Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Tom Saunders
    Thank you Edward for such a good review. The following is an attempt to study the complex nature of dualism in antiquity, particularly early Alexandrean,
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 9, 2005
      Thank you Edward for such a good review.  The following is an attempt to study the complex nature of dualism in antiquity, particularly early Alexandrean, Thomasime Gnosis.  Please consider the following a draft, and please feel free to give me feedback.....
      The Operant Space
      Tom Saunders
      One of the ideas present in the study of antiquity are the ideas of dualism.  We can conceptualize the idea of a polarity between a Point, A. and Point B., is virtually the same model as the Oriental Yin and Yang dualism. In Western philosophy Point A., and B., can be seen to have a center, which we can call the monad.  So the dualism of Yin and Yang can have a center, or monad.  The dynamic between Point A. and B. is a 'field' and can be studied, and applied.  
      In science we can determine the area between a given Point A., and B., in the dynamic of phase-structure-analysis.  This space between the Alpha, and Omega, which includes any phase of a structure, can be aligned or characterized in behavioral science in the stimulant, operant, and response model.  The space in the Alpha-Omega model can be seen as an "operant space." This text will show the way the nature of this field, the space, is effected in more complex models.
      In the Yin and Yang model of dualism, we can see the polarity of the negative, and positive forces of the two points of difference, point Yin, and point Yang.  In the sense of balance between the two points, there is a hypothetical centering point. This point is considered that mark, or 'monad,' which would indicate the force between the two points, when the model is applied to being a scale.  A scale in the space between two points is easily seen as a measurable 'field.'
      What happens in this field is the process of polarity.  The hypothetical middle of this space is half way between each point.  If there is an unbalance in the force of A. or B., then the middle is changed from the hypothetical center to the actual point on the/a scale where this deviation from the center between the two points, can be indicated. There is no absolute A. or B., there has to be either a tendency toward A. or B., in the field, between the two points. 
      The Yin and Yang model or symbology is based upon the model of a symmetry and balance between two dualistic states, or points.  The colors of black and white in the field of the Yin-Yang circle in the symbol to signify two different forms both in a state of balance and harmony.  This is the point of the monadic center in the model, and that hypothetical point in philosophic terms, indicates rest, as opposed to motion, the image of the model being in the rest state.
      The dualistic model proposes a linear perspective in the operant space, in the Alpha and Omega, point A., and B.   We can conceptualize it as a linear field, but one with the quality of polarity.  If we change the form, structure, and substance of the linear field, and expand this field, the model will include, Point A., B.,  and C.  This can be seen as a tripartite structure, or triangular. 
      The polarity of the points, A., and B., are constants in the model, where C. is added.  The polarity of points, remains.  The inside of the field is no longer a one dimensional pathway between two points, it is in effect an open space. One through which the process of triangulation, can be used to show the 'monad' or center of the field.
      In this model, at rest, the polarity of the three points would be equal and the monad, would be the center between the points, A, B, and C.  Like the original model of A. and B., if one point has a stronger polarity in the paradigm, then the center or monad is effected, in terms of where it indicates its resting spot (point) in the triangular space.  At this point we can use the inner space of the model to triangulate between three or more points, Points, A., B., C., D., E., F., etc.
      The addition of points can be seen as the lexicon of the field's structure. An ancient model of determining logic is known from antiquity, and is called the "Square of Opposition."    It is believed to have been developed by Aristotle, and was known by all the famous Philosophers of antiquity.
      This model postulates points A. B. C. and D., as a quadrangle, A., E., O., I., where corner A., represents all of something being logical.....
        "All S are P."  (A)- - - - - - -(E)  "No S are P."
        | *           * |
       *       *
        |     *   *     |
         |     *   *     |
                 *       *      
         | *            * |
                   "Some S are P."  (I)---  ---  ---(O)  "Some S are not P."
      A variation of the square can be seen to show both truth and logic.....
              True and logical    (A)- - - - - - -(E)  "Not true, not logical
      | *           * |
        *       *
       |     *   *     |
        |     *   *     |
         *       *
         | *           * |
      Logical not true      (I)---  ---  ---(O)  True not logical
       This model shows how the points of the lexicon can link other elements to the original significance of the point. In other words the lexicon of the points can be expanded.  Below is the field of possible outcomes where the duality of opponents is put into a field. Where in all the models before, A. is shown in the upper left corner.  Here Point A. is contingent upon the outcome of the opponents.
                                             Opponent A, is < or > B   (A)- - - - - - -(E)  A is < or + B
      | *           * |
        *       *
       |     *   *     |
        |     *   *     |
         *       *
         | *           * |
                A is > or - B  (I)---  ---  ---(O)  A = B (a draw) 
      Where Point A. can be seen in the first two models where All S are P's or where there is truth and logic, the third model has a logical Point A.,which can be seen as the 'winner.' But Point A., is in fact contingent on the elements of the other entities in the event, in this expanded model.  We see the elements of the points change in the model as to their values.  In this model the linear of singular points can be seen as effected by the nature of the points of the lexicon.
      In terms of the psyche and how it holds lexicons, we can see the mind as a storehouse.  The mind is in this case a field. The field can also be seen as the storehouse, and the Alpha-Omega as the action of the elements, and how they react in the field.
      An interesting point in this model is that the physical structure of the quadrangular form, as long as it can be seen as an open field, can change its form.  In the form of the quadrangle we see apparent points, but if the form is a circle the tool would work the same. That is if the points can be seen as opposing, in the model. The number of points can be infinite, as long as there is a corresponding opposite point.
      So far our model is one dimensional in the sense that the model is a flat one we can see in less than fourth dimensional model. It is like looking at a picture of say a country scene, and perceiving the fourth dimension, but knowing that the flat picture only portrays the fourth dimensional image. When we see and operate in the real world, we are operating in a physical four dimensional world. It is like the psyche is dimensional and functional in itself, but also in the pool of others we communicate. Hopefully with truth, wisdom, and logic.
       The process is like how we use language in the mind, and then through the process of speech we transfer the configuration of elements of the verbal lexicon to the opposing receiver. We can demonstrate this same process in fighting were one opponent uses techniques from his fighting lexicon against another. Knowledge is power. This can be shown on the 'opponents' model of the 'square.'
      We have traced the simple dyadic or two part model, into a more and more complex model, where the points form a lexicon.  We can see the same polarity from the simple model working in the more complex.  The use of the model shows how these elements can be focused into the Alpha-Omega point, in the field. We can see how compound elements can form points as in the 'logic and truth' model. We can also expand the use of the field itself with multiple elements or 'monadic points.'
      Another thing that can be demonstrated in the field is if you put multiple elements in the field you can measure those elements relevant to how they react or place themselves in the model. This use is common in Sociolinguistic, and Ethnology studies, where tendencies of groups can be shown in terms of their polarity in the model. This tool can show both like and individual characteristics of the elements in the field, in regard to the measurements and attractions to different points in the field 
      The elements of the field can be expanded so that the lexicon is everything in the universe.
      We might wonder how anything ever gets organized. There is an explanation related to polarity, and the tendency of like things to repel or attract.  Two aspects of this tendency effects man.  One is in respect to the psyche, where the lexicon is organized for the self.  The other aspect is to organize the lexicons, so information is understood, when conveyed to others using the language pool, or lexicon.  This idea is consistent with the model of the fifth dimension in the operant field models above.
      The polarity of one field, (psyche) and that of another is a complex paradigm of two different fields interacting.  The polarity of this action can be seen in the field of the universe where two or more elements are posed in a field, where multiple elements can be seen to be attracted to the same polarity.  Why does this happen? Two things come to mind.
      One can be seen in Fries model of 'class forms.'  The other is the effect of natural organization.
      'Class forms' are an effect of things or ideas in a lexicon that have a natural attraction.  Fries' theory postulates that words in a lexicon can be formed into classes.....
      The way words are shown to be formed into class-forms or 'form classes,' are by entering the word into a specific framework.  This method was devised by Charles C. Fries.  Words are arranged into classes on the basis of fitting into frames.  For instance a word in any language can be classified on the basis of how it functions in a certain frame.  An example in a frame is: Any word that can be inserted into: The (_____) is 'prunikus,' may be considered members of the same class. "The (_____) is good," was Fries original frame. (Ibed.)
      In the model above where 'truth and logic' are seen to work together in the model gleaned from the "Square of Opposition," we see this tendency in nature to form classes.  This is the attraction in nature to form natural systems.  It is best related in the Wisdom of Solomon tradition....
      Dr. Stevan Davies' ("Gospel of Thomas, and Christian Wisdom" ) relates Wisdom to Solomon traditions and contained therein on the nature of Wisdom is its 'ordering value.' These descriptions are of great philosophical value to the idea of natural organization in formal study.  They pertain to the way all lexicons are formed and this kind of organization is present in philosophy, as well as science.
      As to Pseudo Solomon....  "This presents a series of ideas on Wisdom. "Included are Wisdom's creative and ordering power, her presence in the world in all human beings, and in the world through all her permeation of all things, and her arrival as spirit to those who call upon her." (Ibed, pages 52-4)
      "By the time of the writing of the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom is not only seen to be active at Creation, it is said to permeate all the world, organizing and underlying all ordered phenomena." (Ibed p. 54)
      "....must signify that Wisdom contains the paradigmatic patterns of all living thing (cf 9:8), and serves as the instrument of their creation."  (Ibed p. 55.,  Anchor Bible Commentary)
      We can see a tripartite lexicon where truth, logic, and wisdom are related.  However, in this model wisdom, must be seen as the monad of the tripartite structure, and this is because Wisdom is the natural monad between logic and truth.  Although we can see in the model there can be a balance of the elements, no matter what, you cannot have truth or logic, without the balance of wisdom in the action of the Alpha-Omega polarity. Not unless the 'Wisdom point' is put out of balance, like from circumstances in the world.
      In the world we are engulfed in different sets of lexicons, which are formed in the polarity system of Wisdom's effect.  However we see the entire universe if we do not see selectively to specific fields. In the vast fields of life's lexicons seeing the structure, form, substance, and actions of something can be confusing.  After all, for a fact everyone does not do all things with wisdom. Wisdom has a center.....Wisdom can be seen as the 'monad' of the Universe.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.