Dear B M Puri,
I have left unanswered your mail on the one hand being extremely busy and on the other hand out of sheer disappointment due to the asymmetry you claim for yourself in our communications.
Firstly you decline to read my work to further judge it incorrectly and misrepresent it using the proverbial hammer for the nail-as-all-as-there-is, in this case as your usage of dual logic to qualify a non-dual logic. They represent how you conceive rather than my take, a projection of your own making, in short . (For which i have no time nor will to restate what i have written extensively and in detail.)
Then you further decline to consider all the aspects which i quoted to you which do not fit into the dual ontology such as the notion that "free thought" appears to be highly structured sharing the same topological structures than biology, chemistry, physics and semiotics show to operate through, to further add a quick panegirics of one particular philosophical system (Hegel's) commenting on the relevance to science as elucidated by contemporary scholars without providing any references to enable any studies.
To me, this is all about learning, rather than an intellectual tournament for which a chevalier is required, and i am quite unsympathetic to any claims based upon authority with no elaborations nor providing the info to empower to do so. .
Several times i have mentioned and elaborated in detail that this is a relational ontology in which a subject (me,DNA and RNA, a turning-inside-out exploding star in a supernova event from which all material organizations , the human body) participates through a contextual process for which singularity and closed paths coexist as a signifying unit. Yes, this is a pronunciation of panentheism, not of the centrality of selfhood as if separate. Remarkably, the shamanic Siberian tradition which called itself Vedic (philologists have found many common roots to Russian language and Sanskrit) shares the same logophysics as the one i have elaborated and the findings of physicists such as Kozyrev establish a clear link between them. I find very little of this in the discussions of this forum but for some aspects of the comments by Dr Vinod Kumar Sehgal.
As for your comments that these identifications provided by a subject (which you restrict to the self) actually destroy the semiotic relation, rather than enabling it, this is again the said dual-hammer. You could not be more mistaken on this. It is actually the opposite.
Would you google for "semiosis, Klein Bottle, Moebius strip" and still "Peirce" few names will appear.
1. Floyd Merrell; professor of semiotics and Spanish and Latin Americal literature, Purdue University. Merrell is the author of several monographs on semiotics, cognition and metamathematics as a single subject. He is one of the handful of transdisciplinarians thinkers on Earth. His understanding, clarity and depth of these issues i have not found in other authors. He does not shy away from mathematics and he does not confuse analytical thought and topological one, as seems that you do. He is rarely quoted, after all, such a rich and deep elaboration is beyond the social-cognitive disposition for unlearning and relearning of most people, and his qualified elaboration of the underdetermination of the semiotic process strikes ill on the hegemonic standard dualism.
2. Jacques Lacan, psychoanalyst. I have introduced you very shortly to his work and the relation to this non-dual logophysics. No comments in return from you. Again, "free thought" is highly structured as the very structures which are the core of chemistry, biology, perception, phenomenology ... .
3. Yair Neumann, biosemiotician; Ben Gurion University. In short, Neumann's take on biosemiotics is associated to the Klein Bottle as a logic which Rapoport introduced later in 2012.
4. Steven M Rosen, philosopher and psychologist. Author of several pioneering monographs about the Klein Bottle, self-reference and cognition. Particularly, his work "Radical Recursion" on semiotics (published in Semiotica, 1997, as a special issue on the topology of semiosis) and its realization as a Klein Bottle points out that the joint continuity and discontinuity of the Klein Bottle due to self-penetration as the sign for the "semiotic bind", as Merrell calls it. This precisely dispels your claim on the Klein Bottle logic as banalizing the semiotic bind if not actually destroying it
In Merrell's "Peirce, signs and meaning" the Percian triad is discussed from novel considerations which Merrell notes that they have been overlooked by most semioticians. He introduces the triad in terms of the invalidity of the "sacrosanct" principles of non-contradiction, identity and excluded middle of Aristotelian logic to Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. He elaborates that without the twist of the Moebius strip (or the Klein Bottle, as in Rosen's Radical Recursion) there is no semiotic bind. However, rather than solely having a closed loop to produce understanding, say as in the usage of a dictionary, Merrell claims that a concrete experience is necessary (the singularity). After all, we cannot reach an understanding what a black cow is by merely navigating "circularly" a dictionary.
As I already said, this disqualifies your statements already discussed. Rather than being "defective" as you put it, it embodies the semiotic bind.
There is one important aspect on which I disagree with this extraordinary unique monograph. Merrell notes that contradicting the imperating "logocentrism", the Moebius (or Klein Bottle) twist that enables/produces the semiotic bind is "non-linguistic". Actually, as discussed in my works, it is this twist that produces the harmonics and resonant phenomena which underlies the communication along the genome itself, the human body, pulsating stars and celestial bodies, or further the whole Universe as a self-signfying system. That is, the most universal language of all: music.
I withdraw, again, yet this time, for long, as long as it takes to intuit that unlearning is indeed the case
Diego Lucio RAPOPORT
May 4, 2017
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAOKhh%2BWZBrn46hSn%2BeiwptxboenmpKoUBRjqzwreZ6qYtz9ARQ%40mail.gmail.com
Excellent! I thought along similar lines, but it is better that such a critique of European philosophers comes from a European. Innate ideas are always precarious. Many interpret Plato's recollection as all knowledge being innate. I don't think this is really the correct interpretation. Plato's dialectic is the path towards knowledge. At the time knowledge is acquired it is called recollection. But any arguments for why it is recollection are very weak. It is as if Plato is committed to the existence of an immortal soul in individuals and hence he must bring it in in the acquisition of knowledge. Contemporary thinkers like Chomsky talk about innate abilities, like the language ability. Perhaps there is an innate music ability, an innate mathematical ability, and so on. I find this more acceptable because it makes knowledge more meaningful in the sense we use the innate abilities to acquire knowledge rather than uncover knowledge we already have.
May 4, 2017
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfCyjS42ZMz2YHqdkuWA_gKCDVG%2B2QEZ7RZW7D9LTdHV%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
Who is an atheist? Is it the one who believes in a God that does not exist or the one who believes in the ultimate universal reality that does exist?
Since the ultimate universal reality can only be ONE and non-dual, the genuine scientific reality and spiritual reality must converge into ONE. While the mainstream science has been lost into the material-only reality, the mainstream religion is blinded by dogma and belief in a personal God that may or may not exist. The challenge for humanity is to merge the knowledge of science and the wisdom of spirituality to reveal the ultimate universal reality to transcend beyond the materialism and dogmatism.
Fortunately this can be done via developing a wholesome integrated scientific model of matter, mind, and consciousness that not only predicts the observed material universe but also vindicates the wisdom of spiritual masters and scriptures.
Proving either Einstein (E=mC**2) wrong or spiritual masters (God) wrong is a loose loose exercise, merging the two is a win win for humanity, science and spirituality.
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
May 4, 2017
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15bd1291ad7-6f90-11dd8%40webprd-m105.mail.aol.com
Hindutva, being anchored in Mythology, has not been able to cultivate precision or scholarly idiom. Sri Aurobindo has filled up that vacuum.
Okay, mea culpa! But what's the direction of scholarship? I have not found any except history after combing the Net for the last three years
By combing philosophy blogs from 2005 to 2016, I come to the conclusion that they are mere attempts and there can't be any final explanation
Savitri Era: There is no unmixed victory https://t.co/mgnhHeh68G #SriAurobindo #DeMonetisation
Plain & Simple: The concept of consciousness continues to resist elucidation https://t.co/b8qb6yWB0g #SriAurobindo
[the concept of consciousness continues to resist elucidation. ‘unsolvable’ aspect of the problem that interests me] https://t.co/no3TnLM89o
[Take the example of the story of Sharmistha, the princess, and Devyani. The lesson is, there is no unmixed victory]