BAGUA
15 Taijitu shuo is "each has its nature." So polarity (ji) here implies that each has a specific configuration of the yin-yang polarity.] Yin and yang together are a balanced [centered] polarity (zhong ji). But the polarities of the Five Phases are also the polarities of yin and yang. It is not there in the Five Phases there is something that is lacking from yin and yang. "Essential" means the Supreme Polarity and "gross" means yin and yang; li is the root and qi is 16 the branch. But while there are these differentia of essential and gross, root and branch, the reality is undifferentiated into distinctions such as this and that. [Translator's note:] Zhongyong 33 (last line), quoting Shijing, no. 235. Zhu Xi quotes this is the 17 first line of his commentary on the Taijitu shuo. [Zhang:]> "Niels Bohr had the "yin/yang' symbol on his personal coat of arms.> What does it mean? What are its ontological implications? It's> clearly a mathematical form".Niels B. used that as a symbol for complementarity -- the undividedunity of two opposites. In his case, that meant that both thewave theory and the particle theory of light, although contradictory,are both true. It also covers the Heisenberg uncertainty principleand other aspects of the many puzzles about quantum mechanics.For more, google "Niels Bohr yin yang".
I am fascinated by this notion of “universal container”.
My instinct is – yes, we can put a boundary around all that is, and align everything within it.
Is this flakey nonsense? Meaningless junk? Demented? A waste of time? Maybe. But these symbols keep emerging from widely diverse cultural sources. Could we be talking about something deeply instinctive and universal -- like “the set of all sets”? Could this torsion or twist in the Moebius strip offer a resolution of Russell’s Paradox?
I see the “two dots” that appear in yin/yang symbol as seeming to imply a mapping or connection or flow from one side to the other.
Here’s a TED talk on it: https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-hidden-meanings-of-yin-and-yang-john-bellaimey
I do tend to see in this connection something like a reference to the “one sided” quality of the moebius form. Put very simply – normal human cognition or perception seems to view reality through a perspective – a point of view – which sets up a kind “me/it” polarity – “this is me over here looking at that thing over there” – and that polarity makes it very difficult or impossible to conceptualize the dimensionality of profound ontological objects. Maybe this is what is meant by a “three-dimensional perspective”. So – we tend to deal with metaphors that are dimensionally simpler (that we can draw in two dimensions) and easier to understand.
For me, a related model is the “uroboros” – the “snake swallowing its tail”. I see this as very related to the “closed space” of the moebius strip – or this notion of “closed loop interval ontology”.
I do tend to see the uroboros as something like “the top level ontology (infinite, unbounded) consuming and swallowing and containing all levels beneath or within it”, down to the bottom level, which is undifferentiated continuity.
So this becomes a form of universal linear recursion across levels of scale – which I might see as “the global containing all versions of the local across levels of scale” – or maybe levels of abstraction (if we are talking about a taxonomy like “animals”). Every level in the cascade takes the same form: it, too, is “one” – it is “a unit” – taking the same general form as both the top level, the bottom level, and everything in-between – all being “particular local instances of One”.
So the top maps into (and contains) the bottom in “one interval” – and within that one interval is “everything” – and all the distinctions and descriptive dimensionality we have conceived or collectively institutionalized.
And in the company of computer scientists, maybe we want to describe this in terms of the primal yin/yang black/white distinction of a “bit” (0,1), and build every conceivable alphabet or image or logic function by cascading these two-state distinctions into abstract symbolic structures.
At the very end of the PDF on Yin/Yang -- https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Writings/TJT-Zhu.pdf -- there’s a little footnote that reads
50. Supreme Polarity is fundamentally non-polar.
51. The myriad principles are none other than one principle.
52. The Supreme Polarity is nothing other than yin and yang.
Supreme polarity is the absolute container and non-polar. All its principles and all elements of diversity and differentiation fan into it to form one principle. All this differentiation is yin/yang. This is “unity and diversity” in their absolute simplest form.
So – maybe we can see this as a three-state logic. The other day I looked up the writings of Ontology Summit leader Ken Baclawski, and found an article on the notion of NULL in an SQL database. Not 0, not 1 – but NULL.
https://arxiv.org/html/1606.00740
In a sense, NULL is “pure uncertainty” – which is how I tend to see the continuum and the emergence of concepts. Out of NULL comes everything, by stipulative differentiation – probably driven by immediate local motivation…
“The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao…”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tao
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA, 805-705-9174
Weavingunity.net
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAMXe%3DSqXecz0moWouxOyu%3DWT0sHWzcMunByQxK5PzjjNEO%3DCCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Dear Bruce,
I am fascinated by this notion of “universal container”.
[MW>] There is a universal container. It’s called a dustbin (trash can). The real question is not the container, it is what you put in it.
Regards
Matthew
Dwaita (Divine and Me)
Sad-Asad (nothing-matter, i.e. dark_matter- matter)Sorrow-HappinessProfit-Loss
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAMXe%3DSqyeAHukBdc5mxN-puLzJKrn6oG5jtsJbYAoR4kg%3D1BmQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
regarding the Universal Container
Some basic questions:
What's in it?
How did it get that way?
Why?
How can we describe it?
What does it mean for us?
What can we do about it?
What should we do about it?
What are the implications of the various options?
Why should we care?
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/2c982f8f-b76a-d43b-2b05-68f90d28fad3%40bestweb.net.