Essence and Entropy

Put simply, entropy is whatever default attractor within which any “bulk” or unformed matter finds itself embedded. We think of it as “negative” or destructive because we are self-rooted to our functions, and because we don’t see the larger syntropic forms it is being induced to assume.

In Spinozan terms, and even more simply, when an object has no essence, it takes on the essence of its parent. Or, more nuanced, there is a fractal interplay of essences (attractors), and to really play in the inter-play one must “tap into” these nascent and emergent forms in the actual-possible. One must play in the stream of Becoming and harness one’s own flows autocatalytically to its own form and Being.

And for the crude simple machines used in cobbling together our science of thermodynamics, the default essence or attractor is that of the Earth, namely the fine or deep electrogravitational structure of the atmosphere….which is mostly ergodic, or noise, to our senses.

My view, as with Fuller, is that we’ve come in through the “attic window” on practically everything (trans-trans bound), math, science, reality. And the matter we are playing with in mechanics, from the outside, is bulk, crude, relatively un(in)formed. This is basically what Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism gets at… that we are already “infinitely” transcendent observers (infinite in a key aspect, but also *not* in another). And this is also the meaning of the move to the infinite Leibnizian-Deleuzian “fold” (near the end of SZ).

So we come out from, and into a boundary, a world, as a part of this infinite fractal boundary-mechanics, these divinely enfolded, unfolding recursive self-hoods or sheathings of self. From this lofty perch, we then start dabbling in the creation process, but from waaaay up here, as ‘one,’ with these impossibly huge fingers, grasping massive chunks of matter and slapping them around. And then we wonder why our machines, our would-be golems can’t even keep it together, let alone walk… until now as we dig into the micro of the mechanical onion.

Or you could say that we open our eyes through connecting lines of sight stretching across an infinite plane, and assume, implicitly that the world is made out of lines and planes, and then proceed to discover the limits, balances, and uses of crossing these lines at right angles. A classic Fullerian shift from transitivity to immanence as we fall into our own implicit singularity, get our bearings and float…finally engaging our hands into the flow of our Being.

Until the current involution and dis-closure into the complexity at source, we had not realized what a “Form” (Spinozan essence) was. We assumed that the universe should just want to maintain the forms that we throw together. We were confused that matter seems inactive (from way above), and we assumed that she was not interested in her own ideas and play. And so we forced our forms upon her in our simple machines. As Leibniz notes, however, our machines are not recursive infinite machines, as are Nature’s. They have no flux within them focused naturally into maintaining any form (essence), except for the deeper bulk material essence of which they are fashioned, smelted, pressed, or whatever. In other words, bulk matter has its own intrinsic attractors, and shares those of the parent attractor within which it finds itself. And so it “seeks” to merge with its essence, both inwardly (back to bulk) and outwardly, off into “space”…or crumbling into the “ground”.

And this puts a spin on Taoist ‘non-action’, as the aligning with your dominant attractors and your total harmonic essence. Going with the flow. Crude mechanics simply does not, of itself, so the flow goes away with it, because that larger and smaller (I/T) flow is its actual essence. It persists in its real being, which we have mis-identified with itself.

This is the key to entropy. A function of an eclipsed view into a play of attractors. Spinozan existential essences which are preceded by (emergent from) existence. This gets down to the labyrinthine nature of continuity, the deep fine structure and intelligence in matter. It has its own forms in dealing with its own infinite perfection, as we should know, BEING these forms and all. Barely coming to grips with the ordering forces from this deep labyrinthine chaos of pure continuity, we get confused by the “negative” gradient from our own top-down impositions, and we assign it an ideal, a Law, and fit a curve to it with some equations. And then naturally we project those Ideals onto the cosmos and predict it’s “heat death” in dramatic form.

Univocity and the Absolute Relation

There is a key truth to the notion of the absolute as (absolutely) free of constructs. Also, this purity that we sense, along with the value or space I feel the distinction holds, is a key function of the univocity framework in SZ. Maintaining this purity in polarity and distinction, is its primary function.

And of course it is also true that for a distinction to be *real* (Spinoza and dependent arising) it cannot be absolute, and must, in some sense, be inter-expressive. There is one voice, and it can only express difference … without limit … because a limit itself is difference. Deep infinity is expressing itself through the relation(s) of I AM. This is really what nondual means, in my view…and the deeper we can *feel* into that, and out from that, by whatever (and all) catalyst(s), the more alive we are.

So, nonduality is convergent with univocity, meaning a polarity and triunity between the relative and absolute, and “Substance turns on its modes” (Deleuze). We get a *feel* into the triunity and interface that we are, with the univocity framework, the cycle of unity, and with Spinoza’s triune infinite, etc. But they are still not it, in the sense that they can’t contain an infinite surface, let alone its depths. They are just ways of peering into its embodied and real form.

That being said, in the exploration of this infinite “boundary” between the absolute and relative which is the nondual itself, how indeed can we make sure not to lose the distinction itself between the absolute and relative? How can we retain the truth in the implicit and emergent or natural meaning of ‘absolute’? What is the truth of the purity that we sense in the word?

In another word, I think it is ‘boundlessness’, or freedom. It’s just a finger pointing at what cannot be contained within our boundary … but it’s always already infinitely full. As well, the finite and infinite are not simply a polarity. They explode into a rich living depth of conscious intelligence and order. And from where they meet, we expand in whatever art or form which resonates with where we are.

So then what is the essence or purity of the absolute which must be guarded… and indeed how can we guard against the guard itself? 😉 Firstly, we note that the absolute is the identical opposite of the relative. And we note that it is relation in the first place which *forms* the absolute (concept) in an orientation on its fundamental limits in infinity. We could say that the absolute is the self-consciousness of the field of relation… in a sense. And insofar as self-consciousness hiders the flow of the self, our own ‘non-action’, then this distinction needs to be resolved, tuned and triuned into a seemless flow and integration of the univocal form.

We have an implicit connection to the infinite and absolute, and absolutely no separation from it. We *are* it. And we can’t help but feel it. This is closure and involution for the field of relation. It’s self-defining other, in identical opposition and return to integration.

So what can be the opposition to relation itself? The absence of it, certainly, as there is nothing other than relation at this level of generality of the term to oppose. So then, what the absolute cannot do is relate (and of course it must…shhhhh!!!). It cannot be used in the field of relation itself, but only in opposition to relation, to give it its embodied form in infinite difference.

But then again, with the inter-expression of univocity, the absolute and relative are one: the absolute-relation, and the ONE-ALL. This then is our only view of what the absolute can be, dealing at such a degree of abstraction. But it is an omni-non. It is everything, and so it disappears. Nothing we can say about it (including herein) can exclude the very opposite of what we can say about it, because it contains all REAL opposites…and if we are using unreal ones, well then that speaks for itself.

So dealing with the absolute we speak its language and invoke its forms. They emerge naturally from our own absolutely real form. Wholeness. One way to see into wholeness, which has the advantage of mirroring our self-similar form, is through the metaphor of embryogenesis, first through polarity and then on into multiplicity or the ten thousand things. So that’s where SZ hangs out. What scars of our own embryogenesis are left in our embodied intuitions about the core issues of multiplicity, differentiation, and integration as they show up in mathematics? And what can that teach us about embodied conceptuality and ontology, either its limits or capacities?

Mind the Gap

The distinction is actually very simple, and I’m sure you will grasp its ‘essence’ immediately once you see it. Roughly, the difference (and gap) here between the countable and the uncountable infinities is that between the effable and ineffable quantitative aspects of the absolute. “Time-order” here does not mean time itself. We have to break time down into its deeper-level (polar in this case) elements. And this naturally corresponds to the distinction between transitive and immanent forms of time, respectively. So, a time-ordered or step-wise process is essentially a linear one–a trajectory, regardless of whether it traces a nonlinear form–and hence it is transitive (as well as classical, as we can see here the solid/particle bias in the abstracted trajectory found in classical mechanics, and also in the wave-function in STILL-CLASSICAL quantum mechanics…classical in the Prigoginian sense). Zeno, tracing the proto-ontological form of fundamental mathematics and the continuum, is essentially dealing with the interface between the finite and the infinite as well as the transitive and immanent/transcendent axes. And where that resolves with exhaustion is always the indefinite…e.g. the arrow never reaches its mark, and time has (only apparently) come to a stop in the regressive immanence of emptiness and NOW.

This is the negative or deconstruction phase, but we must resolve to the positive correlate in reintegration through and through. What Zeno demonstrates is that a time-ordered sequence of division (or demarcation) cannot exhaust (or construct) continuity. Continuity, as infinitely divisible and infinitely “divided” (folded or differentiated through and through, always and already) must exist prior to any regressive step-wise process. This is where the principle of nondual rationality must resolve, which points ultimately beyond the rational numbers (identities) themselves, and into the “irrational” or transrational numbers which unfold at deeper levels on the axis (emptiness or freedom) opened up initially with the ratio, namely that of immanence and transcendence, which is only transitively explored through any step-wise process.

Simply put, as with Spinoza’s escape from modal (structural) thinking, the route out of the labyrinth of the continuum must take the form of an escape from the (transitive) regress. We must come to see our role in abstracting out *aspects* of deep infinity in tracing our trajectories through time in our interfacing with the absolute. And in this Zenonian sense of always already, infinite divisibility (through and through) equals indivisibility, or Zeno’s Parmenidean Being-now. This is not outside of process, but simply an emphasis on the the stasis aspect of the absolute. Because, of course, time doesn’t stop merely because (in time) we fall into a transitive regression into immanence.

So, we are effing the ineffable through the lens of the Zenonian core paradox of plurality (which we’ll get to a bit later), and this traces the structure of the modern mathematical continuum, which has resolved Zeno’s paradox only operationally, syntactically, unconsciously. The paradox, to this point in orthodoxy, has not been resolved semantically or meta-mathematically, simply because the immanent-transendent axis remains un-integrated, or implicit. So Verelst shows that Zeno’s structure in the paradox of plurality (the form which they all share) is divided “through and through”, or as we’d say, “always already”. This is already outside any step-wise or time-ordered process or algorithm, and points to infinite immanence and multiplicity. As opposed to tracing a single trajectory, we move into radical plurality, and this is the key step in understanding the move into real complexity (immanent and post-classical causation) still on the horizon in the sciences, as well as to understanding why the attempts at refutation of Zeno’s paradox have all failed. These attempts have injected non-Zenonian premises (namely transitive time, or time-ordering) into the argument and ended up as straw-men.

What then exists in the gaps of the incompleteness of effing the ineffable? The ineffable real. It’s effing ineffitable!