thanks for asking, James--
as a brief response:
JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com wrote:
> Doc, are you saying that there was never a beginning or an end,
> subscribing more to the oscillating universe theory? This is heavily
> supported in Hofstadter's book, though I believe he refers to it as
> 'Recursion'. Classic examples are in Eschers later works, also in
> Hofstadters contrivances between Achilles, the Tortoise, and the Crab.
In contemplating At's original question, I reflected on the nature of
fractals, specifically Mandelbrot's Set. I speculated on our relationship
to the phenomenon described by Mandelbrot's equation--thinking how,
regardless of where (and with what magnification) we look, we see the
essence of itself repeated indefinitely.
>From that point, I recalled the Veddic cycle, from which so many
theologies and philosphies have borrowed. The Transcendalists of nearly
two centuries ago were convinced, in their poetry, art and music, of the
never ending cycle of life. They were borrowers from this Veddic
tradition. There was a time in our collective past, when people
understood the power inherent in words--how they were the creative source
of our world. In most theologies, someone--some god--spoke the world and
its natural setting into existence. Animals and gods spoke with people,
defining and describing the world in which we found ourselves. The words
we share in this place are creating a new and different world for us too.
The problem with labels, such as Recursion or Oscillating Universe, is
that they limit our intutition, sometimes. They help us to categorize
(important to our limited senses); but labels and catalogs are enabling in
a self-defeating way also. I simply mean to point out that the search for
our beginnings (and endings) sometimes removes us from the cycles of life
in which we truly exist. That's not to suggest that I don't ponder over
the same questions, merely that I'm opportunist and took the opportunity
to ask this reflecting question.
--snip--
>> As an aside do either of you think it possible to have an origin, but
> no end? As a line in space that extends infinitely in one direction?
I think that there are more possibilities--each new possibility the
creation of a new thought or perspective. This is how we create our
world.
--snip--
> I look at this way; human babies are not created. They are a form of
> life that develops from the union of two organism (is this a good
> example of being-becoming?). Is (was) life then ever created? Or
> merely a constant state of being-becoming?
You've described what I consider life's dialectic--the ongoing synthesis
from thesis and antithesis; the being-becoming; the bifurcation event
emerging as a synthetic from what has been before.
> Is all this to heavy for this list?
And, yes, it probably is--but enjoyable in its own way. Like many other
proscribed activities.
[Host's Note: Well... It's not proscribed here... Rick]
regards,
-- Richard C. "Doc" Holloway LearnShops: cost-effective, timely, tailored to support your strategic needs. Visit us at <http://www.thresholds.com/> Or e-mail me at <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com> Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2361 Phone: 01 360 786 0925 Olympia, WA 98507 Fax: 01 360 709 4361 USA"There is a coherent plan in the universe, though I don't know what it's a plan for." -Fred Hoyle
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>