re-visiting psymath

5 06 2015

This is the third post in a vertical chain. I started with this post at ecosquared, then this at 2020worldwalk, and now this here at XQ, a site I haven’t visited for a long time. Indeed, my mind has not been in the condition to explore this space much. So, what is written below may be… insensitive, or inaccurate. I can’t tell. It is the result of a mind in the act of commitment.

So, marry a personal engine with a concurrent God-belief system, and you get a very powerful individual. Why these two? Because the middle-state is dispassion. Without will, there is neither the personal engine nor the God-belief system. To acknowledge zero of self, is to acknowledge zero of self of other. Or indeed, the difference between self, at that level of appreciation is equal.

psymath

Let’s call this area of XQ Psymath. I started on this path with Leon’s encouragement to make XQ practical. It is a continuation of the original insight that math has a therapeutic dimension to it, written in the original XQ Condition exploration back in autumn 2008. The most significant exploration since the┬áconfrontation with Gunther in winter 2013 which revealed a correspondence of 0 and 1 to inter-subjective judgement, and how it was reflected in the SEA or what I cam calling the SQ-algorithm. Interesting stuff. I think the following connects to that. Does it? Retrospectively, or from another mind, it might.

the math of will

Translating the above paragraph about will. It is not 1 = 1, which is how we like to think of equality. One person is equal to another person. Like we are equating bodies, things. We have escaped from this with the mathematical construct 1^n. 1^2 = 1^3 is true arithmetically, but only if we reduce. So, to say 1 = 1 is a crude reductive mapping, both mathematically, and also in terms of human beings.

Not even 0 = 0, which is a ‘soft’ version of buddhism. This is where we recognise ourselves as empty, as not being of value. The corollary is that we place value in the other, or perhaps the relationship between. This is too baggy for me, intuitively. I associate it with ‘soft buddhists’, well meaning people like ‘soft christians’ or indeed ‘soft anybody’, where they are living comfortably enough to be generous. A little more depth than the platitude that we are equal, but not much better. If 1 = 1 is the christian or western version, 0 = 0 is the buddhist religion version, lay religious types. People who are well meaning, but not serious.

Return to the insight — ‘the acknowledgement of zero as self’. Remember also the insight that 0 is different from the other digits. 2 may represent two things in the world, it represents something, as well as being a placeholder; it can mean 20 things, or 2000 things depending on where the digit is. 0 does not represent anything, but it does perform the placeholder function. So, it is the placeholder function that mostly accounts for 0’s use. And as a representation of zero, of nothing, it fails. Something which Leon has gone into deeply with Spencer-Brown’s attempt to create his Laws of Form, to account for the first mark of distinction. I have taken a slightly different angle. Whereas Spencer-Brown is attempting to create the logic, the externalised form of it, I am happy with maintaining the operation within mind. That is, my mind now, and your reading this. It is not relying on a new ‘formality’, script, etc.

So, 0 as a place holder, as representation of nothing. 0, as a mark, whereas nothing has no mark. It is absent. Though if we start thinking of absence, we go into our secondary interpretation of negative — what is not there. ‘0 as the omission of a mark’ is more like -0, which is just as ‘useless’ as +0 in this regard. That is, we attempting to point at the null of it. We can do so in our minds, but we can not do so well with words.

Returning to our mapping, not 1 = 1 nor 0 = 0, but┬árather a simple 0. With the acknowledgement of zero of self, and thus the zero of self of other, there is no distinction. The 0, is not ‘my mark’ that I apply to this nothing here, eg in 2000, the first zero is different than the second zero because of its place. And so, my sense of emptiness is different than your sense of emptiness because we occupy different places. However, the emptiness of self is the same. It is identical. There is no ‘=’ sign involved because there is not difference, because there is literally nothing to compare.

orbiting the point

This level of appreciation, of acknowledgement, is tricky to reach, immerse, and then to actually enact with others. So, a tendency to it is good enough. In terms of Ecosquared, it is the +0, the 0 which is the absence of a self-score. In terms of inner psychology, it is -0, the approach to zero from an internal state. No markers required, the reduction of thought to its minimum.

So, anything that deviates from this intention, towards zero, that lingers around 1, is will. This outward projection is will, and the differential between stasis and action is enacted through will. Will-power.

Of course, even gentle buddhists have will power, but the attempt is to root it in zero. To disengage the engine that was built as a child. So that the will that is effected is because of the conditions. The cup is filled with water because the cup is there, the water is there. The person is cared for because they are in pain. A life of service. Even the extreme martial artists monks are responding to external conditions. A dangerous game, of course, to play with the engine of will, but we can understand the how and the why it has evolved historically. A buddhist’s will is less a ‘power’ thing. It is more a pulling.

hooking up will-power to god-belief

God belief is the psychological version of 1^n where n is infinite, or at least uncountable. Let’s not talk about infinite, because it has been explored by mathematicians before, and we have evolved a formalism for it which I have glanced at but have not seen cause to explore properly yet.

Hmm, when I think about it, I think more 0^n or maybe -0^n. I don’t know. I went through an exploration winter 2013 which brought up some representational forms. I suspect it will hook up there better. I will leave that for another day.

All that we are doing today, in a rather unravelling way, is that absolute dispassion, maintaining a state of 0, means that neither personal engines may operate nor god-beliefs. And, because of my limited experience with a personal will-engine, small psycho-social experimentation, my own interpretative experience of God, and the social evidence of social movements based on will-power and belief in God, means there is a mathematics here that can be articulated precisely. Again, it is not the expression of it, that bears any ‘power’, but that minimal identity of it in order for a human being to exercise it psychologically and socially. Potentially therapeutic, personally, and perhaps somewhat more dangerously given historic precedence, socially.

Advertisements







%d bloggers like this: