer Brown dealt with the introduction of imaginary values, 

Whenever you consider leaving the plane as identified by McCulloch in 1945 -also discussed in my mails- in his work on heterarchies and neuronal networks you are already prompting a non-dual logic which may come associated to one or several distinctions, the latter case being the heterarchies embodied by the HyperKlein Bottles. 

For a single distinction, this is the reentrance  of the distinction on itself envisaged by Spencer-Brown, namely the Klein Bottle, with its four ontological loci -also discussed in my thread- and its four loci states -likewise. 

This can be formalized as a four-state de Morgan algebra with the non-classical two states associated to time-oscillations as first introduced by Spencer-Brown through the imaginary values, followed by Lou Kauffman, and further elaborated by Varela in his Calculus of Selfreference, or still in the Diamond Logic of Hellerstein. 

(For several distinctions, this prompts a system of several non-reflective negation operators also discussed in my thread, related to the several reentrances of Hyper Klein Bottles (the classical reflective negation is identified with the sign standing for the primal distinction, in Spencer-Brown)).

The importance of the former cannot be overstressed. The (in)famous Diagonal method introduced by Cantor purportedly to introduce infinities is proved a sham associated to the reflective negation of dual logic and some wild "inference" by Cantor, which set Poincare and many others screaming "nonsense" at the top of their lungs. (The constructive mathematics school of Brower was an aftermath of this and the Hilbert-Frege program of making of mathematics a purely formal syntactic system.)

Real numbers have the previous oscillatory behaviour up to an initial finite dyadic expansion, which describe the uncertainty introduced by non-linearity. All this is and the above is discussed in my works.

Another non-dual logic is Matrix Logic introduced by Stern, also related to the Klein Bottle, which i shortly introduced in my previous email, and allows to treat logic operators as quantum operators, and treat inference in terms of quantum transitions. 

There are also the Heyting algebras, topoi, etc.

Diego

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 9:24:58 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Diego,
Intuitionistic logic also does not accept the principle of double negtion. Logic is also done without negation with Scheffer's stroke. All these possibilities are within logic, not outside it. Ontology and epistemology are outside the scope of logic but any formalization of ontology, epistemology or ethics can be done within logic. I am afraid you have much narrower conception of logic whereas logic is broad enough and flexible enough and revisionist enough to accommodate everything. After all, it is the structure of thinking so it has to be that way. It is not a matter of your history or my history, but a matter of what we are looking at when we look at the history of logic. You seem to be looking at logic bound in ontology or epistemology, perhaps arises out of them, or they arise out of it, or there is an entanglement, and I am looking at logic which is without any content of form as that is the nature of logic. I apologize that I am relatively ignorant about Hegel and the same goes for quantum mechanics. However, the standard thing I hear is that Hegel denies Aristotle's law of contradiction. This is better labeled as the 'law of non-contradiction' as the 'law of contradiction', as understood now, is that from a contradiction anything follows. Paraconsistent logics, including Aristotle's syllogistic logic (I have written a paper on this) deny the law of contradiction and are hence paraconsistent logics. Hegel's denial, I take it, is of the law of non contradiction, which says some thing like "it is not the case that p and not-p". According to Hegel we can have both A and not A. However, the 'A' here is not a proposition or a sentence or a statement; whereas Aristotle's law of non-contradiction applies to porpositions, or sentences or statements, not to entities. I suspect that Hegel's denial is an ontological one since he does not say that the same proposition and its negation can both be true, he simply says that A can also be not-A. This is clearly not a denial of the law of non-contradiction. If Hegel did mean propositions in his denial then consider this: Take Hegel's statement " 'p and not-p' is true " or that " 'it is not the case that (p and not-p)' is false". Now, what would Hegel say about the following statement " 'p and not-p' is true and 'not (p and not-p) is true ". If this statement is true then the law of non-contradiction is both true and not true. And the same happens if this statement is false. So, what is it exactly that Hegel is rejecting if we are to take his rejection literally. 

Similarly, I hear some say that if a particle is in one position p1 and also at another position p2 then this is the denial of the law of non contradiction. Again, I don't see this at all.  The propositions 'Particle x is at p1' and 'Particle x is at p2' are not contradictories. They are  not negations of each other. They are two different propositions. one could be true, the other false, or vice versa, or both true or both false. Both being true may deny our ontological commitments but it has nothing to do with logic or with denying the law of non-contradiction.

Finally, even if I am misguided in all of this, the law of non-contradiction of Aristotle is not a law of formal logic, though it may be a law of thought. Formal logic has to do with inferences. If you can find this law playing a role in the development of formal logic in Aristotle's Prior Analytics, please cite the passage so I will correct myself.

Priyedarshi

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 9:24:58 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi,


On 18 Apr 2017, at 19:03, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Diego,

Yes, I guess we have quite opposed views of what 'logic' is. 'Logic' as an ordinary word has many uses and one cannot discard any use of the word. But my concern is with the history of logic, particularly of formal logic from Aristotle to Leibniz to Boole and Frege and others. When they developed their logics they bracketed, ontology, metaphysics and epistemology. I never claimed that logic has anything to do with epistemology either. Logic is basically the structure of inferential or computational thinking,

I guess you mean non-computational. Classical logic is highly not computational. When we prove a disjunction, or an existence by a using the excluded middle principle, the easiness of the proof comes from the fact that we don't need to construct the object we are talking about. (In that sense, intuitionist logic can be defended to be more computational, but not all intuitionist philosophers would agree). 

I can prove in three lines that there exist rational number x and y such that x^y is irrational, by using the excluded middle, but the proof will only show that the solution is in a box of possible solutions, without giving any means to know the specific solution. It will show in fact that either x = y = sqrt(2) is a solution OR that x = sqrt(2)^sqrt(2) and y = sqrt(2) is a solution. The constructive computational proof exists, but is ten page of very hard number theory, using the elliptic curves, the modular form, and is very difficult without a lot of knowledge in algebra and analysis. The logic implicit in hig shcool math is highly non computational (making much more easy).



which is a major component of the human mind, but surely not the only one. To expect to develop ontology or metaphysics or science out of logic is unrealistic.

I agree with this. You need to assume at least one universal system, like the numbers with addition and multiplication. We cannot derive the numbers from logic.




When Leibniz envisioned a universal logic he was after a universal language in which we could understand everything. It does not mean that physics is reduced to logic or that we can develop physics out of logic. 

But assuming Digital Mechanism (alias Computationalism) , we *have to* derive physics from, not logic, but arithmetic. If that is shown impossible, then mechanism is refuted.

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 12:35:55 PM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B M Puri,

I realized that i forgot to relate to the topic of time. Time as an operator and an ontological loci rather than a parameter is crucial to the ontoepistemology that i elaborated and continue working at. As already stated, you may do the reading of this. Any queries following it, i will do my best to find the time for answering to them and would certainly appreciate them with the provisos already stated.
Namaste
Diego

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-04-19 12:56 GMT-03:00
Subject: Fwd: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
To: "stein.johansen" <stein.j...@svt.ntnu.no>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-04-19 12:36 GMT-03:00
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com


Dear B M Puri

Namaste.
Thanks for your comments.
Let us start with the claim of the phenomenological dimension two of the Klein Bottle as the basic representation of the somatosensory and visual modes. It is a structure that embodies the relation between the surface and the brain but that is recursively represented as a bauplan of the body surfacelike recursively. The representation is projected to the first areas of processing on the neurocortex,  S1 and V1 from which through feedforward and feedback it turns to provide the full sensory experience which is much of a fabrication. It does not explain nor provide "consciousness" but the metaform of how experience is structured and processed topologically. 
However, this metaform actually is displayed as projections of itself anatomically. A good anatomical example of this is the human or mammal heart, which has been found to have a Moebius strip topology, just by displaying it without cutting but for the extraction of the valves (Torrent Guasp).

As for the relevance of the projective Hilbert space as the geometry of the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics, it boilds down that a state psi and that any non-null number lambda , the multiplication of lambda times psi provides the same state than the original psi. It is crucial to the symmetries of quantum mechanics. 


The theory for this is known as Geometric Quantum Theory. It is crucial as well to the introduction of information as the basis for quantum mechanics and much of physics as elaborated in the Fisher Information Theory himself and others, through the Fubini-Study metric of the projective space

and is closely related to the quantum potential introduced by Bohm, to the so-called Cartan-Weyl spacetime with torsion (related to my own works which i suggested for reading) and Information Geometry



 and to the topological invariants such as the Berry phase which is very much at the core of quantum mechanics
for which last year the Nobel prize in physics was awarded to Kosterlitz, while simultaneously was awarded the prize for chemistry to some of the founders of the Topological Chemistry paradigm. So there is a convergence to topology both in physics and chemistry as the basic mathematical structure together with geometry. 



Yet, we can invert the usual deductive order and start with statistical samples and still consider spaces of statistical distributions and their corresponding geometries, Information Geometry, which leads to conceive, very much as the brain-body would, construct a geometrical space from Bayesian statistical inference. This was originally worked out by Carlos Rodriguez, at Albany University which seems to have dropped the subject. However, his findings, 
for one lead to consider the possibility that from this notion of a geometry of information distributions the very notion of space arises.
For applications of biology of related ideas see


Now, the equations for the Klein bottle are known. No equations for the infinite possible HyperKlein Bottle logics have been written.
With respect to what is under display and scrutiny, they play no role whatsover, not even for the recognition of the Klein  Bottle as the metaform of pattern recognition.

Although the Klein bottle appears to be related to the structure of the reals as their infinite paradoxical tails in their dyadic expansions which appear to have a finite rational expansion continued with these tails as the structure of uncertainty which BOOLEAN logic is unable to pick out, this is a topological theory at the most elementary level. 

Allow me to resume. These are metaforms which organize both matter, thought and the relations between the imaginal and the real domains. What is their "quale" as you solicit, nor how it is generated is an issue I cannot answer, and  not even committ myself at this very moment. Nor i can  understand it  either. Anyway i will keep it doing its work. Thanks for this.

Allow me to observe. You place the burden of answering to your query without taking the  trouble of doing the related studies towards participating in the understanding process of yourself, while attempting to emplace them in your already established understanding. 
The eureka process may be triggered in the relation with the Other, but the I must do its work towards it.

As we both said, there is no I without Other.

I here withdraw. 

Sincerely,

Diego Lucio Rapoport






2017-04-19 8:02 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Diego,

Namaste. I appreciate your attempt to explain for me in a simple way what seems to be your very intricate and imaginative idea of hyperspace logic for piecing together components from a variety of fields. 

You mentioned that neuroscience has proved that a topographical 2-D map on the neurocortex embodies [provides a bodlyplan of] a Klein Bottle formalism. I am not sure that neuroscience has definitely proven or demonstrated that, for instance, a specific area of the neurocortex does actually map to sensory experience. This seems to be the current theory, but it is not accepted by all. There are certainly exceptions noted in the literature, and researchers in this field like Christof Koch, I believe, does not accept this. 

When you say that this representation is 2-D are you referring to the fact that it relates the inner brain part of the body with its outer sense organs? Or that the neurocortex map is a 2-D area on the brain that somehow explains sense experience? I am sure there is much here I don't understand, but I am very skeptical of the claim that neuronal electrical discharges singly or in concert can produce conscious experiences such as sensations. Evidence does seem to point to such a connection, but current ideas about that connection and what is being connected seem wholly inadequate to explain it.If you say that KB logic explains it then you have not really explicated how.It seems that much is missing in such a claim.

All of this, however, does not really answer the question I raised, which was the very simple one of how the HKB equations can be applied to a hyper-Klein bottle itself to explain the substance of the bottle. The answer to this question would provide for me the insight that you might have for using the HKB logic in the first place. It would also prove to me that my skepticism about a topological logic being able to explain 3-D bodes or substances is misplaced. 

The other point you raised about Hilbert space and its projections is something new to me. Where is that explained in the literature? 

I am in complete agreement with the notion that there is no I without the Other. Hegel's philosophy is based on the identity of the different without collapsing their difference, or their identity in their difference. I am not sure how the HKB logic explains this. The difference or negation is essential to this relation.

Perhaps you have explained it in Part 1 of your  trilogy, but I have not read it because I am not yet sure you can explain the simple problem about the bottle itself. Some of the ideas you did mention seem reasonable. One of the main misconceptions that the whole of modern science is based on involves time, which is conceived merely in terms of an arithmetical progression. General relativity theory considers time in a more integrated manner but also in a very mutilated way as an imaginary coordinate [appearing as -icht]. Thus QT and GR are incompatible. 

Your attempt to answer these tough questions in a simple way is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.



From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 12:35:55 PM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
2017-04-19 8:02 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Diego,

Namaste. I appreciate your attempt to explain for me in a simple way what seems to be your very intricate and imaginative idea of hyperspace logic for piecing together components from a variety of fields. 

You mentioned that neuroscience has proved that a topographical 2-D map on the neurocortex embodies [provides a bodlyplan of] a Klein Bottle formalism. I am not sure that neuroscience has definitely proven or demonstrated that, for instance, a specific area of the neurocortex does actually map to sensory experience. This seems to be the current theory, but it is not accepted by all. There are certainly exceptions noted in the literature, and researchers in this field like Christof Koch, I believe, does not accept this. 

When you say that this representation is 2-D are you referring to the fact that it relates the inner brain part of the body with its outer sense organs? Or that the neurocortex map is a 2-D area on the brain that somehow explains sense experience? I am sure there is much here I don't understand, but I am very skeptical of the claim that neuronal electrical discharges singly or in concert can produce conscious experiences such as sensations. Evidence does seem to point to such a connection, but current ideas about that connection and what is being connected seem wholly inadequate to explain it.If you say that KB logic explains it then you have not really explicated how.It seems that much is missing in such a claim.

All of this, however, does not really answer the question I raised, which was the very simple one of how the HKB equations can be applied to a hyper-Klein bottle itself to explain the substance of the bottle. The answer to this question would provide for me the insight that you might have for using the HKB logic in the first place. It would also prove to me that my skepticism about a topological logic being able to explain 3-D bodes or substances is misplaced. 

The other point you raised about Hilbert space and its projections is something new to me. Where is that explained in the literature? 

I am in complete agreement with the notion that there is no I without the Other. Hegel's philosophy is based on the identity of the different without collapsing their difference, or their identity in their difference. I am not sure how the HKB logic explains this. The difference or negation is essential to this relation.

Perhaps you have explained it in Part 1 of your  trilogy, but I have not read it because I am not yet sure you can explain the simple problem about the bottle itself. Some of the ideas you did mention seem reasonable. One of the main misconceptions that the whole of modern science is based on involves time, which is conceived merely in terms of an arithmetical progression. General relativity theory considers time in a more integrated manner but also in a very mutilated way as an imaginary coordinate [appearing as -icht]. Thus QT and GR are incompatible. 

Your attempt to answer these tough questions in a simple way is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.



From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1107624020.3660302.1492599720293%40mail.yahoo.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 6:28:35 PM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B M Puri,

I made up my mind as to the response to how is a quale associated to the Klein Bottle or HyperKlein Bottle(s) metaforms. As such they have no such interiority, but generate them interrelationalwise upon projecting to the material world.  Here is the richness that i proposed to need to be experienced and pondered. 
I correct a previous statement. The equations or analytical representation of the Klein Bottle is not necessary to its identification of the metaform of pattern recognition, as long as we carry out a statistical theory of the topological invariants of the landscape photographs where the subject is focusing due to their complexity. They appear as a kind of watermark and certainly have no quality at that but their apparent transparency, as any watermark on a sheet of paper.
Would we carry an analytical study as in signal theory identification, then its equations do appear as the fundamental first two terms of the spherical harmonics expansion of a sinusoidal isotropic (so essentially one-dimensional) signal impinging on an arbitrary boundary. Would there be an observer or not, their signature is patent all along the surface of Earth, to us, and a  geophysicist that has identified them told me that colonies of ants have a visible predilection for following the paths of their contours. 

(What quale is that they may be attracted to, or perhaps a kind of magnetic sensorial cells might be the case, for the former i would need to converse with ants, but i prefer to keep up with trying easier and chat with the cats that share our homestead.)

Diego Lucio Rapoport 

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 4:58:34 AM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Diego,

I am not promoting logicism. Some logicists believed that you can construct all of mathematics from logic. The Intuitionists don't accept this. Neither do I. My point was a simple general one, logic is mainly about inferences and has no content, therefore free of ontology or epistemology. This is what alternative systems of logic have in common. Further, as far as I know most systems of logic can be translated into each other or shown to be extentions of classical logic.Of course it takes some doing to accomplish this.

Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOKhh%2BUtDrtCPCZM9TkpSg9FQZ3L8GvAYfsywuOou-mtOz6d2g%40mail.gmail.com.

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 8:44:47 AM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyadarshi,
what you are telling me in short is about a  very constrained science in relation to what i have related  to you.
Diego

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfBQ4cugOzNppbzh1qJG8TL3VaAseAnzQ2HaDLH%3DtYhynA%40mail.gmail.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 8:44:47 AM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 20 Apr 2017, at 09:12, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Diego,

I am not promoting logicism. Some logicists believed that you can construct all of mathematics from logic. The Intuitionists don't accept this. Neither do I. My point was a simple general one, logic is mainly about inferences and has no content, therefore free of ontology or epistemology. This is what alternative systems of logic have in common. Further, as far as I know most systems of logic can be translated into each other or shown to be extentions of classical logic.Of course it takes some doing to accomplish this.


Logicism has failed. No (reasonably serious) logicians would assume it. We know that elementary arithmetic cannot be deduced from any logic. If fact, we can prove in arithmetic that arithmetic does not follow from logic. Russell and Whitehead claims that 1+1=2 can be proved in their logical system, but they assumed a part of set theory, which assumes much more than arithmetic.

We know also that arithmetic is Turing equivalent. It realizes all computations, and this lead to the problem of recovering physics from a statistics on all computations see from inside (that is: structured by the modal logic of self-references imposed by the Incompleteness Phenomenon).

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 12:12:43 PM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Diego,

I am not sure  what you are referring to. I was talking about formal logic. I don't consider logic or mathematics to be science. And I also do not consider logic as part of mathematics or vice versa. Logic is a very specialized discipline with many branches, though not as many as mathematics. I subscribe to the journal of symbolic logic. When I read any article in it, I do not even understand five percent of it. Being specialized is not a vice but a virtue that leads to progress. Grand schemes, unifying theories and holistic world views are attractive and perhaps needed but they are never to be replacement for specialization which is just as essential or else I would not be communicating with you on email if all we had was a Hegelian or some other world view.

Priyedarshi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOKhh%2BUjUGbZX7Cx0MgwLd5PM3s-r16it%3DJx1H0CAaczUS_C6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

BMP

unread,
Apr 24, 2017, 1:48:08 PM4/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego

Namaste. Thank you for your replies and references. I am not up on the mathematics that you use to frame your statements so I just have to accept them as assertions from my viewpoint, although I do know they use topological projections in medical imaging applications, for instance.

I am also not sure of the Fourier or other transforms from multi-dimensional space of KB or HKB to 3D, so I have to take your word for it. It all sounds quite fascinating if it actually works. However, some of the philosophical details are questionable in my opinion.

First of all, any ontoepistemological metaform, as you call it, requires more than the applicability of that form to specific problems. What seems to be missing, as far as I understand, is the imagination of the person applying/interpreting the particular metaform to a particular situation. In other words, the metaforms don't apply themselves - they are not self-determining. They have no self, which is the characteristic defect of nondual systems as you like to call your metaforms, so there is no real Otherness, except in the imagination of the person applying your nondual topologies. You said you agree the I needs the Other, but where does that Other come from in nondual topological logic? As I said, I don't think it comes from the logic but from the agent who applies the logic. You may say that the logic implies an I and Other are represented in a nondual way, but my argument is that the 'implication' is not found in the logic but in an interpreter outside of it.

When Spencer-Brown wrote the Laws of Form, he used 'form' in the sense of pattern, not in the Platonic or philosophical sense of idea. He begins with 'severance' of a non-differentiated surface. But this severance is initiated by a motive which comes from outside the system/world being described, as is also true for the value associated with that motive. 

You seem to attribute this severance to an inherent property of the logic you are using. But there is no motive or value considered in your description, thus it seems lacking in that regard. Again I think this points to the person applying the logical formalism, not the formalism itself. The person and the formalism may be seen as a duality that is then explained by a topological formalism or logic, so that the formalism does not represent that duality as such but collapses it into a nonduality. Thus the severance cannot be explained by the nondual logic which needs a motive or person with values in order to make the severance to begin with.

Concerning Aristotle you have written in one of your essays, "Thought as a process . . . . in the
Aristotelian tradition is confused with thought as an image." To me this would indicate that you are the one who has conflated the absolute thought or pure thinking that Aristotle is concerned with in Logic, and the reflective thought or subjectivity opposed to an objective world that G. Gunther also seems to misunderstand. Pure thinking has nothing to do with images, and neither does it have anything to do with time. Gunther and others, it seems to me,  are simply repeating the same erroneous notion that Heidegger represented in his Sein und Zeit. Neither Hegel nor Aristotle conflated the Logic as Idea in and for itself, with Nature - the externality of the Idea or the Idea in itself. In Kant we find a similar attempt to distinguish pure reason (Reine Vernunft) from reflective understanding (Verstand) that was not totally successful. His twelve categories of understanding were not images but principles in the formation of images of reflection, connected by time. 

If individuals can not understood why Hegel does not include Time in his Science of Logic, then they have not understood pure speculative thought or pure thinking. Pure thought thinks only itself, not images of anything. Thinking is the differentiation of itself in its own intrinsic activity/negativity of dialectically severing itself from itself. Here is nonduality that is also duality simultaneously. This is Hegel's dynamic principle of becoming in place of the static being of topologies or any other reified ontoempistemological forms or metaforms. For Hegel difference and non-difference are identical and different simultaneously, and that makes all the difference in the world as the founding principle of a thetic-antithetic living pulsating truth or Spirit.

The idea of severance is expressed by the term 'diremption' by some Hegelians. It may also be referred to as 'determination.' In German the word for judgement is Urteil which basically means an 'original parting' - Ur 'original' and teil 'parting/cut.' Thus a judgement like "It is a cow" may be understood as a diremption of a unified Being ('is') into an indeterminate 'it' and a determinate 'cow' which at the same time unites them.In other words, they are both Being but one has a mark or determination and is therefore called determinate being.

This is my view of the situation as briefly as I can make it. In relation to time and space I have previously mentioned on this forum that space and time are constituents of bodies but when dirempted from them become bodies in abstract time and space. The original thinking-being [subject-object unity]  of Descartes also becomes dirempted into consciousness (subjective or reflective thinking) and its world (objectivity). If I have understood you correctly,  I may disagree with you on some basic principles, but I think we can agree on these instances.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:27 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017

Dear B M Puri,

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 24, 2017, 9:21:34 PM4/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B M Puri
please read the first item 2 below as
2'. the closure of the gap produced by the singularity upon observing itself as an outsided dislocation through a loop (as in fig1 o Part I of mu trilogy)

Perhaps i could learn otherwise  would you detail in what we do agree .
This i look forward to, as much as your prior reply.
Please take in account that as a formalism and as an ontology this seems, at least partially, likewise reproducible  starting from partial ignorance and Bayesian inference. 

Thanking you for your attention,
Sincerely

Diego

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-04-24 17:39 GMT-03:00
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


Dear B M Puri,

Namaste.

Thanks for your return, i was indeed looking forward to it.

A short introduction. This came from Elie Cartan's theory of a torsion geometry which is independent of the usual notion of metric  (though they do have a metric) by Riemann, Minkowski, retaken by Einstein, and developed as a unifying principle of physics in my own work of the last 30+ years. There was no observer at that, unless we either take what is called an anholonomic reference frame which produces torsion rather than an holonomic one as in General Relativity. 

But upon identifying it at the most basic level with the manifestation of a singularity/inhomogeneity/difference on a context, the motivation IS THE SELF-MANIFESTATION of them, and at the prephysicall  level of the formalism is
1. the torsion field which at the most fundamental level of the vacuum introduces a two-chirality, left and right, fused as in the Klein Bottle to produce the "vacuum fluctuations"
2. the primeval distinction on the PLANE introduced by Spencer-Brown, for which as for me the primeval distinction, its formal representation as the sign and the observer are identified, and upon considering the reentrance of the system defined by the distinction the form produced is the Klein Bottle

then several identifications appear to be the case: 

1.the singularity, 
2. the closure of the path produced by it
3. the motivation for selfmanifestation as a closed loop -a self-representation of the singularity,
so that the closure of the gap is indeed an exchangeability of Self and Other -as explained in my first mail which you found too cryptic- 
4., the sign of distinction, 
5. the observer, 
5, the formal representation which blends them all as a unity
6. the physical fields which are as objective as
 are

1.the electromagnetic fields, 
2. wave functions as in the linear and non-linear Schrodinger (including the case of open systems) and Dirac equations, or the fluid velocity of an incompressible media -the most generic organizaton of matter, or still
3. liquid crystals,
4 the morphology of the human body and other organisms
5. genomes -which i discovered to have these structures and the info of the Genome project confirm it)
6. geophysical patterns,(recognized by us or other species) related to graviation and the PRECESION OF THE EQUINOXES
7. patterns of musics as if sustaining their creations (here the "objectivity" of structure and processes is con-fused with that of imagination
and of PURE THINKING, Subjectivity appears to be patterned even upon creating.
8. the metaform of pattern recognition of landscapes being the item 6 the case of observer-independence

items some of which we presume to be quite observer-independent.

To resume they appear to have a Self whether there are observers or not to experience, identically as Nature appears to us or others.
in other words, they have the Otherness we identify as Nature. Additionally, as in the item 7 above and 6.for ants, the fusion of natural, pure thinking as in the creation of music  and imaginal becomes relevant. 

The blurness of the primality of the non-dual logic vis-a-vis of the agent that may exist to apply it appears to be the case.
In some cases, we may place some weight on Nature and in others in the agent, but in any case the 
non-dual LOGOPHYSICS IS AGENCY, whether we are acting or absent. This i called ontopoiesis. 

Of course, their manifestation as Nature appears as the signature of Otherness, and our awe at experiencing it elicits the unity of Self and Other, say as elicited by the mimetics operating through mirror neurons.

So i fully disagree with your interpretations of these logophysics. 

Returning to "pure thinking" as thinking itself, the problem lies, as usual with "pure", since it assumes omewhat of a detachment of thinking, as separate of the "objects" of thinking; namely of its own operations through distinctions introduced upon thinking.

This i believe to be an inorganic abstraction, as the creation of music and of mathematics shows to be unfounded.

I am not an Hegelian philosopher, nor ascribed to any particular school as far as i know. My ignorance does not block me from pursuing understanding in the terms which i have learnt since i came to this world, my experience, 
and those of others as much as i have encountered, so far.

Thanking you for your attention,

Sincerely,

Diego Lucio Rapoport 

2017-04-24 14:42 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Diego

Namaste. Thank you for your replies and references. I am not up on the mathematics that you use to frame your statements so I just have to accept them as assertions from my viewpoint, although I do know they use topological projections in medical imaging applications, for instance.

I am also not sure of the Fourier or other transforms from multi-dimensional space of KB or HKB to 3D, so I have to take your word for it. It all sounds quite fascinating if it actually works. However, some of the philosophical details are questionable in my opinion.

First of all, any ontoepistemological metaform, as you call it, requires more than the applicability of that form to specific problems. What seems to be missing, as far as I understand, is the imagination of the person applying/interpreting the particular metaform to a particular situation. In other words, the metaforms don't apply themselves - they are not self-determining. They have no self, which is the characteristic defect of nondual systems as you like to call your metaforms, so there is no real Otherness, except in the imagination of the person applying your nondual topologies. You said you agree the I needs the Other, but where does that Other come from in nondual topological logic? As I said, I don't think it comes from the logic but from the agent who applies the logic. You may say that the logic implies an I and Other are represented in a nondual way, but my argument is that the 'implication' is not found in the logic but in an interpreter outside of it.

When Spencer-Brown wrote the Laws of Form, he used 'form' in the sense of pattern, not in the Platonic or philosophical sense of idea. He begins with 'severance' of a non-differentiated surface. But this severance is initiated by a motive which comes from outside the system/world being described, as is also true for the value associated with that motive. 

You seem to attribute this severance to an inherent property of the logic you are using. But there is no motive or value considered in your description, thus it seems lacking in that regard. Again I think this points to the person applying the logical formalism, not the formalism itself. The person and the formalism may be seen as a duality that is then explained by a topological formalism or logic, so that the formalism does not represent that duality as such but collapses it into a nonduality. Thus the severance cannot be explained by the nondual logic which needs a motive or person with values in order to make the severance to begin with.

Concerning Aristotle you have written in one of your essays, "Thought as a process . . . . in the
Aristotelian tradition is confused with thought as an image." To me this would indicate that you are the one who has conflated the absolute thought or pure thinking that Aristotle is concerned with in Logic, and the reflective thought or subjectivity opposed to an objective world that G. Gunther also seems to misunderstand. Pure thinking has nothing to do with images, and neither does it have anything to do with time. Gunther and others, it seems to me,  are simply repeating the same erroneous notion that Heidegger represented in his Sein und Zeit. Neither Hegel nor Aristotle conflated the Logic as Idea in and for itself, with Nature - the externality of the Idea or the Idea in itself. In Kant we find a similar attempt to distinguish pure reason (Reine Vernunft) from reflective understanding (Verstand) that was not totally successful. His twelve categories of understanding were not images but principles in the formation of images of reflection, connected by time. 

If individuals can not understood why Hegel does not include Time in his Science of Logic, then they have not understood pure speculative thought or pure thinking. Pure thought thinks only itself, not images of anything. Thinking is the differentiation of itself in its own intrinsic activity/negativity of dialectically severing itself from itself. Here is nonduality that is also duality simultaneously. This is Hegel's dynamic principle of becoming in place of the static being of topologies or any other reified ontoempistemological forms or metaforms. For Hegel difference and non-difference are identical and different simultaneously, and that makes all the difference in the world as the founding principle of a thetic-antithetic living pulsating truth or Spirit.

The idea of severance is expressed by the term 'diremption' by some Hegelians. It may also be referred to as 'determination.' In German the word for judgement is Urteil which basically means an 'original parting' - Ur 'original' and teil 'parting/cut.' Thus a judgement like "It is a cow" may be understood as a diremption of a unified Being ('is') into an indeterminate 'it' and a determinate 'cow' which at the same time unites them.In other words, they are both Being but one has a mark or determination and is therefore called determinate being.

This is my view of the situation as briefly as I can make it. In relation to time and space I have previously mentioned on this forum that space and time are constituents of bodies but when dirempted from them become bodies in abstract time and space. The original thinking-being [subject-object unity]  of Descartes also becomes dirempted into consciousness (subjective or reflective thinking) and its world (objectivity). If I have understood you correctly,  I may disagree with you on some basic principles, but I think we can agree on these instances.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.







From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
Apr 24, 2017, 9:21:37 PM4/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
2017-04-24 14:42 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Diego

Namaste. Thank you for your replies and references. I am not up on the mathematics that you use to frame your statements so I just have to accept them as assertions from my viewpoint, although I do know they use topological projections in medical imaging applications, for instance.

I am also not sure of the Fourier or other transforms from multi-dimensional space of KB or HKB to 3D, so I have to take your word for it. It all sounds quite fascinating if it actually works. However, some of the philosophical details are questionable in my opinion.

First of all, any ontoepistemological metaform, as you call it, requires more than the applicability of that form to specific problems. What seems to be missing, as far as I understand, is the imagination of the person applying/interpreting the particular metaform to a particular situation. In other words, the metaforms don't apply themselves - they are not self-determining. They have no self, which is the characteristic defect of nondual systems as you like to call your metaforms, so there is no real Otherness, except in the imagination of the person applying your nondual topologies. You said you agree the I needs the Other, but where does that Other come from in nondual topological logic? As I said, I don't think it comes from the logic but from the agent who applies the logic. You may say that the logic implies an I and Other are represented in a nondual way, but my argument is that the 'implication' is not found in the logic but in an interpreter outside of it.

When Spencer-Brown wrote the Laws of Form, he used 'form' in the sense of pattern, not in the Platonic or philosophical sense of idea. He begins with 'severance' of a non-differentiated surface. But this severance is initiated by a motive which comes from outside the system/world being described, as is also true for the value associated with that motive. 

You seem to attribute this severance to an inherent property of the logic you are using. But there is no motive or value considered in your description, thus it seems lacking in that regard. Again I think this points to the person applying the logical formalism, not the formalism itself. The person and the formalism may be seen as a duality that is then explained by a topological formalism or logic, so that the formalism does not represent that duality as such but collapses it into a nonduality. Thus the severance cannot be explained by the nondual logic which needs a motive or person with values in order to make the severance to begin with.

Concerning Aristotle you have written in one of your essays, "Thought as a process . . . . in the
Aristotelian tradition is confused with thought as an image." To me this would indicate that you are the one who has conflated the absolute thought or pure thinking that Aristotle is concerned with in Logic, and the reflective thought or subjectivity opposed to an objective world that G. Gunther also seems to misunderstand. Pure thinking has nothing to do with images, and neither does it have anything to do with time. Gunther and others, it seems to me,  are simply repeating the same erroneous notion that Heidegger represented in his Sein und Zeit. Neither Hegel nor Aristotle conflated the Logic as Idea in and for itself, with Nature - the externality of the Idea or the Idea in itself. In Kant we find a similar attempt to distinguish pure reason (Reine Vernunft) from reflective understanding (Verstand) that was not totally successful. His twelve categories of understanding were not images but principles in the formation of images of reflection, connected by time. 

If individuals can not understood why Hegel does not include Time in his Science of Logic, then they have not understood pure speculative thought or pure thinking. Pure thought thinks only itself, not images of anything. Thinking is the differentiation of itself in its own intrinsic activity/negativity of dialectically severing itself from itself. Here is nonduality that is also duality simultaneously. This is Hegel's dynamic principle of becoming in place of the static being of topologies or any other reified ontoempistemological forms or metaforms. For Hegel difference and non-difference are identical and different simultaneously, and that makes all the difference in the world as the founding principle of a thetic-antithetic living pulsating truth or Spirit.

The idea of severance is expressed by the term 'diremption' by some Hegelians. It may also be referred to as 'determination.' In German the word for judgement is Urteil which basically means an 'original parting' - Ur 'original' and teil 'parting/cut.' Thus a judgement like "It is a cow" may be understood as a diremption of a unified Being ('is') into an indeterminate 'it' and a determinate 'cow' which at the same time unites them.In other words, they are both Being but one has a mark or determination and is therefore called determinate being.

This is my view of the situation as briefly as I can make it. In relation to time and space I have previously mentioned on this forum that space and time are constituents of bodies but when dirempted from them become bodies in abstract time and space. The original thinking-being [subject-object unity]  of Descartes also becomes dirempted into consciousness (subjective or reflective thinking) and its world (objectivity). If I have understood you correctly,  I may disagree with you on some basic principles, but I think we can agree on these instances.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.







From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

BMP

unread,
Apr 27, 2017, 9:34:45 AM4/27/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego

Namaste. 

You refer to "identifying" as if that term did not refer to an identifier [the one doing the identifying].

Thus when you write

". . . upon identifying it at the most basic level with the manifestation of a singularity/inhomogeneity/difference on a context, the motivation IS THE SELF-MANIFESTATION of them . . ."

I may have misunderstood this, but I take this to mean that YOU are identifying motivation with the manifestation of a singularity.It is not intrinsic to a singularity. 

By using the term manifestation, you apparently mean it just happens by chance or some unknown means that a boundary or difference is established within what is otherwise a homogeneous continuity. It is difficult to reconcile such a contingent occurrence with an intentional motive.

However, if the boundary is determined by a thinking person, with an intention or motive, then the motive and the boundary are not identical, as I am sure you can agree.

You then write

". . for me the primeval distinction, its formal representation as the sign and the observer are identified . . "

But Pierce writes: "Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign.' 

In other words, in the use of the word 'sign' you have an interpreter [observer] and the sign. If they are not different then the word 'sign' cannot be meaningful at all. When you say "formal representation' you are speaking about an abstract mathematical formalism. But an abstraction does not represent what is in reality a distinction. For instance, an ideal gas is an abstraction for which a certain law or equation applies, but real gases have components that interact with one another and therefore violate such equations.  

Saussure further specifies that a sign implies two things: signifier [image/object] and signified [concept]. In Hegelian philosophy a concept and its reality are inseparable as a dialectical identity in difference, never as a mere or abstract identity. 

The next question is: If a singularity is an indivisible identity, how does a singularity produce a path that closes upon itself? Please provide the essential details of how [by what agency/necessity] it divides itself and then produces a path back to itself.

As Hegel remarked, a oneness or non-dual logic can only produce a 'night in which all cows are black.' The difference implied in the word 'all' cannot be eliminated by the paradoxical saying 'all is one.' The 'all' does not fall into the one and disappear, otherwise there would be no meaning to 'all.'

Thank you for trying to explain your ideas to me, but even Maturana's autopoiesis applies to any machine/computer that is made of purely dead matter, which we might call processing but none of which we would identify as cognitive or living. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:28 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017

Dear B M Puri,

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 9:01:11 AM4/28/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Madhav,

I do not understand the physics of singularities. However, I do not understand how your synthesis of the semiotics of Pierce, the linguistics of Saussure and the obscurity of Hegel has anything to do with singularities. How do you jump from signs in a language to singularities?

Your quotation from C. S. Pierce is 'Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign' means that if we look at a Stop sign on the road, it is merely a metallic red octagon on the top of a pole with some white in the middle painted on it. It is not a sign, and particularly not a Stop Sign unless it is interpreted as such. Without an interpreter 'the sign' does not exist, however the 'it' in Pierce's sentence does exist, because the it is an object that dogs can pee on, the "it" is not a sign but is called a 'sign' when interpreted as a sign. I don't know if you want to say that there is no phenomenon of a certain kind without an observer or measurement. But your quotation from Peirce will not work for this I am afraid. Pierce does not deny the existence of the object but of the object as a sign.

Priyedarshi

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:51 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Diego

Namaste. 

You refer to "identifying" as if that term did not refer to an identifier [the one doing the identifying].

Thus when you write

". . . upon identifying it at the most basic level with the manifestation of a singularity/inhomogeneity/difference on a context, the motivation IS THE SELF-MANIFESTATION of them . . ."

I may have misunderstood this, but I take this to mean that YOU are identifying motivation with the manifestation of a singularity.It is not intrinsic to a singularity. 

By using the term manifestation, you apparently mean it just happens by chance or some unknown means that a boundary or difference is established within what is otherwise a homogeneous continuity. It is difficult to reconcile such a contingent occurrence with an intentional motive.

However, if the boundary is determined by a thinking person, with an intention or motive, then the motive and the boundary are not identical, as I am sure you can agree.

You then write

". . for me the primeval distinction, its formal representation as the sign and the observer are identified . . "

But Pierce writes: "Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign.' 

In other words, in the use of the word 'sign' you have an interpreter [observer] and the sign. If they are not different then the word 'sign' cannot be meaningful at all. When you say "formal representation' you are speaking about an abstract mathematical formalism. But an abstraction does not represent what is in reality a distinction. For instance, an ideal gas is an abstraction for which a certain law or equation applies, but real gases have components that interact with one another and therefore violate such equations.  

Saussure further specifies that a sign implies two things: signifier [image/object] and signified [concept]. In Hegelian philosophy a concept and its reality are inseparable as a dialectical identity in difference, never as a mere or abstract identity. 

The next question is: If a singularity is an indivisible identity, how does a singularity produce a path that closes upon itself? Please provide the essential details of how [by what agency/necessity] it divides itself and then produces a path back to itself.

As Hegel remarked, a oneness or non-dual logic can only produce a 'night in which all cows are black.' The difference implied in the word 'all' cannot be eliminated by the paradoxical saying 'all is one.' The 'all' does not fall into the one and disappear, otherwise there would be no meaning to 'all.'

Thank you for trying to explain your ideas to me, but even Maturana's autopoiesis applies to any machine/computer that is made of purely dead matter, which we might call processing but none of which we would identify as cognitive or living. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.









From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>

Dear B M Puri,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1445676132.3359170.1493295705087%40mail.yahoo.com.

BMP

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 11:37:02 AM4/28/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyedarshi,

Namaste.

I do hope you realize that my email is not a stand alone essay but a reply to Diego Rappaport's message. Without reading and understanding his message the order of statements in my reply may not seem related to one another.

The basic point of contention we are discussing concerns his claim [which I hope I am not misrepresenting] that differences (specifically oppositions) can be resolved into an identity using a non-dual topological logic such as Klein Bottle (KB) or Hyper KB (HKB). I disagree with that claim on the basis that it does not and cannot represent true differences properly, and that instead a logic of identity-in-difference as we find in Hegel provides a truer explanation of that relation.

Hegel's philosophy is hardly obscure. The vast literature on Hegel that exists and continues to rapidly expand, especially in recent times, speaks to the richness and relevance of his thought to current issues in philosophy and science. I admit Hegel is subtle but is certainly obscure to those who follow the predominant mode of analytical thinking that characterizes modern science and philosophy.  Hegel calls such thinking abstract understanding. There are, however, more rational and concrete ways of thinking, and to follow Hegel's thought means to learn that.

Dr. Rappaport claims that a cut or boundary is a sign which is identical to the observer or person for whom the sign has a significance. This appears to be true for him on the basis of his KB logic. I counter his argument by stating that if this is true on the basis of his logic then it destroys the meaning of sign and its interpreter, implying therefore his logic is defective.

Later in his email he mentions singularity as an example of a sign that is an identity. Supposedly he means that it therefore includes within it the person or observer who refers to that sign as a singularity. In my reply I may have misunderstood this and thought he was developing a process out of the singularity into the following items he lists [see his original email below]. I am awaiting his reply on that issue.


Regarding Peirce's quote, I agree with you that he was not questioning the existence of a sign as an object, but claiming that a sign can be considered to be such for an interpreter only. Signs exist only for persons for whom they have a significance. It is generally acknowledged that Saussure further clarifies this. Whether or not objects exist in general without a subjective observer is another question. To assume that to be the case is based on a rational conception of permanence that cannot be based on pure empirical experience or consciousness, since it makes a claim about the possibility of existence without being observed or in consciousness. 

The arguments put forth on this list regarding the fundamentality of consciousness represent a misconception as they are based on reflective understanding rather than reason. Hopefully they may come to consider and understand the arguments against that view as presented in my email and article that explains Self and Reason as being beyond consciousness [see Beyond the Modern Monolith of Consciousness]

Thank you for your interest and inquiry.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph. D.
From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:00 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
Madhav,

I do not understand the physics of singularities. However, I do not understand how your synthesis of the semiotics of Pierce, the linguistics of Saussure and the obscurity of Hegel has anything to do with singularities. How do you jump from signs in a language to singularities?

Your quotation from C. S. Pierce is 'Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign' means that if we look at a Stop sign on the road, it is merely a metallic red octagon on the top of a pole with some white in the middle painted on it. It is not a sign, and particularly not a Stop Sign unless it is interpreted as such. Without an interpreter 'the sign' does not exist, however the 'it' in Pierce's sentence does exist, because the it is an object that dogs can pee on, the "it" is not a sign but is called a 'sign' when interpreted as a sign. I don't know if you want to say that there is no phenomenon of a certain kind without an observer or measurement. But your quotation from Peirce will not work for this I am afraid. Pierce does not deny the existence of the object but of the object as a sign.

Priyedarshi
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:51 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Diego

Namaste. 

You refer to "identifying" as if that term did not refer to an identifier [the one doing the identifying].

Thus when you write

". . . upon identifying it at the most basic level with the manifestation of a singularity/inhomogeneity/ difference on a context, the motivation IS THE SELF-MANIFESTATION of them . . ."

I may have misunderstood this, but I take this to mean that YOU are identifying motivation with the manifestation of a singularity.It is not intrinsic to a singularity. 

By using the term manifestation, you apparently mean it just happens by chance or some unknown means that a boundary or difference is established within what is otherwise a homogeneous continuity. It is difficult to reconcile such a contingent occurrence with an intentional motive.

However, if the boundary is determined by a thinking person, with an intention or motive, then the motive and the boundary are not identical, as I am sure you can agree.

You then write

". . for me the primeval distinction, its formal representation as the sign and the observer are identified . . "

But Pierce writes: "Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign.' 

In other words, in the use of the word 'sign' you have an interpreter [observer] and the sign. If they are not different then the word 'sign' cannot be meaningful at all. When you say "formal representation' you are speaking about an abstract mathematical formalism. But an abstraction does not represent what is in reality a distinction. For instance, an ideal gas is an abstraction for which a certain law or equation applies, but real gases have components that interact with one another and therefore violate such equations.  

Saussure further specifies that a sign implies two things: signifier [image/object] and signified [concept]. In Hegelian philosophy a concept and its reality are inseparable as a dialectical identity in difference, never as a mere or abstract identity. 

The next question is: If a singularity is an indivisible identity, how does a singularity produce a path that closes upon itself? Please provide the essential details of how [by what agency/necessity] it divides itself and then produces a path back to itself.

As Hegel remarked, a oneness or non-dual logic can only produce a 'night in which all cows are black.' The difference implied in the word 'all' cannot be eliminated by the paradoxical saying 'all is one.' The 'all' does not fall into the one and disappear, otherwise there would be no meaning to 'all.'

Thank you for trying to explain your ideas to me, but even Maturana's autopoiesis applies to any machine/computer that is made of purely dead matter, which we might call processing but none of which we would identify as cognitive or living. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.









From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017

Dear B M Puri,

Namaste.

Thanks for your return, i was indeed looking forward to it.

A short introduction. This came from Elie Cartan's theory of a torsion geometry which is independent of the usual notion of metric  (though they do have a metric) by Riemann, Minkowski, retaken by Einstein, and developed as a unifying principle of physics in my own work of the last 30+ years. There was no observer at that, unless we either take what is called an anholonomic reference frame which produces torsion rather than an holonomic one as in General Relativity. 

But upon identifying it at the most basic level with the manifestation of a singularity/inhomogeneity/ difference on a context, the motivation IS THE SELF-MANIFESTATION of them, and at the prephysicall  level of the formalism is

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 28, 2017, 2:53:00 PM4/28/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Madhava,

Fair enough. I have not followed the discussion so your comments in that context are something I should not comment upon. 

As for Hegel, it is not that I am ignorant of Hegel. I took a course on Hegel and was totally taken up by his Phenomenology of the Spirit. But when I tried to read it again, years later, I find it obscure. As a student of philosophy I am not so interested in popularity of philosophers but on trying to understand the primary works of the philosophers. This is what I do with Plato as well. 

What you keep calling logic, is really some type of ontology and not logic with my understanding of what 'logic' is. Logic is mainly about inferences. It does not have much to do with duality as we have multivalued and fuzzy logics as well. But what remains common and what Hegel uses is inferences. 

You say "Hegel calls such thinking abstract understanding." By such thinking you mean analytic philosophy and science. Do you mean to say that Hegel is concerned with concrete reality. To me there could be nothing more abstract than Hegel's absolute. Is he nominalist as opposed to realism in philosophy and science which accepts the existence of universals like the number two? The only thing I understand in Hegel is the thesis-antithesis-synthesis account which he took from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Othewise he and other German Idealists distorted Kant and took him in a direction he would never have turned.

Priyedarshi

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:47 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Priyedarshi,

Namaste.

I do hope you realize that my email is not a stand alone essay but a reply to Diego Rappaport's message. Without reading and understanding his message the order of statements in my reply may not seem related to one another.

The basic point of contention we are discussing concerns his claim [which I hope I am not misrepresenting] that differences (specifically oppositions) can be resolved into an identity using a non-dual topological logic such as Klein Bottle (KB) or Hyper KB (HKB). I disagree with that claim on the basis that it does not and cannot represent true differences properly, and that instead a logic of identity-in-difference as we find in Hegel provides a truer explanation of that relation.

Hegel's philosophy is hardly obscure. The vast literature on Hegel that exists and continues to rapidly expand, especially in recent times, speaks to the richness and relevance of his thought to current issues in philosophy and science. I admit Hegel is subtle but is certainly obscure to those who follow the predominant mode of analytical thinking that characterizes modern science and philosophy.  Hegel calls such thinking abstract understanding. There are, however, more rational and concrete ways of thinking, and to follow Hegel's thought means to learn that.

Dr. Rappaport claims that a cut or boundary is a sign which is identical to the observer or person for whom the sign has a significance. This appears to be true for him on the basis of his KB logic. I counter his argument by stating that if this is true on the basis of his logic then it destroys the meaning of sign and its interpreter, implying therefore his logic is defective.

Later in his email he mentions singularity as an example of a sign that is an identity. Supposedly he means that it therefore includes within it the person or observer who refers to that sign as a singularity. In my reply I may have misunderstood this and thought he was developing a process out of the singularity into the following items he lists [see his original email below]. I am awaiting his reply on that issue.


Regarding Peirce's quote, I agree with you that he was not questioning the existence of a sign as an object, but claiming that a sign can be considered to be such for an interpreter only. Signs exist only for persons for whom they have a significance. It is generally acknowledged that Saussure further clarifies this. Whether or not objects exist in general without a subjective observer is another question. To assume that to be the case is based on a rational conception of permanence that cannot be based on pure empirical experience or consciousness, since it makes a claim about the possibility of existence without being observed or in consciousness. 

The arguments put forth on this list regarding the fundamentality of consciousness represent a misconception as they are based on reflective understanding rather than reason. Hopefully they may come to consider and understand the arguments against that view as presented in my email and article that explains Self and Reason as being beyond consciousness [see Beyond the Modern Monolith of Consciousness]

Thank you for your interest and inquiry.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph. D.



















From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
Madhav,

I do not understand the physics of singularities. However, I do not understand how your synthesis of the semiotics of Pierce, the linguistics of Saussure and the obscurity of Hegel has anything to do with singularities. How do you jump from signs in a language to singularities?

Your quotation from C. S. Pierce is 'Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign' means that if we look at a Stop sign on the road, it is merely a metallic red octagon on the top of a pole with some white in the middle painted on it. It is not a sign, and particularly not a Stop Sign unless it is interpreted as such. Without an interpreter 'the sign' does not exist, however the 'it' in Pierce's sentence does exist, because the it is an object that dogs can pee on, the "it" is not a sign but is called a 'sign' when interpreted as a sign. I don't know if you want to say that there is no phenomenon of a certain kind without an observer or measurement. But your quotation from Peirce will not work for this I am afraid. Pierce does not deny the existence of the object but of the object as a sign.

Priyedarshi

Diego Lucio Rapoport

unread,
May 4, 2017, 6:00:02 AM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL

Dear B M Puri,
Namaste

I have left unanswered your mail on the one hand being extremely busy and on the other hand out of sheer disappointment due to the asymmetry you claim for yourself in our communications.

Firstly you decline to read my work to further judge it incorrectly and misrepresent it using the proverbial hammer for the nail-as-all-as-there-is, in this  case as your usage of dual logic to qualify a non-dual logic. They represent how you conceive rather than my take, a projection of your own making, in short . (For which i have no time nor will to restate what i have written extensively and in detail.)

Then you further decline to consider  all the aspects which i quoted to you which do not fit into the dual ontology such as  the notion that "free thought" appears to be highly structured sharing the same topological structures than biology, chemistry, physics and semiotics show to operate through, to further add a quick panegirics of one particular philosophical system (Hegel's) commenting on the relevance to science  as elucidated by contemporary scholars without providing any references to enable any studies. 

To me, this is all about learning, rather than an intellectual tournament for which a chevalier is required, and i am quite unsympathetic to any claims based upon authority with no elaborations nor providing the info to empower to do so. . 

Several times i have mentioned and elaborated in detail that this is a relational ontology in which a subject (me,DNA and RNA, a turning-inside-out exploding star in a supernova event from which all material organizations , the human body) participates through a contextual process for which singularity and closed paths coexist as a signifying unit. Yes, this is a pronunciation of panentheism, not of the centrality of selfhood as if separate. Remarkably, the shamanic Siberian tradition which called itself Vedic (philologists have found many common roots to Russian language and Sanskrit) shares the same logophysics as the one i have elaborated and the findings of physicists such as Kozyrev establish a clear link between them. I find very little of this in the discussions of this forum but for  some aspects of the comments by Dr  Vinod Kumar Sehgal. 

As for your comments that these identifications provided by a subject (which you restrict to the self) actually destroy the semiotic relation, rather than enabling it, this is again the said dual-hammer. You could not be more mistaken on this. It is actually the opposite.

Would you google for "semiosis, Klein Bottle, Moebius strip" and still "Peirce" few names will appear.

1. Floyd Merrell; professor of semiotics and Spanish and Latin Americal literature, Purdue University. Merrell is the author of several monographs on semiotics, cognition and metamathematics as a single subject. He is one of the handful of transdisciplinarians thinkers on Earth. His understanding, clarity and depth of these issues i have not found in  other authors. He does not shy away from mathematics and he does not confuse analytical thought and topological one, as seems that you do. He is rarely quoted, after all, such a rich and deep elaboration is beyond the social-cognitive disposition for unlearning and relearning of most people, and his qualified elaboration of  the underdetermination of the semiotic process strikes ill on the hegemonic standard dualism.

2. Jacques Lacan, psychoanalyst. I have introduced you very shortly to his work and the relation to this non-dual logophysics. No comments in return from you. Again, "free thought" is highly structured as the very structures which are the core of chemistry, biology, perception, phenomenology ... . 

3. Yair Neumann, biosemiotician; Ben Gurion University. In short, Neumann's take on biosemiotics is associated to the Klein Bottle as a logic which Rapoport introduced later in 2012.

4. Steven M Rosen, philosopher and psychologist. Author of several pioneering monographs about the Klein Bottle, self-reference and cognition. Particularly, his work "Radical Recursion" on semiotics (published in Semiotica, 1997, as a special issue on the topology of semiosis) and its realization as a Klein Bottle  points out that the joint continuity and discontinuity of the Klein Bottle due to self-penetration as the sign for the "semiotic bind", as Merrell calls it. This precisely dispels your claim on the Klein Bottle logic as banalizing the semiotic bind if not actually destroying it

In Merrell's "Peirce, signs and meaning" the Percian triad is discussed from novel considerations which Merrell notes that they have been overlooked by most semioticians. He introduces the triad in terms of the invalidity of the "sacrosanct" principles of non-contradiction, identity and excluded middle of Aristotelian logic to Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness.  He elaborates that without the twist of the Moebius strip (or the Klein Bottle, as in Rosen's Radical Recursion) there is no semiotic bind. However, rather than solely having a closed loop to produce understanding, say as in the usage of a dictionary, Merrell claims that a concrete experience is necessary (the singularity). After all, we cannot reach an understanding what a black cow is by merely navigating "circularly" a dictionary.

As I already said, this disqualifies your statements already discussed. Rather than being "defective" as you put it, it embodies the semiotic bind.

There is one important aspect on which I disagree with this extraordinary unique monograph. Merrell notes that contradicting the imperating "logocentrism", the Moebius (or Klein Bottle) twist that enables/produces the semiotic bind is "non-linguistic". Actually, as discussed in my works, it is this twist that produces the harmonics and resonant phenomena which underlies the communication along the genome itself, the human body, pulsating stars and celestial bodies, or further the whole Universe as a self-signfying system. That is, the most universal language of all: music.

I withdraw, again, yet this time, for long, as long as it takes to intuit that unlearning is indeed the case

Sincerely,

Diego Lucio RAPOPORT


2017-04-28 12:17 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Priyedarshi,

Namaste.

I do hope you realize that my email is not a stand alone essay but a reply to Diego Rappaport's message. Without reading and understanding his message the order of statements in my reply may not seem related to one another.

The basic point of contention we are discussing concerns his claim [which I hope I am not misrepresenting] that differences (specifically oppositions) can be resolved into an identity using a non-dual topological logic such as Klein Bottle (KB) or Hyper KB (HKB). I disagree with that claim on the basis that it does not and cannot represent true differences properly, and that instead a logic of identity-in-difference as we find in Hegel provides a truer explanation of that relation.

Hegel's philosophy is hardly obscure. The vast literature on Hegel that exists and continues to rapidly expand, especially in recent times, speaks to the richness and relevance of his thought to current issues in philosophy and science. I admit Hegel is subtle but is certainly obscure to those who follow the predominant mode of analytical thinking that characterizes modern science and philosophy.  Hegel calls such thinking abstract understanding. There are, however, more rational and concrete ways of thinking, and to follow Hegel's thought means to learn that.

Dr. Rappaport claims that a cut or boundary is a sign which is identical to the observer or person for whom the sign has a significance. This appears to be true for him on the basis of his KB logic. I counter his argument by stating that if this is true on the basis of his logic then it destroys the meaning of sign and its interpreter, implying therefore his logic is defective.

Later in his email he mentions singularity as an example of a sign that is an identity. Supposedly he means that it therefore includes within it the person or observer who refers to that sign as a singularity. In my reply I may have misunderstood this and thought he was developing a process out of the singularity into the following items he lists [see his original email below]. I am awaiting his reply on that issue.


Regarding Peirce's quote, I agree with you that he was not questioning the existence of a sign as an object, but claiming that a sign can be considered to be such for an interpreter only. Signs exist only for persons for whom they have a significance. It is generally acknowledged that Saussure further clarifies this. Whether or not objects exist in general without a subjective observer is another question. To assume that to be the case is based on a rational conception of permanence that cannot be based on pure empirical experience or consciousness, since it makes a claim about the possibility of existence without being observed or in consciousness. 

The arguments put forth on this list regarding the fundamentality of consciousness represent a misconception as they are based on reflective understanding rather than reason. Hopefully they may come to consider and understand the arguments against that view as presented in my email and article that explains Self and Reason as being beyond consciousness [see Beyond the Modern Monolith of Consciousness]

Thank you for your interest and inquiry.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph. D.



















From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017
Madhav,

I do not understand the physics of singularities. However, I do not understand how your synthesis of the semiotics of Pierce, the linguistics of Saussure and the obscurity of Hegel has anything to do with singularities. How do you jump from signs in a language to singularities?

Your quotation from C. S. Pierce is 'Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign' means that if we look at a Stop sign on the road, it is merely a metallic red octagon on the top of a pole with some white in the middle painted on it. It is not a sign, and particularly not a Stop Sign unless it is interpreted as such. Without an interpreter 'the sign' does not exist, however the 'it' in Pierce's sentence does exist, because the it is an object that dogs can pee on, the "it" is not a sign but is called a 'sign' when interpreted as a sign. I don't know if you want to say that there is no phenomenon of a certain kind without an observer or measurement. But your quotation from Peirce will not work for this I am afraid. Pierce does not deny the existence of the object but of the object as a sign.

Priyedarshi

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

BMP

unread,
May 4, 2017, 9:36:50 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego

Namaste. I am also quite busy and I realize these topics are not so quickly assimilated from any side. I find Peirce and Floyd Merrell very amiable and amenable to my thinking in terms of irreducible or uncollapsable triadicity, which is also found in Hegel. There is an identity in difference principle is this conception which Merrell treats as complementarity and as a more flexible ambiguous quality. Your topologically anchored ideas come across to me as more rigid. 

I have read some of your writings. You seem more suited as a lecturer than a teacher. It appears to me that a  plethora of ideas replaces a more systematic development of them. I understand the nature of both approaches but I prefer the more systematic method which is why I am drawn to Hegel's philosophy. 

Please excuse me if I cannot reply to all your comments because they are too varied and numerous. I don't have enough time or interest for that. I am willing to discuss some basic principles which I find interesting and congruent with my own understanding. 

I was wondering if the way you communicate with others embodies the logophysical principles you advocate. You don't have to reply to this. It is just something you may like to consider in your withdrawal.

Best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.



From: Diego Lucio Rapoport <diego.r...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 5:59 AM
Subject: Fwd: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest April 14, 2017


Dear B M Puri,
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages