ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP

ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP 020801 00:45 MY ENTIRE THEORY I CALL: ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIP.

140801 08:20 Planets moving about binary stars do chaos. My theory of relationship includes chaos.

“Life is kept going by rotational energy.”

150801 16:11 Time is the capacity to respond. If people had gone to America slowly bringing smallpox, instead of suddenly, what would have been the effect? And I am suggesting that time can actually be so defined.

290801 0550 Reading abot Bonobos, i consider that the pulchritude effect is part of what i mean by relationship in evolution --- there are several levels, like geology (analogous).

120901 1946 I have to discuss “monism” , and “pluralism”.

2139 and I gotta get into Wm Hamilton (“The Science of Pure Time”).

2141 Theology is the philosophy of worship.

2142 In one of the tales from “Arabian Nights” is a discussion really interesting to me about life itself. I will discuss it for you.

2144 We must keep clearly articulated (separate while inter-related) the notions “life” per se. and “life as we know it (life on this planet, especially human)”.

180901 1951 WHENEVER ONE BRINGS A RADIO FROM ROOM TO ROOM WITH A DANGLING CORD, THE CORD WILL INVARIABLY GET ENTANGLED --- THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF MY KNOT THEORY.

fredag 19. oktober 2001 21:28 I wonder if Hawking´s new shorter version will leave in silly reliance on “God”, and wrong employment of Newton (action-reaction bit).

lørdag 17. november 2001 05:18 Consider my emphasis on “vector” in logic (i e, my “vector logic”) re evolution per Darwin: the survival of the fittest is backwards (preposterous) as it is rather the non-survival of the unfit. Combine this with my emphasis on the profligacy of nature, in throwing up “mutations” of all sorts. Together with reification, reductionism is the curse upon philosophy. They go hand in hand, as without basing thought in Relationship, one skids into reification and the logic of reification is reductionism (vs that of Relationship, which is combination in profligacy).

05:24 I will soon discuss the facet “appropriateness” ( e g, why does a cheetah not arise in a jungle?).

søndag 18. november 2001 04:18 Being aware of Relationship helps coordinate thought, of course.

04:42 Consider relationship of numbers in the process of helium falling to hydrogen (or is it the other way?) in Sun´s energy --- 3 and 2 of something? anyway, the sexiness of 3 v v 2 in music rhythm, as e g, in sonatas by Haydn (F J).

06:19 The amount of variation is vastly underestimated --- cosmically underestimated.

06:21 It is the characteristic variability that is determining of actuality --- rather than any individual feature of any individual object.

06:24 Material is a consequence (function) of Relationship --- it is Relationship that permits material to exist.

201201 0006 Note that 8 hours is one third of 24 hours --- factor of 3, or about what the Greeks called pi. I hear on tv Animal Planet that chimps in refuge sleep 12 hours per day --- factor of 2. This could be mentioned in my section called The Associationist --- one notices such when one is keyed in to Relationship; you may say, So what? Go ahead. My mother would, i guess, as she usually opposed anything that did not fit her boxes. But if you get a habit of observing Relationship, you will have an improved understanding of all. This Relationship of sleep time may later on have some further connectio to why wires connected to radios carried from room to room constantly hook into chair legs, forming new molecules and eventually life (not Republicans).

abstract relationship søndag 13. januar 2002 21:38 pulse, vector, parameters; re chaos theory and my Relationship Theory. more later.

onsdag 16. januar 2002 23:11 You do not pick up things with your fingers --- you pick up things with the space between your fingers --- that could lead to an immortal controversy among the benighted reifiers.

23:20 The Tekesta (sp?) Amerinds of Florida exemplify what I mean by profligacy of evolution --- it is silly to assume that only one or another group could express itself beautifully. Evolution is profligate. People constantly can do beautifully. What need worry us is the prevention of diversity by swine like the Conquistadors. Not that the Amerinds were delightful socially...

torsdag 28. februar 2002 22:02 ~My Relationship Theory IS "The Theory of Everything"

~There are 800 species of Rhododendron.

~ Anyway there are these two eminent fisicists named Bohr and Einstein, and because I put a piece of cake in my mouth at 7-11 and some guy said it would be simpler to talk (completely irrational spelling, talk like powder) without it and I said simpler is boring, when I tuned in BBC Prime they had the Einstein-Bohring show about how twin particles but handed occur and it is so obvious to me with my theory of relationship that they miss the number 3, which indeed I had referred to at the bar earlier talking about Mars, where it takes 3 to procreate, and remembering what I have for years been pushing, I e, the number3, so they (the fisicists) say to each other, how could one of the twins know what the other is doing simultaneously, (forgetting the number 3): that there is the PROCESS to consider; that is number 3.

I would offer this bit as a proof of my theory of Relationship.

Also that reification is the curse of philosophy etc. (silly to ask how one particle could communicate to the other)(imagine mother gives xmas presents: one left glove and one right --- she knows that in principle, and does not care which box is which: the POTENTIAL is intrinsic. It is Relationship between Reality and actuality. The Neurosis in human science behavior, is reification. The tiny is abstract and its mass can be inferred only as measured, As objects are bigger, they become more mortal: more thing, more SOLID. The human body and the table go back to basic elements eventually, but the elements are constant: and in the subatomic we have special cases of relationship, which manifest as we measure them in our material concepts -- but our concepts in mind are themselves also in relationship. WE are the measurer, and the interested party in rtelationship. As in chess, as soon as one color is chosen we know the other, so with the particles/gloves. It is the relationship that is all pervasive. THAT is the notion difficult for some people to grasp.

Cf my other thoughts on the subject, or as I like to put it, re ca (about that).

Something else about Relationship: my bit about profligate: there is the matter of adaptation to a particular situation or condition. We should not (erroneously) assume that a creature adapts to the environment specifically. Instead we should (correctly) realize that it is flooded with variations; AND THAT THESE VARIATIONS ARE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AROUND IT.

You see the connection (heh heh) --- the Bohr/Einstein bit and evolution.

~Relationship again: note re speed of light and that the light even from distant galaxies actually can be seen --- light is a manifestation of Relationship.

~I am referring to the famour EPR Thought Experiment, with the eventual follow- on by Bell, Aspect, Gisin (show from 2000 on BBC)(World and Prime)(recently).

~Re Profligacy: you need a mechanism of stability to maintain stasis vs change --- stasis is erroneously assumed, as absence of change; but Profligacy is in momentum, so to speak, and stasis requires energy.

~So there is also relationship "between" Profligacy (change) and stasis (non-change). I mention that I am aware that my entire Relationship Theory etc should get me a Nobel Prize. For one thing I am by the way explaining how Bohr stands with regard to Einstein: Relationship IS the understanding.

~astronomy--- the dark matter relates to my notion of sphere --- as we have extension, so also do we have compression.

~and Bruton? Observe question: why enuf and not more than enuf.?

~the universe becoming conscious of itself by way of the brains of people like us.

and cf Poe´s: “The Power of Words”.

~About walking on two legs: factors: without fur baby cannot hold on well (parents need arms to carry them); the more one stands, the weaker get the "arms" for walking on.

The notion of potential is moderate by hormones. in the sense of puberty. etc, and throughout life. and procreation. the notion of potential --- and all life, not only atoms as physics , cf that guy´s cat.

----

180602 11:39 --- to abstract relationship: The supermassive blackholes occurred due (I suggest) to the swirling brought about by the relatively sudden slowing down of the movement of the universe whether out of bigbang or otherwise, even as we see swirls occurring thus in everyday life. This may be an important observation.

260502 1505 CONTINUING: Consider the question of the bigbang and the notion that the expansion occurred like colloidal suspension.; or my wondering about various alternatives to classic bigbang: My interest in sphere action (s a)--- e g, compression (to point before bigbang) may have been partly created by squeezing by s a: we tend to neglect paradoxes when we get a one directional notion, but the question I ask is, how come the compression? --- and I have an abiding interest in my Big Sphere concept (still working, of course, as stabilizing in many ways. Instead of, or along with, bigbang, may have been forces in other vectors ( I suggest Sphere operates in a stabilizing manner, by regulating both expansion and contraction, as if it is external but integral to what we call our universe, in paradox relationship to everything within, and as part of Life Itself (see below)) There rermains a question of localizations of effect.(s) .

Anyway, it seems to be a question, how did the supermassive blackholes occur -- and it occurs to me that swirling (of gravity) could be responsible. This swirling is seen in everyday life (on surfaces) when e g a boat stops: generally, a cessation of movement within (or on) a fluid fosters reverse vector resulting in circular movement. So an end (or indeed any change of vector/acceleration) of the period of bigbang explosion (apart from or along with colloidalistic action) (or indeed any change of vector/acceleration) would have given drop (or/and vector shift) in what I refer to as "voltage " (i e like reserve power in a system, analogous to soldiers in backup, behind an advance) --- accordingly, a concept of limit is suggested, which (in my vast erudition based mainly on old tv science shows broadcast in tv benighted Oslo) I have not heard mentioned: i e, what about the end of the bigbang? But along with the classic bigbang concept, I am asking about other forces which may well have resented being excluded from the feast/event: not only my s a, but also random movement in all other directions. And what prompted the timing of the bigbang? How was critical mass arrived at? What consequences may bigbang have prompted elsewhere, possibly influencing other bigbangs --- and vice versa (other bigbangs influencing Hawking´s) : does Hawking insist that his is the only one? After all, the matter in Hawking´s great point (singularity) came from somewhere or something (but also see my basic theory of everything (Cosmic Relationship --- Relationship with capital "R")) : but do not get lost in the besetting sin of philosophy, i e, reification (by "thing" I do not mean a material object necessarily)(indeed, I view matter (and, of course, anti-matter) as a product of Relationship).

Perhaps at this point I may mention my view that time IS (i e not only defined as, but also identical to/with) light (light IS time)--- more precisely, time is the relationship of light to/with darkness (ie, the absence of light)(Absence itself is part of Relationship). Hawking is wrong to expect the equal- and- opposite -reaction law to apply to time (which as I recall from reading his book when it first came out ("Brief History of Time") he did.

The idea that Hawking´s bigbang is "the beginning" is silly, and a misunderstanding which I assume is provoked by the all-time greatest enemy of human thought --- The Vatican. Of course it depends on where one´s thought stops (as I say, one´s truth is : wherever one has stopped), i e, what do you call "the beginning". Failure to be an absolute atheist is a disabling defect in any philosopher; and consider the sad waste over centuries of the energies and time of philosophers lost in the absurd conundrum called God (i e, god of creation cum morality). One must distinguish between the adorable delightfulness of religion as culture, and the insane belief that its egomorphic fantasy is real.

In my view, Life has always existed --- there has never been a time when life has not existed and there is no reason to expect it ever to cease. I define Life as Relationship --- Abstract Relationship (Paradox is dynamically integral to this) ( e g, what we commonly (in Actuality as distinct from Cosmic Reality) call Death, is actually a relatively larger entity falling away (disintegrating) into smaller parts --- person to chemicals etc.).

I have elsewhere discussed this Relationship concept, and it is a part of my ongoing comments about anything and everything; it is generally helpful to think in terms of Relationship Theory.

----------------------------------260502 1550 ----------------------------------------