Originally Posted by Apathia
It seems you are saying that if people use a math that calculates all levels of grouping and organization at the same sitting and have the correct view of mathematical infinity, they will see and relate to each other as persons rather than numbers on a tally.
I don't think I'll be able to communicate to you the disconnects that are present there and why that does not follow.
Your aim is to encourage the "Non-Local" aspect of interpersonal and communal relationship.
That's where people relate to each other as "You" or "We" as opposed to 'It" objects, numbers, or elements of mathematical discourse.
That's the kind of Direct Perception where I encounter you, not as a collection (an incomplete one) of cardinalities, but as the Front and Center, independent of any class or agenda. This is the source of our ethical regard for each other.
I see that you have the ethical goal to free us from classifications and discriminations that separate us into warring camps. When the census is taken of all Israeli citizens and the number tallied, you want to say, "No, Wrong! Organic Mathematics has not been used. The Palestinians have not been included in the counting. Their level in the whole organism has not been acknowledged."
For you Organic Mathematics is the way to acknowledge that we are all of one organism.
It's of course a noble sentiment. And maybe it's a teaching moment if you make the census takers tally the results of all levels or organization in the population. Actually without OM, we do, at least in the USA, make a complex demographic of the population that includes the figures for both citizens and
non-citizen residents. Even acknowledging the complex demographic, we still have bigots who make of those different "levels" separation.
Again OM is your structure for acknowledging that all of us belong.
We stand non-local to any particular class or group.
That's you intent.
And you assert that by doing OM arithmetic, one will naturally see the other in Non-Locality.
Would that it were that easy, just getting the beads counted for all levels of complexity. Somehow you must be able to relate to the person before you as greater than a bead.
It seems to me that your OM is your attempt to express this intent in regard to mathematical manipulations. But the root of the intent is a deeper Direct Perception than what you are presenting.
Back to the analogy of the slitted spectacles:
We can't see the reality of the whole Set, because we only see through the narrow slit that gives us a narrow selection.
You present a wider "researchability," a more complex system of slits, an 'improved" pair of glasses and the "Direct Perception" they are supposed to give.
Pardon, but the glasses have to be taken off so that we no longer "see through a glass darkly, but see face to face." (Christian Bible 1 Cor. Chapter 13)
This is a poor analogy, but my point is that though a person is, and can be counted as a member of a specific race, we seek to acknowledge her as primarily her own person.
She may be Asian. The cure to discrimination is not saying everyone is non-locally Asian. It's a better turn of phrase to say that we are all part of the same organism. But the root of the Non-Locality that is the source of ethical regard is that she stands in her own light as a person, not an instance of a class or a number.
People get to that Direct Perception in many ways other than doing Organic Math (if doing it were an actuality)
There are many different religious and ideological structures in which people pursue that goal of ultimate respect.
And some people, actually a lot of people confuse their intellectual structures for that Vision. For example, they can’t see how individual humans could have dignity apart from religious belief in God.
But just the belief in God alone, doesn't insure the Vision and the Dignity. (It more often does quite the opposite.)
My point: Just the intellectual structure of Organic Numbers alone doesn't provide that Vision and Dignity we need to survive. Cardinality, even Doron Cardinality is still about quantities of existence rather than "souls" [disclaimer: not talking about metaphysical souls].
You may be engaging a respect for persons when you write up your new mathematics, but most others don’t make the connection.
Meanwhile, though they have no idea what your "Cardinality" means to you, they enter into relationships where “soul,” not cardinality, is what matters.
It's deeper than the language that's used.
Perhaps you want to say that your new mathematical language better serves and facilitates Dignity, Empathy, and Compassion.
At the least I hope you are finding it serviceable for your own interpersonal growth.
It seems you are saying that if people use a math that calculates all levels of grouping and organization at the same sitting and have the correct view of mathematical infinity, they will see and relate to each other as persons rather than numbers on a tally.
I don't think I'll be able to communicate to you the disconnects that are present there and why that does not follow.
Your aim is to encourage the "Non-Local" aspect of interpersonal and communal relationship.
That's where people relate to each other as "You" or "We" as opposed to 'It" objects, numbers, or elements of mathematical discourse.
That's the kind of Direct Perception where I encounter you, not as a collection (an incomplete one) of cardinalities, but as the Front and Center, independent of any class or agenda. This is the source of our ethical regard for each other.
I see that you have the ethical goal to free us from classifications and discriminations that separate us into warring camps. When the census is taken of all Israeli citizens and the number tallied, you want to say, "No, Wrong! Organic Mathematics has not been used. The Palestinians have not been included in the counting. Their level in the whole organism has not been acknowledged."
For you Organic Mathematics is the way to acknowledge that we are all of one organism.
It's of course a noble sentiment. And maybe it's a teaching moment if you make the census takers tally the results of all levels or organization in the population. Actually without OM, we do, at least in the USA, make a complex demographic of the population that includes the figures for both citizens and
non-citizen residents. Even acknowledging the complex demographic, we still have bigots who make of those different "levels" separation.
Again OM is your structure for acknowledging that all of us belong.
We stand non-local to any particular class or group.
That's you intent.
And you assert that by doing OM arithmetic, one will naturally see the other in Non-Locality.
Would that it were that easy, just getting the beads counted for all levels of complexity. Somehow you must be able to relate to the person before you as greater than a bead.
It seems to me that your OM is your attempt to express this intent in regard to mathematical manipulations. But the root of the intent is a deeper Direct Perception than what you are presenting.
Back to the analogy of the slitted spectacles:
We can't see the reality of the whole Set, because we only see through the narrow slit that gives us a narrow selection.
You present a wider "researchability," a more complex system of slits, an 'improved" pair of glasses and the "Direct Perception" they are supposed to give.
Pardon, but the glasses have to be taken off so that we no longer "see through a glass darkly, but see face to face." (Christian Bible 1 Cor. Chapter 13)
This is a poor analogy, but my point is that though a person is, and can be counted as a member of a specific race, we seek to acknowledge her as primarily her own person.
She may be Asian. The cure to discrimination is not saying everyone is non-locally Asian. It's a better turn of phrase to say that we are all part of the same organism. But the root of the Non-Locality that is the source of ethical regard is that she stands in her own light as a person, not an instance of a class or a number.
People get to that Direct Perception in many ways other than doing Organic Math (if doing it were an actuality)
There are many different religious and ideological structures in which people pursue that goal of ultimate respect.
And some people, actually a lot of people confuse their intellectual structures for that Vision. For example, they can’t see how individual humans could have dignity apart from religious belief in God.
But just the belief in God alone, doesn't insure the Vision and the Dignity. (It more often does quite the opposite.)
My point: Just the intellectual structure of Organic Numbers alone doesn't provide that Vision and Dignity we need to survive. Cardinality, even Doron Cardinality is still about quantities of existence rather than "souls" [disclaimer: not talking about metaphysical souls].
You may be engaging a respect for persons when you write up your new mathematics, but most others don’t make the connection.
Meanwhile, though they have no idea what your "Cardinality" means to you, they enter into relationships where “soul,” not cardinality, is what matters.
It's deeper than the language that's used.
Perhaps you want to say that your new mathematical language better serves and facilitates Dignity, Empathy, and Compassion.
At the least I hope you are finding it serviceable for your own interpersonal growth.
