Paradigm Shift in Modern Science Gets Underway

Are you considering participating in the paradigm shift in modern science?

This post into  jcs-online@yahoogroups.com may help to get you started....  (Ralph)

Excerpt from below:

Re: thinking about thinking about consciousness and global science education

Posted by: "Ralph Frost" refrost@isp.com   ralphedwardfrost

Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:50 am (PST)

[snip excellent quotes provided by   Thommandel@aol.com ]

        Ralph Frost wrote:

The relationship that I have tracked on, or I

should say, the simple thing that I have focused

on is the tetrahedral arrangement, typically, of

four rod magnets aligned along the radii to form

the "inner magnetic (binary)

tetrahedron". (Think of it as a hard-core

instance of a very general pattern.) However,

inner implies out and tetra- implies poly- so in

the single motion, the one artifact spawns the

inner and outer binary (magnetic) polyhedra and

all their various transition and resonance

states. Yet, it's not like I didn't first learn

that tetrahedral image from reading R.

Buckminister Fuller's books, or later in "Organic

Chemistry" authored by Morrison and Boyd.

In that effort, the only math-like relationships

I could discern is the N+1 permutation rule which

"predicts" the number of primary isomers for any

inner magnetic polyhedra from the number of

radii. The tetrahedron has four radii (vertices)

and thus five primary isomers (n4, n3s,

n2s2,ns3,s4). The octagon with six vertices, has

seven inner primary isomers. [The secondary

isomers emerge when the primary isomers are

consider in some enfolding field.] Not rocket

science. And these primary isomers are arrived at

by hand by starting from one instance and then

giving each member (center to vertex radii)

one-half spin. Other descriptions, I

suppose, might invoke the word, "oscillation",

or "state".

Anyway, stepping though sequential

one-half spins of binary elements in any simple

inner magnetic polyhedron, after a fashion,

builds a certain type of physical intuition

relating to the same sort of structured duality

stuff you point out that t'HOOFT and SALK and

many others demonstrate mastery in various forms and ways.

And --How do we figure it?-- both of these

gentlemen form and communicate their useful

expressions running the same sort

of predominantly tetrahedral carbon-based and

water-based analog math a.k.a., "consciousness".

So, should we think there is not a significant

relationship at work in the tetrahedral vapors and the gels and sols?

To me, the thought of one of Rení–escartes'

peers echoes strongly from the past and is, I

think, most relevant to the transition we face:

"The essential nature of external reality,

Comenius thought, could be conveyed by education

to the simplest intelligence if all knowledge

could be reduced to a basic principle."

- notions ascribed to John Amos Comenius

(1592-1670), circa 1640 [Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter,

THE FOUNDATIONS OF NEWTON'S ALCHEMY, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge 1975 p. 60]

The question we face is, "What is the basic principle?".

And, in the same motion, if we entertain the

notion that there IS the single educational basic

principle, then WHAT do we do with the 350 years

of approximations framed up in the Cartesian imagery?

I don't know if you see it -- the resistance that

there is to inviting Comenious in while wondering

how to ask Descartes to stand by in the waiting

room. My guess is few relish the idea that the

350 year long Cartesian imagery is truly

re-negotiable. It's served, seemingly so well.

Or has it?

Burrowing down through the soil, once the general

principle of structured duality is unearthed,

then it's not hard to notice that a thought is

some structured dual which mirrors or represents

(echoes, complements) some other structured dual

-- in a way reminiscent to the body building Salk

vaccine's antibodies to the polio virus. And

since this rather tautological expression holds

for a single thought, it also holds for groups of

thoughts and thus entire paradigms.

Therefore, when faced with hammering

out a paradigm, one picks a structure and then

one picks a duality and builds outward from

there. That is, the person structures awareness in a particular way.

With that "theoretical backdrop", then when one

stares at the Cartesian imagery, we see that

what's going on is we pick a structure

(typically, ye olde cube) and then we invoke the

subject-object division. Or, if we look to the

East, we pick the Tao as structure and then

yin-yang as the central duality.

With these major tectonic plates so fixed, then

the option(s) we faced thereafter are to pick

some other structure and some other duality and

partition awareness in some other manner to get the next trial theory.

Logic SHOULD inform us all that with a huge,

literally HUGE, fraction of our very being and

the biosphere and oceans and the crust of earth

(silicates) dancing around, mainly just in the

five states of the inner magnetic, I mean, binary

tetrahedron (you get the picture, right?), then

it ought to be a no-brainer for everyone to

conclude that a part of the paradigm shift does

involve stepping away from the cubic formatting

procedure and over to a (binary) tetrahedral initialization.

Yet, the kind of logic we have is Cartesian

brand logic and the mere hint of the threat to

the entire 350 year long approximation,

well, it strikes fear in our hearts and

minds. Despite the actually increased amount of

rationality and stability, and the obvious

innateness of the tetrahedral (if not the binary

tetrahedral) pattern, the CHANGE is

frightening. The FUD creeps in (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

Yet, obviously, particularly if one does the

actual experimental, intellectual, intuitive work

ones self, on this end of the Cartesian

experiment the basic principle turns out to be

~the general principle of structured duality:

things have some structure and things exhibit

some sort of duality or two-ness. Or some similarly worded variant thereof.

So, we enter this zone where the accumulations of

the first 350 years of the scientific method,

when compared against, say, the next 10,000 years

of the scientific method start to look small and

feeble -- like the initial approximation that it is.

Yet to actually think and say such a thing, for

anyone raised sucking the breast of modern

science, this sort of statement is a very

uncomely heresy, like spitting on one's tribe's

favorite graven image.

Yet, the big story has it that, at some point,

all things are wiped away, and once seen, the

same holds true for this transition, though the

thought is initially hard to take.

So this is what reason, as framed and gilded up

in the latter days of the Cartesian era, runs up

against. The paradigm transition comes and, if

not embraced, there is absolutely nothing one

can do except stay in denial or run away

from the larger knowledge and deper wisdom.

The issue that you raise about the basic physics

models tending toward convergence, the "shape"

of those relationships may not be binary

tetrahedral, but their representations in the

internal analog language that people share are

and will be. The first quantum gravitational

model, the place where the balances are first

formed always will take place within the internal

analog language that we all share. Folks may

demonstrate or experiment with it in stacked

systems of some fields within fields, other

various forms of structured duality, but where it

comes together, forming the spark of recognition

is and always will be in the internal analog

language. And that thing is wildly entangled in the binary tetrahedra....

Rational beings interested in "consciousness

research" or developing a science of

consciousness, or those interesting in global

science education have this new opportunity to

learn and shift over to some slightly different

initial conditions in our mathematical relationships.

 

Just a thought.

 

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Imagine consciousness as a single internal analog language made of ordered water forged during respiration in concert with experience.

Visit:  http://www.frostlowenergyphysics.com

To view or reply, visit/join the Yahoo Group at  jcs-online@yahoogroups.com