 |
New Civilization News: What is a system and why should we care to know? |
Category: Systems Thinking 41 comments
10 May 2008 @ 07:12 by deepwater : Unification of Consciousness. 10 May 2008 @ 08:02 by anandavala : Truth is reality reflected in awareness so all those who seek truth and do not get waylaid in delusion will eventually converge on a unified understanding of the nature of reality. There will be many ways of representing that understanding, many metaphors and theories but only one common understanding that opens the mind to truth and allows us to dwell in reality rather than in a battlefield of conflicting delusions that avoids mutual annihilation only due to the oppression of a dominant delusion. I feel that 'information' and 'systems' are excellent general concepts because: Information is discernible difference, which can manifest in any medium. System is a pattern of information that conditions the flow of information. Hence any form of any kind in any medium, undergoing any process of change can be described as an information system without introducing anything that is not true in that particular instance. From this conceptual foundation a great deal can be discovered about the particular instance, how it relates to the overall systemic dynamics and how it relates to other particulars. This is why I feel that a genuine science of information systems would provide a strong conceptual foundation for a unified science, unified awareness and unified culture. 17 May 2008 @ 02:57 by anandavala : Thinking About Organizations as Systems There are so many signs of great things in the world :) Here is one thing I just found: quoted from Thinking About Organizations as Systems "Recently, management studies has come to view organizations from a new perspective: a systems perspective. This systems perspective may seem quite basic. Yet, decades of management training and practices in the workplace have not followed from this perspective. Only recently, with tremendous changes facing organizations and how they operate, have educators and managers come to face this new way of looking at things. This interpretation has brought about a significant change (or paradigm shift) in the way management studies and approaches organizations." This is related to the Gaian Ego Hypothesis... it is another sign that the systemic paradigm is gradually restructuring our understanding of organisms, memes and organisations. If organisations are systems, then what is a system? 3 Aug 2008 @ 18:25 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Wholesystem There is only one system, and we are within it. So the wholesystem is a self experiencing, self-interpreting, self-envisioning, and self-transforming entity. The better the wholesystem understands oneself, the better it will operate. 10 Aug 2008 @ 10:06 by anandavala : Whole? System? Hi Ravi, If we are to discuss these matters we must understand what each other means by the words that we use. I would be interested to hear what you mean by the word 'system' and the word 'whole'. I'll explain a little of my own perspective and then you could perhaps explain your own if you wish to discuss these things. We may need to discuss other words as well before these explanations can also be understood - but here is a start... To me the 'whole' is "all that is", which is one, without parts and unmanifest. All manifest forms are "perceived features" and not "actual parts" that are 'within' the whole. To explain the difference between "perceived features" and "actual parts" consider this analogy - glints of light seen when the sun is reflected on the surface of the ocean are perceived features and not actual parts because the ocean isn't actually "made of" glints of light. They have no objective existence separate from the act of observation, but instead they arise as subjective phenomena via the act of observation. Before explaining what I mean by 'system' I'll first define what I mean by empirical (that which arises from experience, manifest) and transcendent (that which underlies experience itself and the content of experience, unmanifest). I define what I mean by 'system' in the above article and also here (to properly understand my definition of 'system' please see the definitions of the words used in that definition, and the definitions of the words used in those definitions and so on). In brief, the whole is a transcendent information process but gives rise to apparent streams of experience and the content of experience. Within the content of experience there are perceived features, which when conceived of from an empirical perspective are what I refer to as systems. They have no objective existence 'within' the whole but are merely perceived features that can be experienced from an empirical perspective, which arises from the whole. Furthermore, when one perceives oneself one conceives of oneself as a system. Hence a system is both an observable form as well as an observer within the empirical context. The concept system exists only within the empirical context and when in the transcendent context they are conceived of as pure information processes, which are not actual parts of the whole but are movements of the whole which we perceive as features of the whole. According to the above definitions of the way in which I use these words, a system is a manifest form that arises from the unmanifest whole, thus the whole is not a system but is the underlying reality generative process from which all experience and the content of experience arise. To use a vedic analogy, the 'whole' is Brahman and 'systems' are perceived aspects of maya. To use a virtual reality analogy (where a computational process simulates a virtual universe in which virtual beings experience themselves as sentient entities in space and time), the 'whole' is the computational process and 'systems' are objects of perception within subjective world-experiences that arise from perspectives embedded in the virtual universe. I'm not sure if we have just semantic differences or if our fundamental ideas are different. For example, when you say "There is only one system, and we are within it" if I was to make some word replacements I could agree with the statement: system --> reality generative process we --> systems within --> appearances arising from This then gives "There is only one reality generative process, and systems are appearances arising from it." Which I agree with. If you also agree with this then those three word replacements point toward our semantic differences in this instance. If you disagree with this then those word replacements point toward the difference in our ideas in this instance. If you wish to discuss these things with me then please clarify what you mean by what you say and we can go on from there. All the best :) John 13 Aug 2008 @ 07:12 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Definitions of 'whole' and 'system'. John, you ask: “What do we mean by ‘system’?” I mean the standard dictionary definition - A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. You also ask: “What do we mean by ‘whole’?” I mean the standard dictionary definition - Noun: A number, group, set or thing lacking no part or element: a complete thing; Adjective: Containing all components: complete. I have combined the two words ‘Whole’ (as adjective) and ‘system’ to form the term “Wholesystem” which is intended to mean: All the interacting, interrelated and interdependent components of the complete All There Is. 13 Aug 2008 @ 07:22 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : My use of the terms Whole and system. John, you also ask: “Are these the most appropriate words for the meanings that we are trying to convey?” I use the words ‘whole’ and ‘system’ combined to form the term Wholesystem specifically in order to express, as simply and clearly as I can, my understanding of how AllThatIs comprises six interacting, interrelated and interdependent domains, such as consciousness, emotions/feelings, assumptions/beliefs, ideas/imaginations, actions/behaviors, rest of the physical universe; all working together as a single system. 13 Aug 2008 @ 07:41 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Are Gaian-Ego... & Wholesystem related John, you ask: “how does this subject (terms like whole and system) relate to the Gaian-Ego doc? Does it relate?” It could. I was not using the terms whole and system in the context of your book. My work is not designed to address Ego, Control or Authoritarianism. I was using those terms to refer to the understanding I have of how AllThatIs operates as a single system of interacting, interrelated and interdependent domains. However, what I refer to as the Wholesystem understanding does reveal that the dire predicaments of Humanity that you are addressing in your book “The Gaian-Ego....” - are the result of the identity error at the core of the conceptual subsystem of the system that is the way in which AllThatIs operates. 13 Aug 2008 @ 07:51 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Diagram John, you say: “I like the diagram Ravi - I can see how it relates to both empirical and transcendent perspectives - the empiricist thinks the centre is fundamental, whilst the transcendentalist thinks the circumference is fundamental. But in the unified context both the centre and the circumference are metaphorically just two sides of the same coin and both are fundamental in their own way. “Although it is a useful diagram I don't see how it can be an 'alternative' to the "simplified anatomy of the global crisis" - they seem to be describing very different contexts. The simplified anatomy maps out the flow of confusion through human civilisation whilst your diagram is a metaphysical model. Lets not mix contexts or we will end up with confusion.” Yes. The context is indeed different. My diagram is not intended to be a “simplified anatomy of the global crisis”. It is merely a very simplified model of how AllThatIs works. 13 Aug 2008 @ 08:00 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Global Crisis John, my work did not start out to solve any social or global problem. It merely sought to understand how everything works. However, having come to a skeletal understanding of how everything works as a single system, it became possible for me to see what causes the problems around us. Not having tried to address the global crisis need not disqualify the Wholesystem from being useful toward the solution of the crisis. 14 Aug 2008 @ 08:31 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : Useful understanding indeed The understanding of 'Whole System" as you have described it will indeed be a useful one towards addressing the critical issues that we face. In context it will be able to help clarify the core misunderstanding that has created this situation to begin with. For a greatly expanded overview of how it fits into the "bigger picture" see http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v550/__show_log/ as a tool for the clarification of minds within it, your diagram and the understanding it illustrates are a valid part of the solution. It would be good to further expand into the area of how this understanding will help bring about a re-orientation of perception in those it resonates with and to develop a "learning path' through the process of coming to this understanding. Thank you for your honest and sincere approach to the topic and blessings upon the journey of working toward understanding the situation and helping others to do the same :) 14 Aug 2008 @ 14:42 by anandavala : The WholeSystem and All That Is Hi Ravi, I understand what you are saying and I have arrived at a very similar understanding myself. I just wanted to clear up a possible confusion due to our different uses of key terms. Thank you for describing your associations with me. You said: "my work did not start out to solve any social or global problem. It merely sought to understand how everything works. However, having come to a skeletal understanding of how everything works as a single system, it became possible for me to see what causes the problems around us." Me too. The Gaian-Ego doc and STAR are the most worldly projects that I have undertaken yet. For many years I have operated solely in a purely metaphysical context but that has been gradually changing. The issues that you raise are very familiar to me and I am happy to have a chance to discuss them with someone else :) The reason why I wanted to clarify what you meant by WholeSystem is because you seem to be saying that the complete set of all "interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole" is the same as AllThatIs. That is not my understanding. In my understanding the elements (attributes, properties, manifest systems and so on) that make up the whole are only AllManifestForms, hence the concept "Whole System" to me represents the entire manifest universe, which is only a small part of AllThatIs (unified context). To see what I mean, refer to this article Seven Steps To Unified Metaphysical Awareness. It presents a model similar in nature to the diagram that you showed me, but with more detail. In the table shown there you can see that in my terms each column in the table represents a description of the eleven principal aspects of AllThatIs (the unified context), where the "Whole System" is the bottom most row. Your ideas in general immediately gel with my mind - I think we are contemplating a very similar paradigm. I just like to be sure because when dealing with matters as subtle and profound as the nature of reality we must exercise great skill in how we think and communicate. Looking forward to an interesting conversation with you... Re: and earlier comment (not shown here) I said that because a 'system' was actually an experiential phenomenon (an object of perception located in time and space, with attibutes and properties), in order for there to be a "Whole System" there would need to be some system that can perceive the Whole. I didn't think this was possible, but on further investigation I think that all systems do perceive the Whole, which includes themselves in each moment (but with limited focus). This is the case in the mathematical models that I use and they have proved accurate so far. So I now suspect that there is a "Whole System" (in my terms) and thus the entire manifest universe can be an object of perception. 14 Aug 2008 @ 21:35 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Humans & feedback loops in the WS Model Glisten, you say: "It would be good to further expand into the area of how this understanding will help bring about a re-orientation of perception in those it resonates with and to develop a "learning path' through the process of coming to this understanding." To proceed slowly, let me outline three aspects of the Wholesytem model. 1. Imagine each 'individual' as a radius extending from the outermost domain to the innermost domain. Each 'individual' comprises a unique vantage point of the consciousness function of the whole, the emotional charging of the content of consciousness (either negative or positive, or anywhere in between), beliefs and assumptions, ideas and fantasies, actions and behaviors, and a physical universe including one's human form. Accordingly, all humans currently radiate from the physical center to the invisible and intangible consciousness. 2. There is an operations feedback loop occuring at each indivdual, which governs what is done by the individual and kinds of feedback loops running across two or more individuals, ultimately across all individuals in a civilization. Vertical, (transformation in the physical world generated with experience): There are vertical operation feedback loops along each radius, with input (experiences by consciousness) and output (transformations in the physical world that results from the actions that result from the ideas or fantasies, which form out of the beliefs and assumptions, all of which get charged with positive or negative emotional charges, on being noticed by consciousness. Horizontal (information and value flow) There are also horizontal information (interpretive content) and value (money) feedback loops flowing between and among all the radii (all humans) by which operation input and output occuring at each individual flows to and through other others, influencing the vertical operation feedback loops of other individuals. Let's proceed on the Wholesystem after these two points have been clarified. 15 Aug 2008 @ 07:08 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Wholesystem includes the unmanifest. John, you say: “The reason why I wanted to clarify what you meant by WholeSystem is because you seem to be saying that the complete set of all "interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole" is the same as AllThatIs. “That is not my understanding. In my understanding the elements (attributes, properties, manifest systems and so on) that make up the whole are only AllManifestForms, hence the concept "Whole System" to me represents the entire manifest universe, which is only a small part of AllThatIs (unified context).” As what you regard as “Whole System” is only a small part of what you regard as AllThatIs, please articulate as clearly as you can, all that is in AllThatIs, that is other than Whole System. As explained by me before, the unmanifest is included in the Wholesystem as Consciousness. Consciousness - is not manifest at all. On the contrary, it is immanent, invisible, and intangible. Nevertheless, its unmanifest presence permeating and surrounding the manifest - interrelates with, interacts with, and is interdependent with the various manifest domains of the Wholesystem. 15 Aug 2008 @ 07:18 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Seven Steps and the Wholesytem Model John, you say: “To see what I mean, refer to this article Seven Steps To Unified Metaphysical Awareness. It presents a model similar in nature to the diagram that you showed me, but with more detail. In the table shown there you can see that in my terms each column in the table represents a description of the eleven principal aspects of AllThatIs (the unified context), where the "Whole System" is the bottom most row.” I agree. The Wholesystem Model is much less detailed and more simple. It’s simplicity is based on drawing boundaries between kinds of ‘substances/functions that are relevant to the operations of the Whole. Having reviewed your Seven Steps, all of them are present in the simpler Wholesystem Model. I will gladly identify which of the Wholesystem layers contain the elements identified in each of the columns across the Seven Steps. 15 Aug 2008 @ 07:28 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Wholesystem perceived from within Itself John, you say: “because a 'system' was actually an experiential phenomenon (an object of perception located in time and space, with attibutes and properties), in order for there to be a "Whole System" there would need to be some system that can perceive the Whole. I didn't think this was possible, but on further investigation I think that all systems do perceive the Whole, which includes themselves in each moment (but with limited focus). This is the case in the mathematical models that I use and they have proved accurate so far. So I now suspect that there is a "Whole System" (in my terms) and thus the entire manifest universe can be an object of perception.” There is no reason why ‘system’ needs to be regarded only as an experiential phenomenon. There is also no reason why the Whole cannot be perceived from within Itself (Oneself). Indeed, Consciousness is the subsystem within the Whole that perceives the rest of Itself (Oneself). 15 Aug 2008 @ 08:05 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.150.177 : Wholesystem Talks http://www.youtube.com/aboutourself 16 Aug 2008 @ 14:24 by anandavala : WholeSystem Model and Unified Model Ahh, I am beginning to see what you mean by 'system' now. You are right, I was using the term too narrowly but I suspect that you might be using it a bit too broadly. I realise now that what I meant when I said system was actually more like "virtual system", (using the VR analogy, where the "physical universe" is likened to a "virtual reality"). These are manifest systems of all kinds. The unmanifest virtual-reality-generator is a pure information process that creates the virtual systemic context. Hence I don't usually think of it as a 'system', but instead as an information process. But after some thought I realise that a "closed system" has no inputs (no outer experiential context) and no outputs (no observable form). It is a pure information process (inner state and dynamic process) with no outer context or form. So a truly closed system is logically equivalent to an information process. Hence the concept 'system' has meaning as: "virtual system" / "open system" or "manifest system" in rows 5 to 10. "information process" / "closed system" or "unmanifest system" in rows 0 to 4. (Note that the row numbers have changed, see the new table for the new numbering.) Ravi said: "As what you regard as "Whole System" is only a small part of what you regard as AllThatIs, please articulate as clearly as you can, all that is in AllThatIs, that is other than Whole System." I now regard the scope in which the concept 'system' has meaning as rows 0 to 10, but at the level of rows -1, -2 and -3 the concept of 'system' has no meaning. These are pre-conditions required for a 'system' to exist and are therefore not systems themselves. For example, is 'structure' a system? Or is it a property that something must have in order to be a system? I just wanted to clarify what it was that you meant by WholeSystem – I now understand. You are referring to AllThatHasPositiveExistence (0 to 10, both closed and open systems). I will now revise my definition of 'system' to reflect the new understanding that the concept 'system' covers the whole of positive existence and not just the range of manifest existence. Contemplating this subject again has been very timely and helpful :) I like the general form of your ideas Ravi, they are expressed differently to my own but they seem to me to be pointing towards the same general understanding. It will be interesting to explore the parallels and differences, but we will need to be careful about how we communicate, because these are very tricky subjects to put into words. I think I can describe a fundamental difference in our thinking. It seems to me that your "ontological floor" (the bottom-most level of what you believe exists) is defined at the level of universal consciousness (row 0) whereas I define mine at a more abstract level (row -3). It would be interesting to explore this difference between us and discuss whether the top three rows can be left out of the unified context for now. Are they too abstract to be relevant yet? Or do they represent a deeper level of understanding that may shed light on the other levels? Ravi said: " I will gladly identify which of the Wholesystem layers contain the elements identified in each of the columns across the Seven Steps." It would actually be more appropriate to consider how it relates to the different rows in the table. Any paradigm can be inserted into the table by identifying how it fits in with the rows. There can be as many columns as there are paradigms that we wish to analyse in parallel. It would be interesting to see how the WholeSystem model fits into this unified framework. 18 Aug 2008 @ 10:59 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : This is Great I love the way you guys are working toward clarity and mutual understanding of this subtle and abstract material. Ravi I am still contemplating your description of the vertical and horizontal feedback loops and comparing them to understandings I have gleaned from various schools of thought that use similar analogies. I fully comprehend your description of humans as radii of consciousness as I have had intuitive insight into this, however as I perceive it the humans ( and all manifest forms) are the result of the radiation of the invisible intangible, consciousness from the centre (source) and are the peripheral manifestations thereof, so when you say; "Accordingly, all humans currently radiate from the physical center to the invisible and intangible consciousness. " I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. 19 Aug 2008 @ 14:13 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Different Perspectives I am still developing the response to John. This is just to quickly address Glisten's point above: "as I perceive it the humans ( and all manifest forms) are the result of the radiation of the invisible intangible, consciousness from the centre (source) and are the peripheral manifestations thereof, so when you say; "Accordingly, all humans currently radiate from the physical center to the invisible and intangible consciousness." "I think we are looking at this from different perspectives." Thank you for making this point. It provides an opportunity for better clarification. Our apparent looking at this from different perspectives is valid only in the context of the diagram. Not in the context of the actual relationship between consciousness and the forms it manifests through. That comment of mine that you quoted above was intended to show how humans fit into the Wholesystem diagram. In that graphic consciousness is the outermost layer. In fact, however, consciousness is omnipresent, both permeating and surroundings all the forms that are manifested within it, and is therefore neither at the center, nor at the periphery. The diagram is a simplification to show how the different domains interrelate and interact. The same sequence of layers could be drawn from outside-in or from inside-out. As consciousness, being the ground of all its manifestations, is 'larger' than all of its forms, I drew the diagram to show consciousness from outside in. Let's illustrate the relationship between consciousness and the form it uses as 'Glisten'. Consciousness that is operating through the Glisten form is not contained within that form. Being everywhere, its witnessing functionality manifests wherever its forms have the capabilities actualize it. Let us say you are sitting and reading this from a monitor. What is 'looking' through the head and eyes of that sitting form at the monitor is not anything that is contained in the form. Being the ground of AllThatIs, consciousness, that is looking remains always immanent and omnipresent as a potentiality throughout one's cosmic manifestation. So when the Glisten form suddenly stands up, and looks at the monitor from 'up' there, it is no longer the witnessing potentiality of consciousness where the head was located while the form was sitting, that now looks through it. It is now the selfsame witnessing potentiality of consciousness, that, being present everywhere, and therefore also latent a couple of feet above the Glisten head when the form was sitting, that is now actualized, using the functionality of the form in its new 'higher' location to realize its innate potentiality to 'look' through the head that is now 'up' there. In short, forms float in the omnipresent, transparent, and therefore invisible, intangible consciousness. Wherever a form appears to be looking from, it is always consciousness, not the form, that is looking through the latter. I hope my view on this point is now clearer. 20 Aug 2008 @ 05:33 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Composition of the Whole System John, you say: “I now regard the scope in which the concept 'system' has meaning as rows 0 to 10, but at the level of rows -1, -2 and -3 the concept of 'system' has no meaning. These are pre-conditions required for a 'system' to exist and are therefore not systems themselves. For example, is 'structure' a system? Or is it a property that something must have in order to be a system? “I just wanted to clarify what it was that you meant by WholeSystem – I now understand. You are referring to AllThatHasPositiveExistence (0 to 10, both closed and open systems).” Any element that is necessary for a system to operate as it does must be included in the system. After all such elements that can influence the operations of a system are included within it, we can call it the whole system. Here’s another way to consider this. If any element being removed from a system will alter the operations of the system, the system is being rendered incomplete (unwhole) with that removal. As any of these three elements, ‘Ground of Being’ (-3), ‘True Nature’ (-2) and ‘Pure awareness’ (-1), as I understand these, cannot be removed from the system without altering the operations of the system, all these must be regarded as elements of the whole system. Accordingly, there appears to be no element from -3 to 10 that can be excluded without altering the operations of the system. That said, my understanding of the terms used in your table suggest, to me, a great deal of duplication and overlap among the elements referred to with these terms. Such duplication and overlap introduces a great deal of complexity into our grasp of the system, complexity that might be avoided without any loss. The six layers of the concentric model I had proposed have been isolated by excluding all duplication and overlap of functions in the system. Each of the functions in the system cannot be performed by any of the other functions. I am aware this much to claim. I look forward to your questions that will facilitate a deeper explanation of the relationships and interactions among these functions to enable reality to operate as it does. 20 Aug 2008 @ 06:43 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Wholesystem Model related to your Table. John, you quote me: " I will gladly identify which of the Wholesystem layers contain the elements identified in each of the columns across the Seven Steps." And say: “It would actually be more appropriate to consider how it relates to the different rows in the table. Any paradigm can be inserted into the table by identifying how it fits in with the rows. There can be as many columns as there are paradigms that we wish to analyse in parallel. It would be interesting to see how the WholeSystem model fits into this unified framework.” Here goes: The first (outermost) wsm layer covers the rows -3, -2, -1, 0, 3, & the ‘proto-consciousness in simple systems up to consciousness in complex systems’ and ‘perception’ components in row 5. The second wsm layer covers the ‘emotion’ component of row 7. The third wsm layer covers rows 4, 6, the ‘personal self’, ‘individual experiences’, ‘subjective world-experiences’ components of 7; the ‘knowledge’ component of 8; the “mind as mirror of the world” component of 9; & 10. The fourth wsm layer covers the ‘stories’ component of row 8; and the ‘imagination’, ‘dreams’, ‘visualization’ and ‘creativity’ components of row 9. The fifth wsm layer covers the ‘interconnection’, and ‘individual interaction’ components of row 7, and all actions of human forms including the ‘art’ component of row 9 (excepting necessary biological functions). The sixth wsm layer covers the entire sensorily accessible physical (matter-energy) universe/cosmos/multiverse, and the motions, processes and changes therein. As such it covers the ‘phenomenal body’ component of row 5. ‘Modifications of proto-consciousness’ component of row 5 does not exist, as consciousness, as sentience, is always a pure and inviolate function. The component ‘existence’ of row 1 covers all the six layers of the wsm. The component ‘occasion of experience’ of row 1, and the ‘objects of perception’ component of row 5 both cover the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth layers of the wsm. The row 2 spans all the interactions among the six layers of the wsm. The row 3 is the product of the interaction among the six layers of the wsm. The ‘intellect’ and ‘reasoning’ components of row 8 are functional products of the interaction between the first layer and the third and fourth layers. Do let me know if anything has been omitted or left unclear. 20 Aug 2008 @ 07:08 by anandavala : Great - I'll give this some thought Just for reference, here is the diagram of the WholeSystem model that we are talking about... 21 Aug 2008 @ 10:46 by anandavala : Comparing Models It seems to me that we are talking about a similar underlying understanding but we are each operating within very different contexts and building models for very different purposes. For me the aim is to work toward an accurate and detailed scientific understanding - for you I get the feeling that the aim is for easy comprehension and intuitive communication. Am I right? Both are necessary and complimentary but impose different constraints on what is thought to be too complex or too simple. For me the complexity is essential - for you it is something to be simplified. For me simplification leads to vagueness - for you simplification leads to ease of comprehension and communication. It is just that we have different agendas. I also see that there is a bit of a tangle of different related issues. I will point out a few of them... 1) In the table there is an underlying structure that is being hinted at. The descriptive words and phrases are just there to arouse memory associations that can be brought into the mix and subtly fused and adapted in order to gradually come to an understanding of the underlying structure. Simply comparing descriptors does not compare models - we may well be painting different pictures using the same palette of words and phrases. To compare the models we need to look at what the words and phrases mean in each context and compare the meanings. This will take time and involves developing a deep understanding of each model and not just comparing surface appearances. 2) The order of the rows in the table is determined by logical necessity and symbolic containment: Re: logical necessity, in order for one phenomenon to exist it necessarily requires the existence of other phenomena. For example, in order to watch television you first need electricity and then you need a television, hence if we were to draw up a table in relation to this then electricity would come first, then television then watching television. However I sense that you would say the electricity and television were included in the concept of watching television hence you would only explicitly define a row for that. At least it seems that this is what you have done with the concept of consciousness. The question here is, when is it necessary to make explicit the logical makeup of something and when can we just accept it as an amorphous complex package? For me, unless I know the logical makeup of something and all of its detailed inner processes that manifest its outer appearance and behaviour then I do not yet understand that something adequately - however for many people such a level of understanding seems excessive and they are happy with only a familiarity with the outer appearance and behaviour. But to me such a familiarity is only the first step towards understanding. Re: symbolic containment, in order for a phenomenon to arise it must have some existential context within which to arise. For example, before a television program can exist there must be a television. Likewise, before the contents of consciousness can exist there must be consciousness. This is the only form of containment that the table relies upon. In the table there is no physical containment because nothing mentioned in the table is physical - it is all information theoretic / computational / symbolic. 3) There is another type of containment that is implied within that latter rows of the table but is not used in the structure of the table itself. This is systemic containment - where 'systems' (which are separate entities within a systemic context that exchange information through input and output interfaces) interact and integrate and thereby appear to become a single supersystem. 4) Because the table is dealing ONLY with logical necessity and symbolic containment and NOT with systemic containment, the rows in the table are not like separate things that interact, they are more like levels unfolding from each other - hence each row permeates all later rows. A concept is related to a particular row because that is the point at which it originates. Hence the row doesn't define the scope of the concept, it merely defines its originating order, and the scope is from that point on throughout the rest of the unified context. In this sense the phenomenon of electricity permeates the phenomenon of television, television program, scene, character and so on. Indeed every single row leading up to a particular row is implied with that row. This however doesn't mean that all preceding rows can be subsumed into that row otherwise we could just have the model "world" and everything else is implied within that one concept. This is not a very useful model because it gives us zero understanding of the structure and dynamics that result in the experience of a world. For a clear understanding we need to distinguish between the different relations (logical necessity, symbolic containment and systemic containment). There seems to be some mixing of these contexts in your thinking, for example, You say: "As any of these three elements, ‘Ground of Being’ (-3), ‘True Nature’ (-2) and ‘Pure awareness’ (-1), as I understand these, cannot be removed from the system without altering the operations of the system, all these must be regarded as elements of the whole system. Accordingly, there appears to be no element from -3 to 10 that can be excluded without altering the operations of the system." This to me seems like a confusion of logical necessity and systemic containment. It is true that there isn't a single aspect that can be excluded without altering the unified context - that is the nature of logical necessity. But this doesn't imply any kind of systemic containment. Just because something is logically necessary for a system to exist doesn't make it a subsystem within the system. But again this brings us back to the issue of our different meanings to the word 'system', on which it seems we have yet to come to an understanding. This brings a question to my mind, you don't seem to apply any logical necessity in the structure of the wsm model, so what do you see as the relationship between any given circle and the inner circles drawn within it? Are they separate things that are related (systemic containment)? If so how do they come to exist and how do they interact? OR Are the circles symbolically contained within each other? If so how do they arise and maifest the further levels? You say: "my understanding of the terms used in your table suggest, to me, a great deal of duplication and overlap among the elements referred to with these terms. Such duplication and overlap introduces a great deal of complexity into our grasp of the system, complexity that might be avoided without any loss." I disagree. What you call duplication is the action of different phenomena on different levels but these phenomena combine to produce a complex result. You then group all the different phenomena and different levels together under the one complex concept and then perceive that this complex concept has been duplicated. When you group them all together under a single term I feel that you lose a great deal of potential understanding by doing this. For example, one can group all concepts such as CPU, memory, binary data, execution thread, program and so on under a single concept 'computation' but in doing so one cannot then understand how the CPU interacts with binary data in memory and so on to produce the phenomenon of computation. It might be simpler but it is far less accurate or useful. The complexity cannot be avoided without loss. What we lose is an understanding of how things function. The reason why I make the logical necessities explicit is to understand how the various levels actually function. To say that television manifests television programs is one type of knowledge, but to explain how televisions actually do this is another type of knowledge. The model, of which the table is a part, provides an outline of both types of knowledge. You say: "The six layers of the concentric model I had proposed have been isolated by excluding all duplication and overlap of functions in the system." I disagree - according to my understanding of your model so far I feel that there is a great deal of mixed contexts and conceptual overlap within the model, these are concealed due to the grouping of many related but different concepts under a single complex concept. For example, you say that "The first (outermost) wsm layer covers the rows -3, -2, -1, 0, 3, & the proto-consciousness in simple systems up to consciousness in complex systems’ and ‘perception’ components in row 5." This suggests that a complex chain of logical necessities involving many distinctly different phenomena have all been rolled up in the one concept 'consciousness', just like rolling up CPU, memory, etc under the one term 'computation'. For my purposes this would be a gross oversimplification, however for your purposes this might be a necessary simplification - it all depends on what context we are operating in and for what purpose the model is being developed and expressed. I am satisfied that we are talking about the same underlying understanding but our expressions are developed for such different purposes that there is no easy way to compare them to see if the details of our understanding correspond. It seems to me to be like comparing a popular science book with a scientific textbook, both are useful, but one cannot just compare the chapter headings and expect them to match up - likewise we cannot just compare the concentric circles of your model and the rows of my table and expect them to match up. The only way to compare things with such different modes of expression would be to look into what each is saying and compare this. Hence I recommend an exploration of meanings. First we need to come to some understanding regarding 'system', then some other important terms are 'existence', 'consciousness', 'physical', etc. And we also need to understand the structure of the models, for instance, when one circle resides within another or one row resides beneath another, what exactly does this mean? I feel that the two models will always be very different expressions, but what I am interested in is, are we talking about the same thing and can we learn anything from the other's perspective on this same thing. And also, can the two models compliment each other? Another question, why are the outer layers called the socioshpere - doesn't social interaction arise between human forms, hence it should lie within the physiosphere and the outer layers be called something else? What exactly do you mean by sociosphere? I would hazard a guess that your model is designed to be useful to the largest number of current human minds as possible, hence it focuses primarily on the lower levels of the table, those closer to everyday human experience. To give a preliminary comparison of the two models I would say: wsm circle = table row 1 = 6 3 = 8 2, 4 = 9 5, 6 = 10 All the other rows of the tables are not explicitly recognised with the WSM model. If it is designed for ease of comprehension and to assist people comprehend their everyday lives a little deeper then this is all that might be required - however for my own purposes (laying down a foundation for ongoing scientific enquiry over future generations) there is a lot more that is required. For example, the table that is shown is only a very simplistic view of the actual model. To go into it deeply requires extensive mathematical work and inner work that would take many years to master - just as one cannot go deeply into quantum physics or Buddhism without time, focus and attention. I hope this helps in some way to shed more light on the connections between the two models. I see them as quite different in scope and purpose but complimentary because they both point towards a similar underlying understanding. This comparison has helped me see deeper into my own perspective and has helped me clarify exactly what the structure of the model is within my own mind. I hope you too are benefiting as much from this as I am. 23 Aug 2008 @ 07:45 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Why Physiosphere and Sociosphere? John, thank you for your detailed response. It reveals much more richly the thinking behind your table. It is now clear that our methodologies are more divergent than I had imagined. I cannot even attempt to refute any of it. So let me just respond to your question about the sociosphere, as this question best revealed that our divergences might be irreconcilable, and let you to decide whether there is any point continuing this dialogue. You ask: “why are the outer layers called the sociosphere -- doesn't social interaction arise between human forms, hence it should lie within the physiosphere and the outer layers be called something else?” This question reveals the foundational assumptions with which you are interpreting the WSM model more clearly than everything else you have said here. Your primary foundational assumption appears to me to be that you and I and everyone else ARE human forms. It is only from this standpoint that you can regard us as being in the physiosphere, and therefore, the interactions among us (society) constituting the sociosphere. From this sense of who we are, there would have been no outer layers, because the functions represented by those layers would have been operating WITHIN the human form layer, and not outside it -- as you rightly pointed out. And here’s where the most important divergence between our positions occurs. The notion that you and I and everyone else are human forms is NOT my foundational assumption. It is accordingly not the standpoint from which the Wholesystem model has been developed. My primary foundational assumption as to what or who you and I and every one else is entirely different. And it is this difference that distinguishes human forms from who you and I and every one else is, and therefore allows the functionalities that comprise the sociosphere to be distinguished from these forms, and indeed, be located outside the entire physiosphere. Here then, is the primary foundational assumption as to who you and I and everyone else is, that gives rise to a sociosphere that is distinct from and beyond the physiosphere. Whereas your foundational assumption appears to identify yourself, me and everyone else to the physical world of energy-matter, my foundational assumption identifies yourself, me and everyone else as the consciousness function in AllThatIs. It is the function in AllThatIs that experiences the rest of AllThatIs. According to this assumption, you are whatever has been experiencing all of the feelings, sensations, thoughts, fantasies, aspirations, desires, fears, aversions, physical motions, actions, objects, events and situations -- that all together make up your ‘life’. According to this assumption, I am whatever has been experiencing all of the feelings, sensations, thoughts, fantasies, aspirations, desires, fears, aversions, physical motions, actions, objects, events and situations -- that all together make up my ‘life’. And of course, according to this assumption, everyone else is likewise who has each been experiencing all of the feelings, sensations, thoughts, fantasies, aspirations, desires, fears, aversions, physical motions, actions, objects, events and situations - that all together make up ‘life’ for each one of them. The Wholesystem Model is the total of the broad kinds of experiences that can be had, and what is experiencing these. According to the foundational assumption that we are each what is experiencing all that makes up one’s life, we are each a case of consciousness. And this is why consciousness is represented in the model as its first and outermost layer (this is explained in greater depth above in my recent response to Glisten). Accordingly, being consciousness, we each experience emotions, feelings of attraction or repulsion vis a vis whatever we are experiencing. These feelings or emotions can be triggered by anything that’s experienced, including feelings themselves. These feeling/emotion experiences are represented in the model as the second layer, inwardly next to the consciousness or self layer. We each also experience conceptual content. Conceptual content is our representational technology. It is the medium which we store our experiences (as memories). It is also the medium with which we process our experiences for ever greater coherence (inferences and interpretations), and with which we also extrapolate hitherto unexperienced possibilities (ideas and intentions). So there are broadly two distinct kinds of conceptual content -- conceptual content that appears consistent with the rest of our experiences (memories, inferences and interpretations), which are represented in the model as the third layer -- inwardly next to the second layer of feelings/emotions. The second distinct kind of conceptual content, is all the remaining conceptual content, that unlike the first kind above, does NOT appear to be consistent with the rest of our experiences (ideas and intentions). This second kind of conceptual content is represented in the model as the fourth layer -- inwardly next to the third layer of inferences and interpretations. Accordingly, conceptual content is entirely different from sensory or physical, or energy-matter experiences. Because conceptual content is directly accessible only to the consciousness operating through the human form through which the original experiences it represents or extrapolates occurred, conceptual content has no physical matter-energy substance whatsoever. It is entirely abstract, invisible and intangible. And of course, according to my foundational assumption, being ourselves consciousness, as distinct from ‘what’ we experience, the most familiar experiences we each have are the sensory/physical kind. These are the sensations, motions, actions, objects, events, processes and physical matter-energy. And like the other abstract ‘substance’ of conceptual content, there is a sharp distinction drawn in this substance as well. First there are the deliberate motions, actions and behaviors of the human forms that are made up of the physical substance of matter-energy. This distinction in the sensory physical substance is critical, because these are determined by the all the outer functional layers: 1 -- consciousness; 2 -- emotions/feelings; 3 -- memories, inferences and interpretations; and 4 -- ideas and intentions. The second kind of forms that are made up of the physical substance of matter-energy are the most familiar kind of experiences we have, namely that of the rest of the physical world, or commonly known as nature. This kind of forms comprise all inanimate forms from galaxies, nebulae, stars, planets, and every other kind of ‘heavenly body’ and physical substance such as the elements. It also comprises all living plants and creatures other than human kind. This are distinguished from the motions, actions and behaviors of humans, because the motions of all these physical forms are not determined directly by the four outer non-sensory, non- the other layers. Now perhaps you begin to notice the distinction between the sociosphere and the physiosphere. Simply put, physiosphere comprises physical forms of matter-energy, the motions of which are not determined by the four outer layers. Of course the physiosphere also includes human forms, but not the deliberate and intentional actions and behaviors of human forms, because these forms dance to the tune of a different drummer, the four outer layers. I make the distinction between the physiosphere and the sociosphere because the condition of the physiosphere is critical to the survival of human forms, but the sociosphere-driven intentional actions and behaviors of human forms appear to be putting the hospitality of the rest of the physiosphere to human forms -- at risk. John, you had asked (I repeat): ““why are the outer layers called the sociosphere -- doesn't social interaction arise between human forms, hence it should lie within the physiosphere and the outer layers be called something else?” Now you can see, that according to my foundational assumption, social motions, actions and behaviors arise not from human forms, but from the domain-functions of consciousness, emotions/feelings, memories/inferences/interpretations, and ideas/intentions. As (according to my foundational assumption, we, consciousness, are the sole subject and experiencer of AllThatIs, it is our outdated and mistaken identification of ourselves as the physical human form in our third layer of memories, inferences and interpretations -- that gives rise to our sense of the illusory object-self, or ego, that has become the instrument of its own destruction. In short, John, I hold that, we, you, me and everyone else, together comprise the consciousness function of AllThatIs, and as such, we are self and experiencer of the rest of AllThatIs. Accordingly, you, Glisten, me and everyone else are different vantage points through which we engage and transform the rest of the AllThatIs, the energy-material universe/multiverse. According to the wsm model, all that needs to be done is to clean up the third layer to become ever more consistent with the our identity as consciousness, and with the content of our experiences of our common physiosphere. This will inevitably result in fewer interpretive distortions. This in turn will generate ever fewer misdirected intentions. And this in turn will result in less dysfunctional and less destructive actions and behaviors by human forms. And of course, this in turn will result in less damage of the rest of the physiosphere, which will allow it to heal itself, and allow us, consciousness, to get to know ourself better through the further survival of the human forms through which we have come to know Ourself, and can yet become able to grow and learn and create and continue to fulfill our ever growing potentialities. As you have already invested a tremendous amount of time, effort and focus upon your framework, I don’t expect you to agree with my foundational assumption, which is based on a unitary experience I had forty years ago, which, as a direct and visceral experience, I cannot abandon. Hence I will understand and accept, with no hard feelings whatsoever, if you don’t wish to pursue this dialogue any further. Of course, our different foundational assumptions notwithstanding, I remain willing to respond to any further comments or questions you may have about the wsm model and its operations. 24 Aug 2008 @ 06:17 by anandavala : Gulf of Confusion You say: "And here’s where the most important divergence between our positions occurs. The notion that you and I and everyone else are human forms is NOT my foundational assumption. It is accordingly not the standpoint from which the Wholesystem model has been developed." Neither is it mine! If you look at the table you will see that matter and physical forms are ideas in our minds. This latest response from you shows to me just how similar our underlying models are and how vast is the gulf of confusion between us. You seem to assume that words have literal meanings but in matters as subtle as this I use them ONLY metaphorically - hence I suspect that you have totally misunderstood virtually everything that I have said. This is not anyone's 'fault' - it is just that we think and communicate in radically different ways. It would take enormous effort to bridge this gap and given our failure in bridging a single word 'system' I don't think there is any hope of success. I can now see where you are coming from and I think your core ideas are on the right track in general - although (IMHO) your methodology seems to be lacking in subtlety and will likely cause you problems as you try to go deeper. I only say this so that you might contemplate how you may improve your methodology. I truly wish you all the best. The ideas that you are trying to express are very important. 24 Aug 2008 @ 09:53 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : Clarity I think if you guys were to make a concerted effort you could come to an understanding of each others views. It seems form observation that whilst you both have a grasp of the subject, albeit from different perspectives it would not be impossible to overcome these differences by working together to create a common framework of understanding. Giving up on trying to communicate around this subject mater when you both so obviously have a deep knowing of its fundamentals seems like a wasted opportunity to bridge the very kind of divide which we seek to overcome. Setting an example of a genuine attempt to relax the ideas we hold enough to reach a mutual understanding would be a worthwhile endeavor. I believe you both have the capacity to overcome this type of confusion with the willingness to do so, if only you could start from a neutral position instead of one fixed in a certain way of seeing things. What do you think? 25 Aug 2008 @ 09:35 by anandavala : A very subtle subject Hi Glisten, Yes it is a shame that meaningful discussion on metaphysical subjects is very difficult to come by. In subjects such as these there is no way of talking 'literally' about things. If we were to "create a common framework of understanding" we would need to return to the ABSOLUTE BASICS of how to think and communicate - i.e.: What is the relationship between words, the context in which they are used, memory associations, concepts, experiences and the "thing in itself" that words and concepts attempt to point towards. If we operate solely on the level of words and memory associations then any attempt to discuss these issues is futile and a waste of time. If we are willing and able to go beyond memory associations and literal interpretations, and to subtly use words and concepts to point towards the underlying reality (which cannot be literally defined by any word or concept) then there is a chance that some meaningful discussion can occur. But quite frankly, I don't know if I have the time or patience to try to help someone to this level of thinking and communicating. I have no expertise in teaching the basics. I have been attempting to communicate these ideas for several years now - but I am coming to a realisation that attempting to communicate these things is a waste of my time because most people don't have the basic cognitive tools to be able to understand it. I am beginning to think that I should just focus my energy on the core research and development. There is much important work to be done and when it eventually produces concrete results, then people might begin to understand - but at the level of explanations there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of people understanding. It is metaphorically like trying to explain computers to a person who has never experienced anything like one before. It is much more effective to just give them a computer and then much much later try to explain what it is. 25 Aug 2008 @ 22:18 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Foundational Contradiction John, in your earlier post, you had asked: “why are the outer layers called the socioshpere - doesn't social interaction arise between human forms, hence it should lie within the physiosphere and the outer layers be called something else? What exactly do you mean by sociosphere?” And I had responded: “This question reveals the foundational assumptions with which you are interpreting the WSM model more clearly than everything else you have said here. I went on to explain: “Your primary foundational assumption appears to me to be that you and I and everyone else ARE human forms. It is only from this standpoint that you can regard us as being in the physiosphere, and therefore, the interactions among us (society) constituting the sociosphere. From this sense of who we are, there would have been no outer layers, because the functions represented by those layers would have been operating WITHIN the human form layer, and not outside it -- as you rightly pointed out. “And here’s where the most important divergence between our positions occurs. The notion that you and I and everyone else are human forms is NOT my foundational assumption. It is accordingly not the standpoint from which the Wholesystem model has been developed.” And now you respond to this with: “Neither is it mine! If you look at the table you will see that matter and physical forms are ideas in our minds. “This latest response from you shows to me just how similar our underlying models are...”. But John, this is in direct contradiction your question above, in which you ask: ”doesn't social interaction arise between human forms, hence it should lie within the physiosphere and the outer layers be called something else?“ This quote from you demonstrates that you regard social interactions as arising between human forms. Otherwise you could not have required that social interaction lie in the physiosphere of matter-energy. If you held, instead, as I do, that you me and everyone else are the consciousness function of AllThatIs, it would be obvious to you that all social interaction arises between different vantage points of the consciousness function of AllThatIs, i.e., NOT between human forms. After all, as we are consciousness function of AllThatIs, human forms are merely the physical and biological instruments through which experience and through which we interpret, and through which we imagine, and through which we act. In short, John, as consciousness is the only subject in AllThatIs, only WE have social interactions. All interactions between human forms that DON’T arise from consciousness, and are NOT mediated by consciousness-dependent interface functions of emotional prioritization/valuation and conceptual interpretation/intention - are not social interactions, but mere biological interactions. 26 Aug 2008 @ 04:05 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : Consciousness Ravi, I'm not so sure that consciousness is the only subject in All That Is. It may well be the only function that we, as products of it, are able to ascertain, yet I feel it arises from a deeper level that may well defy description in human terms. For the purpose of your model, which is very useful and I believe accurate as far as it illustrates the relationships between consciousness function and the objects of perception, this assertion may well suffice. However I posit that there is more to All That Is than this even if we lack the language with which to describe it. Respect to you brothers for traversing this terrain. 26 Aug 2008 @ 07:13 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Consciousness Glisten, you say: "I'm not so sure that consciousness is the only subject in All That Is. It may well be the only function that we, as products of it, are able to ascertain, yet I feel it arises from a deeper level that may well defy description in human terms." Good and important point. Helps us to ensure that we focus on what we can build upon. As consciousness, let us agree, once and for all, that the term AllThatIs refers to AllThatWeCanExperienceandInferTherefrom. Let us agree also, that there may be myriad wider, higher and deeper realities that are not accessible to us at this time, many of which may never be accessible to us, all of which defy description. Hence, when I say, "as consciousness is the only subject in AllThereIs", please let this be understood as "as consciousness is the only subject in AllThatWeCanExperienceandInferTherefrom, especially as the statement is offered in the context of the subjecthood of forms as distinct from consciousness. 26 Aug 2008 @ 07:27 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : Blessings Anandavala John, I understand what you are saying, and know that I for one respect the effort you have made in this area. You have given us more than enough to go on with, probably for several generations to come. I'm sure the conversations around your material will continue, and I for one will continue to participate in them whether you have time and energy to comment or not. Thank you so much for all the inspiration and insight, may we do it justice. Deepest respect, Glisten 26 Aug 2008 @ 08:11 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Literal and Rigorous Use of Words John, you also say: ”This latest response from you shows to me just how similar our underlying models are and how vast is the gulf of confusion between us. “You seem to assume that words have literal meanings but in matters as subtle as this I use them ONLY metaphorically - hence I suspect that you have totally misunderstood virtually everything that I have said. “This is not anyone's 'fault' - it is just that we think and communicate in radically different ways. It would take enormous effort to bridge this gap and given our failure in bridging a single word 'system' I don't think there is any hope of success. It is the responsibility of those who wish to convey the concepts that are accessible to them, to seek to use words that are most likely to deliver the intended concepts. In other words, the boundaries of the meaning of the words being used must allow the basis of the distinctions among these meanings to be absolute. When I had said: "The six layers of the concentric model I had proposed have been isolated by excluding all duplication and overlap of functions in the system. Each of the functions in the system cannot be performed by any of the other functions", I had added that I looked forward to your questions, with which we might have facilitated a deeper explanation of the relationships and interactions among these functions -- indeed toward enabling reality to operate as it does. But instead of acceptance to this invitation to inquire into the relationships and interaction among these functions, I got a blunt dismissal: “I disagree - according to my understanding of your model so far I feel that there is a great deal of mixed contexts and conceptual overlap within the model, these are concealed due to the grouping of many related but different concepts under a single complex concept.” As you now seem to agree that social interactions arise not among human forms, but among consciousness, I am somewhat encouraged on the prospect of progress. Hence let me continue by expanding on another bone of contention that seemed to rise between us, namely, on my assertion that the layers of the wsm eschewed duplications and overlaps: The term consciousness refers exclusively to ‘what is experiencing’ and excludes everything that is experienced. The terms emotions and feelings refer exclusively to the dynamics of attraction or repulsion evoked by whatever is being experienced. The terms beliefs, assumptions, and interpretations refer to conceptual content that is regarded at the form where it is locally stored as being consistent with reality. The terms ideas, imaginations and intentions refer to conceptual content that is NOT regarded at the form where it is locally stored as being consistent with reality, and therefore, as a possibility yet to become reality, if at all. The terms actions, activities and behaviors refer to the motions of human forms that are influenced by interactions among the four non-physical phenomena of consciousness; emotions/feelings; beliefs/interpretations/assumptions; and ideas/imaginations/intentions. The terms ‘the rest of the physical domain of matter-energy refers to the forms, events and conditions of the entire knowable universe excepting the those physical phenomena specified in the previous paragraph. If you still feel that “there is a great deal of mixed contexts and conceptual overlap within the model”, please point out at least some of these, so that I may have a chance to show how this might not be so. 26 Aug 2008 @ 08:25 by anandavala : Thought and Communication Ravi, you seem to assume that just because I use a word that I am implying that the commonly understood literal meaning of that word is objective real in some absolute sense. The word creates memory associations in your mind and you take these as being the intended meaning. You fail to interpret the word in context thereby failing to realise that it is just a signpost pointing at something for which there are NO words. This is what is causing you to misunderstand what I say. I don't have the time or expertise to untangle the knots in people's misuse of concepts and language. Quite frankly I don't think there is any chance of us communicating on anything but the most mundane subjects (which I have no interest in). The literal use of language is suited ONLY to mundane contexts, unless you develop some subtlety in your use of language then it doesn't matter what you might know about the nature of reality - you won't be able to communicate it! To communicate about the nature of reality we need to realise that the meanings of words don't point to things that are objectively real. They are just cognitive signposts that point to something beyond the mind. If we fixate on the signposts then we fail to look where they are pointing. If you are willing and able to SLOW DOWN, return to the ABSOLUTE BASICS of thought and communication and to move ONE STEP AT A TIME then you might be able to make some progress in communicating your understanding with others. 26 Aug 2008 @ 16:36 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Slow, Basics, Step at a time John, I am. How would you like to begin? 27 Aug 2008 @ 06:45 by Ravi Arapurakal @98.221.163.229 : Words and Concepts/Meanings John, In the meantime, while I wait for you to respond to my willingness to “to SLOW DOWN, return to the ABSOLUTE BASICS of thought and communication and to move ONE STEP AT A TIME”, I would like to alert you to an example of the kind of misunderstanding that seems to be going on here: I had said: “It is the responsibility of those who wish to convey the concepts that are accessible to them, to seek to use words that are most likely to deliver the intended concepts. In other words, the boundaries of the meaning of the words being used must allow the basis of the distinctions among these meanings to be absolute.” Anyone who reads this would understand that I regard words as conveying CONCEPTS, and NOT as conveying anything objectively real. And yet, in your response you say, of me: “you seem to assume that just because I use a word that I am implying that the commonly understood literal meaning of that word is objective real in some absolute sense.” Such obvious misinterpretations of my position vis a vis the use of words suggest that my statement above might not have been read at all. In that statement I was clearly addressing the difficulties of conveying concepts and meanings, and was pointing out that the responsibility for making the effort to overcoming such difficulties belongs with the one who is USING the words, in this case you, because you also know that “words create memory associations in” the mind of readers/listeners that makes them “take these (associations) as being the intended meaning.” I cannot wait to see what your first step will be! 27 Aug 2008 @ 09:35 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : Questions for Ravi. Hi Ravi, Could you please explain "the context of the subjecthood of forms as distinct from consciousness." And to help me understand what you are saying here could we use John's table as a reference. Simply because I am better able to comprehend the understandings we seek based upon this fomula. I am lead to think that you refer to the lower portion of the left column in some way, that is, the empirical context and the realm of physical objects which are subjectively experiencing themselves as manifest forms in a manifest universe, am I correct? If so by what means are these distinguished from consciousness? And what in your understanding is the relationship between form and consciousness? Thanks for your perseverance, Glisten 28 Aug 2008 @ 05:31 by Ravi Arapurakal @12.17.118.130 : Subjecthood Glisten, you ask: "Could you please explain "the context of the subjecthood of forms as distinct from consciousness."" The context is detailed very clearly in the flow of my preceding exchanges with John, which were linked directly with John's table, by the numbers. Let me outline this context for you now. I had explained that there were several layers of reality beyond the physical layers of matter-energy, namely, consciousness, emotions, beliefs/interpretations, and ideas/imaginations/intentions, and related each of these to specific middle rows of John's table. I referred to these additional layers as the sociosphere, to distinguish these from the physiosphere. My point was that all interventions in the physical world were effected by the sociosphere, through the actions/activities/behaviors of human forms. In effect, I was saying that human forms are mere objects, and that the only subject in the system was consciousness, which, governed the actions/activities/behaviors the human forms. In John's response to this, he asked me: "why are the outer layers called the socioshpere - doesn't social interaction arise between human forms, hence it should lie within the physiosphere and the outer layers be called something else?" By this, he was suggesting that interactions arose from the human forms, and was therefore attributing subjecthood to mere objects. If you were asking what subjecthood is, it is the result of looking for a way to divide reality into what is experiencing and what is experienced. All that is experienced are objects, and all that is experiencing is subject. Hence consciousness is subject, but human forms can never be subject because these are mere instruments being used by the subject through the intangible (subtle) conceptual and emotional layers. So when I said: "as consciousness is the only subject in AllThereIs", please let this be understood as "as consciousness is the only subject in AllThatWeCanExperienceandInferTherefrom, especially as the statement is offered in the context of the subjecthood of forms as distinct from consciousness -- I was referring to consciousness being the only subject in AllThereIs only to REFUTE the implication in John's question about the sociosphere, that forms, by giving rise to social interactions, can be regarded as subject. 28 Aug 2008 @ 09:52 by Deepwater @121.222.25.210 : Thanks This does make what you are saying clearer. I think we all agree on the point that forms arise as a result of consciousness and not the other way around. It can often be quite difficult to see how we each come to this understanding and I feel this has been the source of the confusion. We each have our own way of interpreting and describing our understandings which, as far as I can see from looking at myriads of dialogues in the area of consciousness research, seems to be the biggest obstacle we have to overcome in communicating our insights to each other. Patience and a willingness to persevere until mutual understanding ensues is a sure way to achieve common points of reference for a conversation, that and a healthy dose of respect for the fact that we are all treading a difficult path and working towards a worthy goal. Thank you Ravi. 29 Aug 2008 @ 04:33 by Ravi Arapurakal @12.17.118.130 : forms arise as a result of consciousness Glisten, you say: "This does make what you are saying clearer. I think we all agree on the point that forms arise as a result of consciousness and not the other way around. It can often be quite difficult to see how we each come to this understanding and I feel this has been the source of the confusion." I'm sorry, I seem to have evoked the wrong impression. I wasn't saying that forms arise as a result of consciousness. In my preceding post I said that interactions among human forms arise as a result of consciousness, and that consciousness governs the actions/activities/behaviors of human forms. 29 Aug 2008 @ 04:35 by Ravi Arapurakal @12.17.118.130 : Healthy Dose of Respect. Glisten, you say: "Patience and a willingness to persevere until mutual understanding ensues is a sure way to achieve common points of reference for a conversation, that and a healthy dose of respect for the fact that we are all treading a difficult path and working towards a worthy goal." Yes, indeed! Other entries in Systems Thinking 4 May 2008 @ 01:08: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm - Brainstorming notes 03 25 Apr 2008 @ 11:32: System Oriented Modelling Paradigm 23 Apr 2008 @ 09:25: Pascal's Triangle, Self-similarity and Phi 13 Apr 2008 @ 09:47: Phi is the constant of Self-Similarity 19 Dec 2007 @ 17:40: Octonionic 3-dimensional Unity of duality 1 Dec 2007 @ 16:36: considering options 5 Aug 2007 @ 08:22: Sophie Germain 12 Jul 2007 @ 22:53: Emergence and democracy 29 Jun 2007 @ 22:39: The Map of Outcomes: Where are YOU in the rat-race? 18 Jun 2007 @ 15:59: The Gaian-Ego Hypothesis
|
7 May 2008 @ 09:27, by John Ringland