The Cosmos is a place of order, structure and patterns which in Chinese philosophy goes by the 'name'/human pointer the Tao.
All things exist because there is this order/structure/pattern which is the fundamental thing – which we may as well call the Tao. Although the words Infinite Divine, Ayn Sof, Brahman, and many others can work also. It is just that the word Tao conveys to me order, pattern and structure most directly. It conveys both a natural and supernatural connotation of this concept.
Now this fundamental unity is manifest in the form of a yin/yang complementary duality, where one is co-existent with the other.
I posted a picture of what I called the Tree of Life and Knowledge it shows the three basic and fundamental pairs of co-existent dualities:
Dynamic (Energy) (Active) (Yang) / Static (Matter) (Receptive) (Yin)
Exterior (Out)/Interior (In)
Whole/Part
The idea of the universal Tao as the One which has the form of manifestation as a co-existent duality describes the foundation of physics and metaphysics.
I am hypothesizing that Energy alone as a singular purity doesn't exist by and of itself alone. That energy has no inherent ability to hold or create order, structure or patterns. That energy has a form which has structure, order and pattern because of and as a result of its static manifesting aspect/nature which we call matter.
Matter doesn't exist by and of itself alone. Energy only takes on patterns through the existence of matter which holds and creates the patterns that affect and manifest in waves of energy – I am describing the interactional necessity of the two.
I am also positing that mind or soul does not exist by and of itself. That mind and soul come into existence through the co-existent dual nature of matter. Mind and soul are embodied in and through matter. Mind and soul are the 'energy' aspects of matter.
Pattern, order and structure which is the essence of the Tao is fundamental and is the one that manifests itself in the duality of matter and energy = mind and body.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 2
A number of years ago I was asked to design and then offer a course to a bunch of 'oldsters', like me, relating to NEW systems of socio-economic organization. I gave myself some months to put my thoughts together and finally decided to start with fundamentals relating to what I now refer to as the Universe's penchant to busy itself with the CREATION of ENTITIES. I started with fundamentals: I assumed that Engineers had a real shot at deep understanding because the Godhead seemed to me to be first and foremost, a CREATOR and DESIGNER of ENTITIES. The coursee was an OK experience for me, and most of my elder 'students'.
My earliest interests, as a youngster, were in Science (Physics especially) but WWII made me flip into Engineering. It was in some sense the luckiest shift in professional intent that ever happened to me. In engineering, the task, basically, is to use the logics of SYNTHESIS, while in many sciences the task is to try to understand what IS in depth (look at an extant 'thing' which already has form and function) using then scientific REDUCTIONIST logic to come to grips with underlying reality of what the THING is. Look at 'make the 'thing' versus 'understand the 'thing'.
My next good bit of fortune, after WWII, was to have gone into Probability Theory and Statistical Analyses. Here I had to think about 'facts' and 'materiality' as they related to 'information content', I used to teach in the room next to the room where the first computer was being built. (UPenn: Moore School of Electrical Engineering) The early explorations into the then 'future world' was to do two things: (1) Build hardware 'entities' (chips, tubes, connectors, memories, etc) to speed things up, and (2) Develop meaningful ways to communicate by developing and using NEW kinds of languages. It wasn't difficult to 'see' that a next step was to look into self and to see what role 'information and calculation' had to do with very diverse FORMS CREATION about me and in me. And, lo and behold I was back to my favorite youthful intellectual interest: PHILOSOPHY. I think it was Whitehead who said that any philosophical quest had to investigate (1) FORMS creation, and (2) MOTION to get at the nature and understanding of creative wonder.
You have encountered in YOUR explorations authors like Korzybski and Jaynes and Northrop (via Pirsig). Good choices. If you haven't read any Whitehead yet, a great place to look into that GREAT mind is via his "Science and the Modern World". And if you can stomach it (I've read this one about 20 times) try "Process and Reality". THIS is tough sledding. Each of us has his/her own path through the vastness of human literature and research to go through. I will merely note that -- though it may not always seem true -- in a strange way we all love the agony of searching things out as our destiny guides us. Your own internal guidence gets better and better as you move along the very diverse paths toward the WONDROUS.
As Joseph Campbell said: "Follow YOUR bliss". WE humans are all explorers through the riches of beingness. Its always a GREAT adventure.
Dick
Yes I have enjoyed Whitehead's Science and the Modern world - though I haven't finished it. I tried his Process and Reality - very tough going...I'm not sure who has worse - him or Kant. I guess he is a bit easier than Kant.
My 2 big intellectual events via books was: Pirsig was the one who enabled me to finally appreciate Lao Tzu and thus Taoism; and Korzybski who help me to understand our primary tool and its tool traps - Aristotelian logic.