Pye. I am unable to reach any satisfying clarity about my theory. I've gone off in too many tangents, and thrown in too many alternative possibilities. It's now a bloody complete and utter mess. I've been on this Contraction/Expansion track, off and on, for about 3 years now, and I always feel I am getting deeper into reality. I remain driven by feeling that I can actually obtain for myself a coherent philosophical theory about the creation of all.
I’ll just post some thoughts, mostly about the duality/non-duality issue, that need a lot of revision and editing, but sorry, at present I'm not motivated to do so. Properly explaining the two forces is still a long term work in progress. I have to be able to offer rational causes for the instant and continuous creation of space, time, matter, motion (all layers of the same thing), and one of my bugbears - why universal constants exist (so as to explain why differences of appearances exist).
-------------
The reason I do not support non-duality is that it doesn't make logical sense to me. To me non-duality would mean non-existence - some form of foundational unequalness must exist for causes to exist.
It is my belief that you could take any particular thing and learn all about The Totality from that one thing. The nature of things must also represent the nature of the totality. We are all limited by our observations and we can only observe things. Any theory about the totally must be backed up - historically within one's memory - by what is observable about things. Analytical thinking may then take a role and produce things not previously seen or imagined using the tools of generalisation, abstraction and parallel thinking (same thing) - but these tools are only available if your brain is constantly comparing and categorising things it encounters through experience with reality. Once analytical thinking has occurred then it becomes empirical in nature - it is stored in memory and becomes data available to be experienced - the two forms add value to each other, far more so if the persons mindset enjoy logic, or clear non-emotional thinking.
The rational concept of "force" comes from this empirical-analytical process (as does "God" in folks who do not think logically). Nobody I've read has ever really defined a force, they always describe it in terms of its affects on things, of its relationship between things. A force is the underlying reason we use the word cause - somehow one thing affects another. A force appears to make one thing bigger or while making another smaller; or many things into one thing and vice versa; forces change the shape or configuration of things; forces change the pressure relativities between things; forces move things, and so on. The existence of permanent gravity shows us that forces never lose their power, they never become not. The interconnectedness of all things, together with our observations of cause and effect processes, show us that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, or perhaps a little more precisely, an equal positive/negative reaction on both sides of a point of force transferral. Generally we can only observe this on a large scale such as the equal and opposite reaction of snooker balls, but as everything is interconnected then it must apply to all things.
Therefore as I am reliant on the same empirical-analytical mental procedure for all things I think about, and as I know all things are caused then The Totality as a named thing "all there is" must also be caused - only a decision not to think about the totality can prevent one from seeking a cause of the totality and to me not thinking about it is an abandonment of one's desire to know reality - a resort to fundamentalism.
The conversion of matter to energy and the spectrum of electromagnetic "forces" (they are still things) show us that energy also can be converted from some thing else. It also shows us the simpler a thing is the larger spatial area it will take up, and the more complex (read mass) a thing is the smaller it will be. The destruction of "whatever-holds-a-thing- together" causes it to expand.
Defined things could be considered as representations of non-dualism, namely a thing is that thing only and not another thing. If it is also another thing, such as its parts, then you have changed the definition or broken the non-duality of the thing. A strong non-duality will eventually be caused to cause a greater incidence of duality. For example, the thing defined as a red star is a thing, but it will be many other things once it explodes.
The totality must consist of two things, though those things are not really things.
I think all concepts could be linked to contraction and expansion of some physical thing, or in the case of social and emotional things, contraction and expansion of their egos. As an example of the later, then familiarly with other cultures lessens rejection when people observe that traits in common are greater than those that are not. Things that people find in common with each other expands their ego's, they feel they are part of something greater. It is no surprise we form groups.
In terms of non-duality I don't see the purpose in generalising everything into a one, then dismissing it out of existence, by defining it as just a constant streams of A=A's. That might be what consciousness does, or is, but it is not what reality is. I'm positive that real existence can be described down to a basic coherent duality. Unfortunately I am not there yet. I am unable to imagine a single self-causing cause that can then go on to be the cause of all, still I do feel many of the points I raise, even where logically contradictory to some other statement in this essay, can assist to give an inkling of something that can only be described abstractly. It is almost like binary level thinking.
The contracting force has the ability to be attracted to itself, while the expansionary force is repelled by itself. This is not surprising considering these actions are their essential nature. Within the spatial domain the "smaller" the contracting force is, relative to the surrounding expansionary force, the stronger its self-attractive force becomes.
How Does Consciousness Affect Our Perceptions
Consciousness is the means of placing oneself outside the universe. It is the segregation of the infinite into the finite. At the same time though you know that you are entirely inside the universe. Only when this segregation occurs is something created though, just as consciousness does not occur without this segregation, nor does anything else. Causes affecting a thing are always both finite and infinite. They are finite in the sense that say a star exploding in a distant galaxy is not directly and instantly capable of affecting earth, but causes are also infinite both due to gravity (at least if it is instantaneous) and in the sense that eventually the earth will be affected – it just takes time for the causes to work through the infinite chain of equal and opposite reactions or relativities to get through to the earth – in which case it will be a different casual set than would have applied if the earth was adjacent to the star. If Gravity is instantaneous this would make the contracting force a single thing and not something that is essentially divided in any way.
Noting the existence of the pinwheel itself requires one to notice a “thing†existing, which we know to be as false as it is true.
If the contracting force was a single unit within the totality, then I do not see how things could be created, there would only be the expansionary force around a single point of casual existence. Spatially both forces have to be able to provide for segregation, or at least the appearance of same.
To state a belief in non-duality is to state a belief in duality. To say something is one is to say that it has no parts, A=A not the sum of its parts, therefore if the totality is a one then it has no parts. To say there is two (fundamental forces) is to say that one can be formed, the totality can exist.
"Liberty as Total Determinism"
.
Jamesh writes:
What is far more interesting to me is the estimations we tend to give one over the other: that energy is somehow superior, spiritual and mysterious to us on certain frequencies; this where we should look (Plato's Forms go here) and that matter is somehow the deaf-and-dumb expression, trapped in the inferiority of corporeal immanence. Matter tends less to impress us for its ephemeral nature of decay; energy impresses us more as being somehow directive (god, etc.). A telling human value, this permanence over temporality. A human sickness in many regards - looking for the what-is always right past the what-is as it always is.
.
Jamesh writes:
This says that you are in search of some conciliatory principle no matter the dual forces you identify. This was the kind of force of logic that I meant. Two things rubbing together making a world (like Diebert re: strife) only raises more questions about source/nature - your universal constants, as you put it.I have to be able to offer rational causes for the instant and continuous creation of space, time, matter, motion (all layers of the same thing), and one of my bugbears - why universal constants exist (so as to explain why differences of appearances exist).
Duality as the cause of a world can only stand argumentatively as eternal things (these two forces), with no prior cause of them, or one shall have to look again to a conciliatory principle or source.Jamesh: The Totality as a named thing "all there is" must also be caused - only a decision not to think about the totality can prevent one from seeking a cause of the totality and to me not thinking about it is an abandonment of one's desire to know reality - a resort to fundamentalism.
Here would be your two forces to create existence, and quite possibly in eternally looping exchange, from black holes to novas to body life and decay, perhaps not so academically delineable as the perfect-and-equal reaction, last I heard. Matter and energy: and since eternally in exchange, no first-cause needed there.Jamesh: The conversion of matter to energy and the spectrum of electromagnetic "forces" (they are still things) show us that energy also can be converted from some thing else.
What is far more interesting to me is the estimations we tend to give one over the other: that energy is somehow superior, spiritual and mysterious to us on certain frequencies; this where we should look (Plato's Forms go here) and that matter is somehow the deaf-and-dumb expression, trapped in the inferiority of corporeal immanence. Matter tends less to impress us for its ephemeral nature of decay; energy impresses us more as being somehow directive (god, etc.). A telling human value, this permanence over temporality. A human sickness in many regards - looking for the what-is always right past the what-is as it always is.
I would not be too hung up on this word "thing" that makes impossible demands of any given thing. It will make it so you cannot talk about the two things, either. I would see those two things you name as the dual forces of creation more as adjectives for some of the things energy and matter get up to. Contraction and expansion are an expression of some of the horseplay these two things - energy and matter - get up to. And since they make and eat each other - eternally, apparently - we don't have to worry about their beginning, or their end. In us, or the world.Jamesh: Noting the existence of the pinwheel itself requires one to notice a “thing†existing, which we know to be as false as it is true.
.
.
I thought a thing or two else here.
Jamesh writes:
But something else is more interesting to me, rather like the universal ubiquity of duality in human thinking and experience. When you say
With contraction/expansion, you are very near to the ancient vital breath expressions of the universe as a breathing thing, or you would be, if you were not seeing them as separate - to-itself - forces. The breathing, the mating friction . . . all very interesting interpretations . . . .
.
I thought a thing or two else here.
Jamesh writes:
The by-itself and to-itself nature you give each these forces is distinguishing them as dualities as though they are not simply the absence of one in favour of the other. That's interesting. In my mind's eye, I have to imagine that when something contracts, it has nothing to do with the expanding space around it or vice versa. If they are entirely of no relation, then you would have two things.The contracting force has the ability to be attracted to itself, while the expansionary force is repelled by itself.
Again, your correctness of expression seems directed toward correctness of expression. Fitting the one and the many is very old human business of paradox. A unity of multiplicity and the like. Contraction and expansion seem perfect candidates for forces that can be described as reasons for the multiplicity, thus self-standing as it were. Here, these forces would have to be understood as extant before there is any matter around to display them [contraction/expansion] as properties of itself.Jamesh: To state a belief in non-duality is to state a belief in duality. To say something is one is to say that it has no parts, A=A not the sum of its parts, therefore if the totality is a one then it has no parts. To say there is two (fundamental forces) is to say that one can be formed, the totality can exist.
But something else is more interesting to me, rather like the universal ubiquity of duality in human thinking and experience. When you say
I say this is not possible, but still there is two-ness in the nature of consciousness and of human experience. Human consciousness will always be the measurement and the measuring; always speaking of the properties of its existence as the comprehensive ones. And so things like cause and effect - or 2 things-mating to make life (or strife) - being a self and seeing an other - things like this are rooted way-deep in the human experience. Duality-thinking is the ubiquitously parental appearance in our imaginations, this great coupling metaphor that has ruled so much of our belief and our experience, this way that we look at things. If not one and the many, then the friction of two mating features or forces doth everything make . . . . I find the omnipresence of this in human thinking to be as interesting as any of the dualism itself.Consciousness is the means of placing oneself outside the universe.
With contraction/expansion, you are very near to the ancient vital breath expressions of the universe as a breathing thing, or you would be, if you were not seeing them as separate - to-itself - forces. The breathing, the mating friction . . . all very interesting interpretations . . . .
.