I am constrained; as if there were no more to do, but yet needing to do more to facilitate the flow.
With or without me Shunya continues to process. I do not know this, I infer it after a lifetime, and am inclined to believe it.
But I am suddenly interacting within Shunya and soon gone. What is it That i do?
The only thing I know to do is to keep processing, keep recording the random thoughts tha flow through me. I do not know if they benefit me or hurry on to benefit others , I only know they are better out than in!
And so my subjective process is an inward and outward interaction with my being and Shunya, and there are some fundamental referents.
Not one of us is born with a straight line in any part of our body or mind. So where does this notion"come from"?
It derives from the ubiquitous curved and wobbly forms through the experience of iteration of scale to smaller and smaller units in a relativistic frame of reference. The fundamental frame of reference is me.
From me proceeds all manner of attributes and interactions relating all of Shunya to all of me. And what form does that take? The fundamental form is the sphere of sensibility, the sphere of the mental extent of my sensory organs. But being inside that form means I am not cognisant of its boundary . It is only by interaction with others of like mind, who communicate their experiences with me, that I fill in details of the empty space that surrounds me. Gradually that space becomes filled with ghosts of ideas, forms, conversations, memories, myths. That empty space becomes full of meaningful and measured things, notions, concepts. Of these the sphere of the mind becomes most apt.
Slowly and iteratively the space around me inflates to a full ballooning of notions and ideas, wonderings and meanderings of thought, observation, practical wisdom, and cultural paradigms.
I was born with ears and sight. Together they illustrated my body sense of the limitlessness of space, but non give me the notion of straight. My sharpest stereoscopic and stereophonic focus does not give me any notion of straight.
The mere thought of wiggling forever on the way to getting some reward is enough to drive the mind into the straits of straight jacketing all effort driven motion to minimise and speed up all in the same action. We iterate to the shortest route, the least time of action and effort . In doing this we evolve the notion of least most economical action, and this feeds into the notion of straight.
How has our sphere of the mind been replaced by the straightness of line?
Somewhere in the dim and muffled past I learned to focus on what might be the important things for my colonic structure. That is I sharpened my hearing, to pick out those high sounds from the muffled, to crispen what I was hearing both totally and in location. I enhanced my vision, to bring closer those differences that were lurking in the dim light both in colour and contrast as well as in spatial location. These became my fundamental enhancements of my aching body sensors,nstraining into the space around and inside me to sense what is there!
Therefore my fundamental referents are the signals from my sensors, and in amongst those a special, derived class of sensations called stereoscopic focus, audiometric and stereophonic tuning and proprioceptive perceiving, but not one of these is straight, nor is it still.
The dynamics of these special classes of sensation involve fractal scaling. As the signals become weaker in comparison, the sensitivity of my sensors is ramped up accordingly. But there is a limit. Beyond that limit, below that level within that range I cannot distinguish variation. Everything becomes uniform! Thus things that were rough become smooth, objects that were disposed at different foveal focus lengths appear to be in the same focal plane, sounds that seemed to be coming in a particular direction appear to be coming from everywhere, and are indistinct, that which was undulating appears to be flat or calm, and that which was vigorous in curvature appears to be straight!
The limit of our ability to distinguish has become a fundamental set of referents. From these uniform experiences we begin to construct our metrons of distinctions. Thus in reverse our analysis of distinctions continues until we reach the wall of uniformity. From there we resynthesise our form taking care to note all the rules and relationships we discovered by analysis. In so doing we become overwhelmed by the sheer combinatorial flexibility we find in resynthesis! It is only by careful relativistic linking that we may reconstruct the original form.
Resynthesise provides a jigsaw puzzle challenge, so much so that we may often settle for synthesis: new creative forms, themselves that may be analysed differently some day.
In his Stoikeioon, Euclid starts with these limit experiences and constructs or synthesises by definitions and tooled processes new forms and relationships. His aim is true. It is to construct the rudiments of the sphere of the mind. Thus Euclid is illustrating by philosophy the populated sphere of the mind is filled with thes essential or limit forms.
Because these are clearly limit forms is easier to advance the notiion that their is a richer utopian reality in which these forms have their substantive and perfect existence.
The very nature of our reference frame is structured on our limitations. Thus we have for each muscle status a concomitant relativity. Every crick of the neck, every balance on the foot, every twist in the body defines a relative class of limitations. And these limitations are limitations in every receptor and actuator in the sensory mesh and the motor control networks. My reference frames are dynamic constructions of every fundamental receiving and transmission circuit in the interactive space I call me! The limitations of this vast and "endless" mesh of relations are the boundary constraints of the experiential continuum I call me!
As finite as "I " is I am pragmatically infinite, an this infinitude is not countable, but uncountable. Whatever metron I may use I can imagine one that is finer. Thus my imagination exceeds my pragmatic ability. But it is the limitation of pragmatism that bounds my frames of reference, that distinguish between the faculties and functionalities within my experiences.
Thus inevitably, I live in eternal hope! And that hope is not dismayed. For amongst the class of experiences which reveal my limitations is the ability to construct from these limitations a rich and enriching model of my experience of the world as I experience it. And though it is founded on limitations, yet it is not limited, but combinatorially infinite! Amongst the many insights in constructing models from these limitations is a realisation that some limitations are not limitations at all!
This fundamental, iterative approach to the synthesis of general reference frames is Grassmanian. It does not rely upon the straightness of a line. For, as I have opined, straightness is the limit of all curved distinctions. Straightness is therefore an iterative resultant of differentials on natural curvatures. We compare and proportion curvature until we can make no further distinction. Such a resultant we call straight. Euclid and Plato called it good and just. The moral force of these terms hides the pragmatic economy of them. To arrive quickly and with minimum effort upon a course, be it of action or travel, receives much vote of reward and joy from the motor network in the body!
While the motor network also likes to be stretched, their is an iterative homeostasis which suits it best according to the prevailing conditions. This kinaesthesia , sunaesthesia is the resultant reward system that underpins the notion of straight! Or good or just.
The constraints of my reference frame are best described by Joseph Lagrange in his work now known as Lagrangian mechanics. Such a system of constraints, now called the Lagrangian , is the most general frame of reference we have devised. Both Grassmann and Hamilton subscribe to it. Therefore banish the notion of crossed axes as in Cartesian coordinates being the archetypical reference frame!
Doug Sweetster likes to characterize the Lagrangian as a box in which all the possible parametric relations are described and defined.mi like that onion, but take it to the ultimate stage: the Lagrangian is a rotating sphere in which all the possible parameters are characterized(labelled) and all the relationships defined. And the change in state in the Lagrangian is that of the change in state of the sphere.
The change in state of the sphere is manifold, but some simple notions are angular rotation around any specified axis; translation along any specified radial; magnification by any scalar; deformation by combinations of these 3 , etc.
Starting with the Lagrangian method means we are not constrained by anything! We define the constraints from the circumstance or situation we are modelling. We just need distinctive labels for our parameters. When we have those we really then lay out the relationships between them. As we do so, constraints are naturally encoded. Every decision we make about a parameter becomes a constraint on the entire system. Finally we work out specifics from these relations, and CHOOSE what coordinate display system we will use to display results. If we are measuring, then we have to choose what measuring system we will use to encode relationships. At this level we model the system, find the driver and let it run. If the behaviour mimics what we experience, then we have a good model on which to base predictions.
The quintessential Lagrangian is our astronomical data sets. The constraints we have discoverd between these parameters over "time" enable us to build clockwork models of our local universe. Within these models Newtons,Keplers and Copernics's rules are to be found as Lagrangian constraints. Einsteins reworking of the mechanics of the stars using lagrangians and then tensors within Lagrangians is less mystifying once one understands the crucial "framework" of the Lagrangian.
So it is that my personal Lagrangian has no. Straight lines, but the notion of straight emerges from the synthesis of the constraints in my system, and this just and good notion stands for economy of action amongst all the competing parameters. By this emergent notion I mark and symbolise a status of readiness to act in any orientation defined by my focal foveal response. The use of the symbol of a straight or good line is as sophisticated as it is simple. It is one of the first constructibles within any sphere, and it signifies the fundamental necessity of the sphere as a coeval notion.
The sphere and the good line define the most fundamental experience: the vorticularity of space. All of this emerges from my interaction with space, with Shunya in a fundamental spherical Lagrangian reference framework. Such a framework is in me by default, by coevolutionary mechanisms, but it takes a relaxed insight to apprehend it, and a doggedness to ferret it out from amongst all the dross of misconception.
That is giving it to you Straight!