Yes, mental/systemic integration of apparent opposites is the process of wisdom/insight itself. Eastern and western monastic cultures are probably better models of what I’d like to see modern societies evolve toward. It would be a process of course, but I see no reason why such could not become reality. That doesn’t mean that we all will have to go live in a monastery and commit to vows of silence and such, but, guided by the natural philosophical concept of grace, we can obviously become a much more contemplative, less distracted from distraction by distraction and alienated society.
As far as the word/philosophical concept of grace is concerned I use the western word but It’s actually meant as an eclectic referral to the experience pointed at by each of the world’s wisdom traditions. I could substitute it with samadhi, satori-kensho, atonement, the Sufi concept of The Friend etc. I’m not trying to enforce or invalidate religion by using it, simply pointing at these pinnacle wisdom tradition experiences themselves and encouraging people to become aware of them, contemplate/self actualize them and apply their various aspects in relevant ways to every area of life.
“Thirdness greater oneness” is the result of wisdom’s integrative process, namely grace/graciousness/higher consciousness. It can also be called a trinity-unity-oneness-process an example of which is the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The trinity-unity-process if looked for is replete throughout nature, mathematics, syntax and human experience. For instance, every experience by everyone is a trinity-unity-oneness process of one’s consciousness itself, the experience and reaction to it. I call it the Cosmic Code of Wisdom and Full Consciousness and express it formulaic-ly as:
[ (A x Z) —> G/C ]
and expressed in words as: an integrated duality (often conceptually and/or experientially oppositional) within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process.
Mathematically it is characterized by the Fibonacci Sequence.
[ (1 + 2) —> 3 ], [ (2 + 3) —> 5 ] ….etc.
Syntax wise it’s [ (subject x predicate) —> period ]
It is my contention that the modern world is caught in egoistic duality and requires not only an economic, financial and monetary paradigm change, but a new trinitarian mindset and integrative ethic based on the natural philosophical concept of grace. The perfect example of this economically is the habitual contention between thesis/capitalism and antithesis/socialism which needs to become the synthesis/profit making system of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Distributism.
KZ: Craig, thanks for this detailed overview. It helps a great deal. I still see what you propose as a long shot. I constantly see for example the two opposite faces of American exceptionalism. The one egalitarian but obsessively individualistic. Americans permit no interference in living their lives as each pleases. The second, unequal but lifted by the close relationships in the groups and the fulfillment one feels in meeting one duties and obligations as an American. In the second, what you propose might be welcomed, but not in the first.
Me: Thanks Ken.
DT: As a European rather than a North American I think it time to protest this discussion has got off course from discussion of the Euro crisis and [I agreed] the need for parallel currencies. Centralised banking and usury have remained hidden behind tax arguments and MMT, while Ken and Craig, since Craig’s question on Dec 5 at 8:52 pm, “Why does austerity appear to be so necessary to neo-liberal economists?”
Craig rightly wants to get below the particular, but continues to wallow in waters where (knowing them better) I caught a fish. He’s looking at numbers, I’m looking at numbers representing the degress of freedom (or inversely, control) in initially empty space, which include the possibility of evolving beyond it, like shifting from units to tens in decimals. Is that what he means by an “integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process”? Does he mean quaternary number representation? Clearly I disagree with his algebraic formulations, the operations in which he has not defined. His Fibonacci claim looks to me like bluster. I see the (1 + 2) fragment as (1) things, mapped or locatible as points in minimally 2-dimensional space, and (2) processes, representable graphically as points moving along lines.
Me: My posts on this thread show a better and more thorough way to actually progress than the proposal originally posited, for the EU, the US and any other modern economy…..not a distraction from the issue.
As difficult as it is for economic and monetary theorists to think beyond habitual dualisms and even consider third more integratively whole alternatives, it’s undoubtedly a mistake to try to also get them to integrate their thinking to a higher and broader level. My response to Ken was simply trying to address his questions to me.
Despite this, I soldier on 🙂 and will say that the lesson that the Fibonacci sequence teaches us is that its trinity-unity-oneness-process (everything within [….] ) is reflective of the infinitude of the cosmos (A X Z) and the possible phenomena that the existential reality of self awareness/consciousness ( G/C ) can integratively and unifyingly experience and understand.