Principle of structured frequency
Think of it as a derivative or as a special principle emerging from the general principle of structured~duality:Reality, nested fields within nested fields, function in tune with the underlying principle of structured~frequency.
Similarly, the spectrum of subjectivity which is all about the frequency of nested repeating subjectivity. Similarly with pattern recognition and memory. Similarly with elements in the periodic table and the standard model.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com
En-Joy!
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Re: Nested Monadologly
Hey, Serge,
Thanks for your helpful questions. I address some of them below, and yet I'm beginning to understand that you and I may have ~style, value, interest, and framework differences that make for very difficult communication. I presently characterize these as a clashes of intuition with intellect, brevity contrasted with verbosity, simplicity within complexity, and perhaps differences in intended audiences, goals, etc. Yet, also, I'm getting the impression that a core issue here relates to the backward compatibility on conventional subject-object or subjectivity-objectivity orientation that each of us desire or require and/or have already integrated into our respective theoretical/explanatory expressions.
I get the impression from what I read or your model that you are invested in retaining subject-object and/or subjectivity-objectivity categories, values, and/or limits as somewhat scientifically sacrosanct. And now here I am where I reduce subjectivity-objectivity to yet another instance of duality and then expose objectivity to be a strongly repeating form of subjectivity, therein slightly disrupting one of the ~370-year old western philosophical mores (the accepted traditional customs). Recently, I am starting to see the sense in labeling adherence to this custom as some type of an addiction or co-addiction, that is, an unhelpful or hurtful dependence.
How very gauche of me. Yet it's another one of those dirty jobs that does have to get done.
Thanks for your helpful questions. I address some of them below, and yet I'm beginning to understand that you and I may have ~style, value, interest, and framework differences that make for very difficult communication. I presently characterize these as a clashes of intuition with intellect, brevity contrasted with verbosity, simplicity within complexity, and perhaps differences in intended audiences, goals, etc. Yet, also, I'm getting the impression that a core issue here relates to the backward compatibility on conventional subject-object or subjectivity-objectivity orientation that each of us desire or require and/or have already integrated into our respective theoretical/explanatory expressions.
I get the impression from what I read or your model that you are invested in retaining subject-object and/or subjectivity-objectivity categories, values, and/or limits as somewhat scientifically sacrosanct. And now here I am where I reduce subjectivity-objectivity to yet another instance of duality and then expose objectivity to be a strongly repeating form of subjectivity, therein slightly disrupting one of the ~370-year old western philosophical mores (the accepted traditional customs). Recently, I am starting to see the sense in labeling adherence to this custom as some type of an addiction or co-addiction, that is, an unhelpful or hurtful dependence.
How very gauche of me. Yet it's another one of those dirty jobs that does have to get done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)