At 10:29 AM 4/2/2005, you wrote:
Michael...
 
What have you been injesting this week?  ;-) You've been up-- for a week(!?)

ah, sorry, time for an errata now? hey, i'm on a mission of sorts and have been doing 26..27 hour days since the last meeting with just 2 days away. that means i pretty much disappear and wake up differently each day. i'm just about to come back full circle and stay on mostly day hours for the week, go shopping, that sort of thing <g> it unusual perhaps but i get things done sometimes.

and as far as I can tell, you are projecting a bit here without having sat
through the entire meal of SES... Something that needs to be savored, digested!  Keep reading.

absolutely! and if you dont mind i'll observe what looks odd as it comes up and change my mind once i'm done being ignorant.

i can't really say that the geometry i was writing about is the least bit shaky nor are the links i'm making to the rich esoteric foundations of the world wrong or projections to the best of my knowledge...  so i figure you must be thinking of the thing i bumped up against in the hierarchy department.  i may be damaged there as hierarchies, containers, chains of control-command-flow, resonance, inference and that sort of thing are create and use and have-do-my-bidding when i write code. hierarchies and nesting them and branching.. that's tough stuff on a fresh day. who on top.. who's equal, who's more equal.. i look forward to seeing how he lays that stuff on top of physics. i'm sort of on the edge of my seat in that department as is Bruce, i can't wait to see if he's going to fragment the holons in order to fix that.. or if and how he'll come up with autonomous interdependence or fits his work into time itself. its all good.

uh everything except the idea of me not finding anything where there's a leap off the classic 2d map (structured thought/yang) into one including space (structured space/yin)... we know the territory is multi-dimensional and if we keep using maps that force this crucial collapse from 3 to 2, then we're the walking wounded. That's the story and I'm sticking with it.

I do invite you, or anyone to go back to the formulas i posted as english in text-form under "Rules for Change" a while ago to debunk what i'm saying there. if my observations on the geometry and algebra has no merit, 5 minutes or less and a little bit of walking around might let you trash it.

And if you can trash it, that would be good.  In my work I can indulge in mistakes and make hundreds, sometimes a thousand or more during a stretch. The more new ones I can make, the better things get; Its weird how I turned out, but that's really how I feel about it.

Anyhow, I need clarity and integration and like I wrote, the whole thing was something I felt had to be written, not that it will do any good, but I learn by feeling the veracity of things internally and in there I don't really ever encounter the flatness that i get from looking at yet another X in 2 dimensions.

Wilber's really great and some of the diagrams in TOE made me go wow cause they work so well, its only what looks like an automatic choice for the main four quadrants representation that makes me cringe and NOT because of what it is, but because of the Anti-Patterns (look it up) that go along with it!

Rather than putting your/one's cosmology into some tricked out bulls-eye with arrows away from the center.. how about _considering that the 4 triangle thingie i mentioned is better suited to the task of representing what is meant.  if one only showed the rear-view as being a special and convenient way of presenting the domain and made allowances explaining that concentric circle are a trick, that they are not introducing an arbitrary level of diaphragms, perhaps using a magnitude scale too, then the 2D is just fine..  its just a map after all.  

yet moving from a map to 'lego models' that allow us to play with higher dimensions and personal transformations is going to happen eventually..

but wait! i think i chased myself down a rabbit hole here.. you were talking about me misunderstanding the source of value and meaning yes?  i can live with that.   or maybe you think i'm projecting about the difficulty of learning from obscure(d) things? I'm not. I'm making light of what mastery takes cause once you figure it out and do the hard bits then its just play.

anyhow.. i just got back up from resting and i have a few more hours in me before I'm back to a normal schedule.  I look forward to hearing your critique/review in person, but like I tried to say, being wrong is fine by me and I would invite anyone to challenge my misunderstandings in email as well

Love you too Bruce, ty for the words and the book. See you tomorrow.

Cheers [Mates],   ( <- not drunk but with a kiwi accent)

Michael



  Let's drill down on your points when we meet up late Sunday at Aroma Roasters.  Sundays are fun so any of you lurkers out there, show up and make Sunday robust and special. ~4:30 - 5:00 ish.
 
Love you Michael,
 
and all the rest of you as well!
 
 ...bk
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Ax
To: SRIS List
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 9:07 AM
Subject: [SRIS-List] Good Morning, SES, Holons, Tetrahedron, Good Night!

        I probably should not be writing after working straight for a week, but I just wanted to say that thankfully I have found a good description of holons on page 40 of SES.  Yeah!  Flipping through and reading SES indeed is a bit of a liberal arts education mixed in with a good mystery. I like it very much.