I soon realised that the clarification of the four fundamental polarities, in holistic mathematical fashion, leads to an alternative view of the nature of space and time, which is properly in keeping with the true dynamics of experience.
In fact, the deeper rationale of this lies in the appreciation of the neglected holistic aspect of the number system.
Again, properly understood in a dynamic interactive manner, there are two aspects to the number system, that are analytic (quantitative) and holistic (qualitative) with respect to each other.
Whereas the quantitative aspect of the natural numbers is customarily represented in a linear fashion (as the number line), the corresponding qualitative aspect - in relative terms - is properly represented by various equidistant points on the unit circle (drawn in the complex plane).
So from this perspective, the number 4, for example, can be represented in two ways, that are dynamically complementary. In quantitative terms we have the linear notion of 4 (represented by 4 equal units on the number line). However in qualitative terms, we have the circular notion of 4 (represented by 4 equidistant points on the unit circle).
Though not yet properly recognised, the circular notion is directly related to the true inherent notion of 4-dimensional. So from this perspective, the four equidistant points (representing the four roots of 1) define the dynamic nature of space and time (in both physical and psychological terms).
Now the customary quantitative notions of space and time deeply reflect the 1-dimensional interpretative lens (through which they are viewed)!
So time is seen as strictly 1-dimensional, with just one direction of movement. The remaining 3 dimensions are then directly associated with the rigid features of matter in space (in a quantitative manner).
However from the true 4-dimensional perspective, space and time both have four directions, that dynamically interact with each other in a complementary fashion.
So there are two real dimensions (i.e. directions) of space, that are positive and negative and two imaginary dimensions, that are also positive and negative with respect to each other .
Equally with respect to time, there are two real dimensions, that are positive and negative and two imaginary directions, that are positive and negative with respect to each other.
And when space manifests itself in a real fashion, time thereby manifests itself in a complementary imaginary manner (and vice versa). This implies that the dynamic switching as between wholes and parts always implies the corresponding dynamic switching as between existence in space and time (and vice versa in time and space). Likewise the dynamic switching as between external and internal aspects, implies the corresponding switching in time and space of positive and negative polarities (and vice versa).
So from the physical perspective, the meaningful dynamic interaction of all phenomena necessarily entails both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects in a two-way fashion.
From the corresponding psychological perspective, this dynamic interaction of phenomena again necessarily entails both (conscious) rational and (unconscious) intuitive aspects.
Furthermore, this interaction entails both cognitive and affective aspects of experience, in dynamic two-way fashion with each other. So, strictly the recognition of whole/part interaction in a scientific context, necessarily entails cognitive and affective aspects of experience, that operate in both an internal and external manner.
And when existence in space is identified with the cognitive aspect, then corresponding existence in time implies a switch to the affective aspect. However when reference frames change direction, existence in time will now be identified with the cognitive and existence in space with the affective aspect respectively. Thus space and time can be associated with either cognitive or affective aspects of understanding, depending on context.
And furthermore, the phenomena that exist in space and time mirror exactly the same 4-dimensional relationships in a complementary manner.
Let me briefly attempt to illustrate these 4-dimensional dynamics with respect to the recognition of an external phenomenon - say - a cat.
Now, when one externally posits the cat as a (conscious) object phenomenon (in a spatial environment) the corresponding (unconscious) negation of the cat entails the holistic positing of space (with respect to the cat).
And when this initial impersonal experience of the object in space is of a cognitive nature, corresponding affective experience relates to the personal recognition of the object in time.
This in turn causes a switch in experience so that one now (consciously) posits the cat as an object phenomenon (in a time environment). And again the corresponding (unconscious) negation of the cat entails the holistic positing of time (with respect to the cat).
And this will now coincide in complementary fashion with the (personal) affective experience of the object in space.
Thus in the dynamics of experience, the object (as personal or impersonal) does not pre-exist in a given environment of space and time! Rather through the dynamics of understanding, both the recognition of the cat (from both personal and impersonal perspectives) and the corresponding dimensions of space and time mutually arise in a dynamic interactive manner.
Now of course, if we could perfectly experience these complementary dynamics, in a pure refined manner, the dualistic phenomenon of the cat (in space and time) would no longer even appear to arise in experience. Rather we would remain continually aware of the (nondual) present moment.
Therefore the circular 4-dimensional appreciation, that I am outlining here, can only approximate, however finely, to pure nondual experience of the present moment.
However, when in scientific terms, we then reduce the experience in a linear (1-dimensional) fashion, we become cognitively aware of the cat as rigidly existing, in a seemingly pre-existing framework of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
Though of course some degree of linear reductionism still exists at this level (i.e. Band 3, Level 2), to a remarkable extent, it can become steadily eroded through the growing appreciation of the dynamic 4-dimensional framework underlying the experience.
However this requires that surface consciousness is now already so refined through contemplative development, that one can continually remain aware of the unconscious dynamics involved.
In fact, the deeper rationale of this lies in the appreciation of the neglected holistic aspect of the number system.
Again, properly understood in a dynamic interactive manner, there are two aspects to the number system, that are analytic (quantitative) and holistic (qualitative) with respect to each other.
Whereas the quantitative aspect of the natural numbers is customarily represented in a linear fashion (as the number line), the corresponding qualitative aspect - in relative terms - is properly represented by various equidistant points on the unit circle (drawn in the complex plane).
So from this perspective, the number 4, for example, can be represented in two ways, that are dynamically complementary. In quantitative terms we have the linear notion of 4 (represented by 4 equal units on the number line). However in qualitative terms, we have the circular notion of 4 (represented by 4 equidistant points on the unit circle).
Though not yet properly recognised, the circular notion is directly related to the true inherent notion of 4-dimensional. So from this perspective, the four equidistant points (representing the four roots of 1) define the dynamic nature of space and time (in both physical and psychological terms).
Now the customary quantitative notions of space and time deeply reflect the 1-dimensional interpretative lens (through which they are viewed)!
So time is seen as strictly 1-dimensional, with just one direction of movement. The remaining 3 dimensions are then directly associated with the rigid features of matter in space (in a quantitative manner).
However from the true 4-dimensional perspective, space and time both have four directions, that dynamically interact with each other in a complementary fashion.
So there are two real dimensions (i.e. directions) of space, that are positive and negative and two imaginary dimensions, that are also positive and negative with respect to each other .
Equally with respect to time, there are two real dimensions, that are positive and negative and two imaginary directions, that are positive and negative with respect to each other.
And when space manifests itself in a real fashion, time thereby manifests itself in a complementary imaginary manner (and vice versa). This implies that the dynamic switching as between wholes and parts always implies the corresponding dynamic switching as between existence in space and time (and vice versa in time and space). Likewise the dynamic switching as between external and internal aspects, implies the corresponding switching in time and space of positive and negative polarities (and vice versa).
So from the physical perspective, the meaningful dynamic interaction of all phenomena necessarily entails both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects in a two-way fashion.
From the corresponding psychological perspective, this dynamic interaction of phenomena again necessarily entails both (conscious) rational and (unconscious) intuitive aspects.
Furthermore, this interaction entails both cognitive and affective aspects of experience, in dynamic two-way fashion with each other. So, strictly the recognition of whole/part interaction in a scientific context, necessarily entails cognitive and affective aspects of experience, that operate in both an internal and external manner.
And when existence in space is identified with the cognitive aspect, then corresponding existence in time implies a switch to the affective aspect. However when reference frames change direction, existence in time will now be identified with the cognitive and existence in space with the affective aspect respectively. Thus space and time can be associated with either cognitive or affective aspects of understanding, depending on context.
And furthermore, the phenomena that exist in space and time mirror exactly the same 4-dimensional relationships in a complementary manner.
Let me briefly attempt to illustrate these 4-dimensional dynamics with respect to the recognition of an external phenomenon - say - a cat.
Now, when one externally posits the cat as a (conscious) object phenomenon (in a spatial environment) the corresponding (unconscious) negation of the cat entails the holistic positing of space (with respect to the cat).
And when this initial impersonal experience of the object in space is of a cognitive nature, corresponding affective experience relates to the personal recognition of the object in time.
This in turn causes a switch in experience so that one now (consciously) posits the cat as an object phenomenon (in a time environment). And again the corresponding (unconscious) negation of the cat entails the holistic positing of time (with respect to the cat).
And this will now coincide in complementary fashion with the (personal) affective experience of the object in space.
Thus in the dynamics of experience, the object (as personal or impersonal) does not pre-exist in a given environment of space and time! Rather through the dynamics of understanding, both the recognition of the cat (from both personal and impersonal perspectives) and the corresponding dimensions of space and time mutually arise in a dynamic interactive manner.
Now of course, if we could perfectly experience these complementary dynamics, in a pure refined manner, the dualistic phenomenon of the cat (in space and time) would no longer even appear to arise in experience. Rather we would remain continually aware of the (nondual) present moment.
Therefore the circular 4-dimensional appreciation, that I am outlining here, can only approximate, however finely, to pure nondual experience of the present moment.
However, when in scientific terms, we then reduce the experience in a linear (1-dimensional) fashion, we become cognitively aware of the cat as rigidly existing, in a seemingly pre-existing framework of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
Though of course some degree of linear reductionism still exists at this level (i.e. Band 3, Level 2), to a remarkable extent, it can become steadily eroded through the growing appreciation of the dynamic 4-dimensional framework underlying the experience.
However this requires that surface consciousness is now already so refined through contemplative development, that one can continually remain aware of the unconscious dynamics involved.
Comments
Post a Comment