[Fis] Fwd: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[Louis H Kauffman]

On Pedro’s recommendation, I am forwarding this exchange to the list.
Best,
Lou

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Louis H Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self
> Date: April 29, 2016 at 12:12:26 PM EDT
> To: Alex Hankey <alexhankey at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
> 
> Dear Alex,
> In set theory, the empty set can be regarded as ‘framing nothing’.
> Thus it is denoted by an empty container {  }.
> The properties of the container are not relevant, only that ‘it’ manages the act of containment.
> “We therefore take the form of distinction for the form.”
> From there, one generates all the multiplicities in mathematics by further acts of framing.
> {  }
> { { } }
> { { }, { { } } }
> ad infinitum.
> If we said this in LOF it would be essentially the same, but parsimonious in that the comma as an extra distinction would not be needed.
> If A is a set, then {A} is another set obtained by the act of framing. We see it all as ‘framing nothing’ when the sets are traced back to their empty origins as in 
> the layers of an onion. Some layering might have to be traced back forever alas as in {{{{{…}}}}}. This is why set theorists are not happy to have sets that are members of themselves at the foundation. Nevertheless, in order to have language at all, self-reference is necessary. In LOF the mark < > is seen to be a distinction and to refer to a distinction and so refers to itself.
> At that point one realizes that in the form, the mark and the reader or writer or observer are identical. Tat tvam asi.
> Best,
> Lou
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Alex Hankey <alexhankey at gmail.com <mailto:alexhankey at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> RE 1 Louis Kauffman: Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The form we take to exist arises from framing nothing.
>> 
>> RE 2: The objects of our thought and perception are so laden with the names and symbols that have been shifted to them, that their ?original nature? is nearly invisible. 
>> 
>> ME 1: Many philosophers of the East, such as Nagarjuna and Adishankara agree that when one realizes that the real 'Self' has no form (and no history of change) that this frees the embodied soul from being trapped in forms that get reincarnated in time. It is the Ultimate Liberating Realization! 
>> 
>> The Maharishi International University mathematician, Michael Weinless, formerly an Asst Prof at Harvard, was correspondingly fond of RusselL's distinction between ϕ and [ϕ]. 
>> 
>> Is this the same as what you are referring to, the 'framing of nothing'?
>> 
>> ME(2): I suspect that the cognitions of a fully enlightened person is acutely aware of the additional nonsense that has surrounded the original simplicity in such cases. 
>> 
>> E.G. In the webinar, I became acutely aware of many layers of academic comment / prejudice etc. that surround almost every seemingly innocent discussion question. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
>> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
>> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
>> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India  
>> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <tel:%2B44%207710%20534195> 
>> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 
>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160430/0af6ae2d/attachment.html>