EVOLVING SYSTEMS by 0000
An Evolving System is capable of regenerating itself. It appears to be
in a state of Continuous Booting. It allows reclassification of
objects. An object may belong to different classes depending on time
and other parameters (dimensions) in such a system. An object may even
become a class. Reflection (self description) is a very important
aspect of such systems.
A closed system cannot evolve. It must allow interaction and must
interact with other systems. Evolution of a system is closely related
with increasing complexity of interactions. Over time, as the system
evolves (becomes more formal) the complexity of interactions is reduced
and it becomes a more natural part of its ecology. Evolution of a
system drives it towards specialization(s) as if seeking its special
Complexity must increase in an expanding universe. This is reflected in
all systems, natural and man-made. Increasing complexity is not a bad
thing. It only means that patterns become more and more interesting.
Systems continue to survive and evolve as long they are able to
recognize, formalize, and internalize these patterns. In effect, any
open system survives by its ability to change some aspects of its
structure or behavior in order to maintain stability in those areas
that define its core identity. In other words, an evolving language
must provide new words and grammatical constructs to describe more and
more complex phenomena. It will become extinct if it fails to do so.
The evolution of a system is reflected in the refinements it brings to
its constituent processes. Process B is a refinement of Process A when
it is faster, cheaper and better than Process B. Also, Process B
consumes less energy.
It is important to remember that an Evolving System is not just a
cartesian sum of its parts. Feedback loops abound not only within
layers but across layers. Change and stability become contradictory
requirements. However, an Evolving System continuously renews itself.
Illya Prigogene, in his work on the characteristics of self- organizing
systems, calls this "irreversible non-linear transformation under
conditions far from equilibrium." Dynamic stability apparently emerges
from the depths of chaos, describing, manifesting, sustaining and
consuming itself as a process where it is the processor and the process
it calls life.
Hi Christiana, all members...
In reflecting on your statement:
"People identify with their _memory-space_ and perceive a need to give
voice to that, rather than listen to the movement."
I sensed its endless ramifications and drifted into wondering if I was
clear enough, especially to myself, as to what was intended in starting
the Nondual Dialog list-movement.
....Recently I found myself engaging in purposeful face-to-face
dialogue with people I knew or would meet casually in the town where I
live. Awareness of a quickening social fragmentation, verified by local
and world events, seemed to motivate me. I sensed others at NDS were in
resonance with this awareness.
My purpose in a face-to-face dialogue was simply to reconnect in a
meaningful way where/whenever the opportunity arose. So this list was
begun to exchange ideas with others who were oriented in this
understanding so as to enhance the clarity and totality of face-to-face
dialogues. I also saw a value in working with other means to achieve
connectedness, such as suggested by Jerry, as part of a broader
I ask all of you who consider the above: what is your understanding of
this movement? Are some of us here for different reasons? That too may
contribute to the greater understanding of how we may connect in ways
we are not already connected.
Thanks for listening.
"Strangers stopping strangers, just to shake their hand.
Everybody's playing in the heart of gold band, heart of gold band..."
Gene and All,
Some time ago when I was more active on NDS then I am today, we had
some dialog (at least I was talking with myself) over my apprehension
of an apparent external conflict between the pure non-dual position of
'nothing need be done - no one needs to be awakened' and the apparent
'doing' of this sort we all seem to engage in.
Although I recall this dialog occurring on and off-list, and therefore
not available for complete review, I recollect me posing the question
to you, "if this (pure non-doing) is truly so, then why do you continue
posting?". I recall a non-response to the question, which was wrapped
up in an overall discussion of choice.
There was no association (on my part) of the non-response to anything
in particular, except that I viewed your continuing efforts as sort of
a tacit admission that there was indeed 'more' insofar as you perceived
I remained inwardly puzzled and felt the need to understand the
underlying contradiction, since much had been personally gained in my
association with NDS and all of those then participating on the list,
and what was said was reconcilable, at least internally.
This 'more' seemed to reveal itself to me through some of your posts,
again, on and off-list, associated with the word 'responsibility'.
Clearly an interesting word and concept. But perhaps I projected this
association in my efforts to reconcile the apparent contradictions.
Now, returning after some extended hiatus, I find a sense of 'non-dual
activism' alive in some. I find this somewhat strange, seeing this as
perhaps an epitome and perhaps one of the more classic
characterizations of the of the word 'oxymoron'.
Lest anyone take this as a criticism, let me throw in a, ;-), to
quickly nip that line of association in the bud.
Notwithstanding any 'right' or 'wrong'-ness certain psychological parts
may quickly seek to associate with this paradoxical process. Let me at
least say, "Uh, it makes sense."
"Making sense", as subjective as such processes usually are, is, for me
at least, a bell-weather of a decision to use active force in my life.
That is, "to go for it".
Now, for a truly pointless personal tale.
One has no responsibility.
One gets responsibility.
One, again, realizes one has no responsibility, that all is put before
One then becomes responsible for what is put before one.
One then acts 'responsibly' - as best one has been conditioned.
One 'fails', or 'succeeds', using this aforementioned conditioning.
One has no responsibility.
One, again, realizes, that all is put before one, or, 'happens'.
One then becomes responsible for what is put before one.
One *asks*, "What is my responsibility?"
Tend MY Garden.
One becomes responsible.
You are free to realize that you are indeed, God, or Nothing, at any
point along this former chain of associations.
The question, to all, remains, even in light of such a realization, is
there something called responsibility?
This is not a question that I feel that needs to be answered publicly.
For the time being, I've answered it for myself. That answer may change
in the future. No big deal.
Warm regards, John
on the nature of the origional mind
translated by Mike Dickman
You're always adding to things, changing them and turning them into
lies. And that is exactly why you can't see the origional mind.
The origional mind has always been right before your eyes. There is
nothing for you to discover or achieve. Nor have you ever lacked that
which would enable you to see it.
The fact that you do not is simply because of your incessant jabbering
to yourselves and others.
It is in your very mania and your need to attain and possess that you
Seeing the origional mind means seeing it whether there are thoughts in
your heads or not, whether you are moving about or still, whether
babblimg away like me or cleaning out the shithouse, whether you be
emperors, monks or homeless vagabonds. What sort of importance could
such things have?
You are nothing but thieves! What hope can there be for the likes of
To weak to see into the origional mind and to live on your own
resources, you hide your pettiness and insignificance behind the
castoffs of others; piling up points of view, cultivating thier
nuances, differences and convergences.
What fakes! Because you can amaze idiots with tricks like this, you
imagine yourselves enlightened?
You should consider the Patriarchs and all old blabbermouths like
myself as imposters babbling about something they will never be able to
show you nor put into your hands. The only possible value they might
have is to show that all beings do, in fact, have Buddha~nature. That,
however, is for each one of you to seek out for himself without getting
sidetracked into other considerations until--at last--you each see it
as it is in all its reality.
If you see the origional mind,
you seen the entire origional mind and you are Buddha.
Now listen to me with your utmost attention.
I'm going to tell you the great
secret of the origional mind.
Here it is--the most important thing
that has ever been said anywhere at any time.....
there is no secret
of the orgional mind.
HAHAHAH and HOHOHO!
Peace - just be very very quiet - Michael