Yin Yang symbol

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Paola Di Maio

unread,
May 13, 2019, 4:10:07 AM5/13/19
to ontolog-forum
John and all
I caught an excerpt of an email asking more info on Yin Yang,  
aka The Way, which is above forms [metaphysical], is fundamentally cannot be spoken of in terms of named charactristics.  
aaka
Supreme Polarity Diagram (Taijitu) 


Niels Bohr may have borrowed the yin yang symbol, but the primordial ancestors appreciate credit for the Earlier Heaven representation
This is important symbol in systems because it represents universal/cosmic dynamics

image.png

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 undivided
unity of two opposites.  In his case, that meant that both the
wave theory and the particle theory of light, although contradictory,
are both true.  It also covers the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
and other aspects of the many puzzles about quantum mechanics.

For more, google "Niels Bohr yin yang".



Jon Awbrey

unread,
May 13, 2019, 8:40:48 AM5/13/19
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Paola Di Maio
Paola, All —

Synchronicity being what it is, here for your contemplation
are a pair of pictures from a current discussion on Facebook.

See Tables 8 and 9 in this section:

Application of Higher Order Propositions to Quantification Theory


https://oeis.org/wiki/Functional_Logic_%E2%80%A2_Higher_Order_Propositions#Application_of_Higher_Order_Propositions_to_Quantification_Theory

Table 8. Simple Qualifiers of Propositions (Version 1)
Table 9. Simple Qualifiers of Propositions (Version 2)

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

On 5/13/2019 4:09 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> John and all
> I caught an excerpt of an email asking more info on Yin Yang,
> aka *The Way, which is above forms [metaphysical], is fundamentally cannot
> be spoken of in terms of named charactristics. *
> *aaka*

Paola Di Maio

unread,
May 13, 2019, 9:05:33 AM5/13/19
to Jon Awbrey, ontolog-forum
Jon, thank you!

The project looks very esoteric, interesting and way out :-)
Glad to see this kind of thinking, sounds big.
(not sure I understand it all)
 Whats your stance on unified theory I wonder.

Although I am not into quants I am starting to think the universe,could well be finite. 

I am intrigued by Fig 6 -  did not find an explanation of these symbols
I did however find some of them inscribed in neolithic artefacts which I am trying to
decode

PDM

bruces...@cox.net

unread,
May 13, 2019, 1:45:33 PM5/13/19
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com

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.

image001.png
image002.png
uroborostransparent.gif
uroborosall.png

Matthew West

unread,
May 13, 2019, 2:03:54 PM5/13/19
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com

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

Jon Awbrey

unread,
May 13, 2019, 2:18:25 PM5/13/19
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Paola Di Maio
Paola,

Partly your message and partly just the mood I'm in brought to mind a motley
assortment of old reminiscences. My first years in college I oscillated (or
vacillated) between math and physics, eventually returning to grad school in
math, but only after a decade of cycling through majors from communications —
of which I recall only a course in Aristotle — to psychology to philosophy to
a “radical-liberal arts” college where I got to craft my own degree title in
“Mathematical and Philosophical Method”. But I'm getting ahead of the story.
Having qualified for honors physics, things took off with a bang right away,
moving quickly from classical to relativity to quantum physics. Several of
my professors took a “Read the Masters” approach, giving us readings in Bohr,
Dirac, Feynman, Heisenberg, and others, in addition to our standard textbooks.
I remember it was Dirac's algebraic symbolism, Heisenberg's matrix mechanics,
and above all Peirce, in particular his use of logical matrices, that made me
realize I needed to learn a lot more math before I could comprehend what any
of them were talking about.

Have to break here ...

Jon

John F Sowa

unread,
May 13, 2019, 2:50:12 PM5/13/19
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
On 5/13/2019 2:03 PM, Matthew West wrote:
> 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.

I agree. But I would say that it's irrelevant what you call it.

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?

John

Ravi Sharma

unread,
May 13, 2019, 5:49:41 PM5/13/19
to ontolog-forum
Paula
One Completes the other......

Same concept from Vedas (?>~5k Years ago)
Duality  
Dwaita (Divine and Me)

Complementary  
Sad-Asad (nothing-matter,  i.e. dark_matter- matter)
Sorrow-Happiness  
Profit-Loss

etc.
Regards
Ravi




--
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.

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


--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
 


Paola Di Maio

unread,
May 14, 2019, 1:04:39 AM5/14/19
to ontolog-forum
John

regarding the Universal Container 
 

Some basic questions:
let me have a go 

What's in it? 
it's in flux, depending on the cognitive state of the observer
 we see mostly what our mind reflects  
 
How did it get that way? 
Because of systems dynamics - 
 
Why?
 Because of cause and effect

  How can we describe it?
tough one.   We can describe it it in any way we like, but
no discrete description can ever represent what is not discrete

What does it mean for us? 
For me, it means I need to ponder and reflect on the nature of mind
 
What can we do about it?
each of us has to decide based on a number ofr variables
they can conceive and work with -  Technically, what we can do depends on resources/computational ability
 
  What should we do about it?
Uhm    expanding the consciousness to broader ones cognitive abilities, I guess

 
  What are the implications of the various options?
cause and effect

Why should we care?
to satisfy intellectual queries is part of the a path to evolution  
because knoweing the right answer can make us happy and fulfilled

:-)


 
PDM

--
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.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages