Fractal Metaphysics

(An occasional paper of the Journal of (Very) Speculative Philosophy)
Adam Blatner,
Confabulologist Extraordinaire

January 6, 2011    For more fun, see No. 2 of this Journal      See other papers on Confabulology at the bottom of my papers webpage above. 

A Theoretical & Speculative Metaphysical Confabulation

I have been instructed / empowered / inspired / channeled / whatever to let you know the low-down on the higher-ups, the “that’s what it’s all about” of the Hokey-Pokey, the underlying structure of the Universe.

First of all, it’s multi-dimensional, so what we perceive as three dimensional reality is only a shallow projection of what’s really going on. Plato’s parable of the cave is oh, so right on. What psychedelic inspiration clued him in on this. Of course the Aristotelians pooh-poohed this, and many philosophers don’t get it. When ol’ Plato talked about primal forms, he wasn’t talking about the perfect chair, or even the archetype of sitting—that’s way too specific. My friend Zordak point not only to the Balbonians on their planet many light-years away, but also to the spider in the children’s nursery rhyme about Miss Muffet on her Tuffet—you known, the one that came down and scared her away? But the key is, how does a spider “sit down”??  Not crouch, not lie prone, but... well you can get all consternation-ish about it, but back to Plato.

He was trying to express what David Bohm a few decades was sort of intuiting what he called the “implicate order” that contrasts with our familiar ordinary universe. And don’t get me started describing how all this is implicit in the intuitions of the great Kabbalists.

Now the discovery of the mathematics behind chaos theory, the whole field of fractals, came a little closer, but it’s still only one dimension. Other writers who fool with string theory have tried to model what more-than-four-dimensional space might be like, and it’s mind-stretching. So here we’ll just go with my revelation, okay?

  So take this little simple diagram on the left for example. Imagine that each of the little squares is a universe. Yet this whole set is only one button— really, only a sequin—on God’s garment (speaking very poetically, of course). Now this is the point: Each of those little squares with circles in them are in turn complex nexuses of influences. The physical universe at the seed-core is only a part, sort of the flowering or product of all the dimensional activity. From another perspective, these diagrams are just another way to think about my mandalas:

Now, carrying on the sequence: Here on the right is another mandala that is sort of an enlargement of one of the tiny circles in the diagram on the above left.

Now, those points ont the diagram to the right where the liking irregular "chains" come together are "nodes" and close-ups of both these elements will be shown.

Portrayed to the left, below, are some of those nodes.

They are nexuses, points where different dynamic currents come together. You are a nexus of many roles and role demands. You may be a parent, a spouse, the adult child of an older parent who is the father-in-law or mother-in-law to your spouse. You have to earn money and keep house, perhaps belong to a church and/or a club or two, and each of these is a complex mixture of many sub-roles. They all come together in your life. So, too, chains of many dynamics come together to form these mediating, choosing, balancing, creative living centers. Although these complexes may seem static, they are actually in dynamic action. Swirling would be too simple a term---they are evolving

and each element is an evolutionary strand that divides, integrates, veers off in interesting directions, analogous to the many twists and turns taken by a religion or technology or language in our history.

Now back to that form on the righ: The connecting branches are in fact as complex and dynamic as the nodes where they come together:  Note to the righ above the magnified connecting branch, there's a rough diagram of a piece of that connecting branch---complexities that have within them further complexities.
Now, below, here below is a magnified segment of that branch shown to the right.

. . .   and this is not even the weird part! What’s really weird is that this whole explanation is only one of countless numbers of other possible explanations!  For example, the nodes might evolve so that they look like this or even in an elegant bit of aesthetic relaxaion, settle into the far right:.

... and since the Cosmos is also evolving mind-stuff, this explanation may be at least limited (if not off-the-deep-end wacko wrong), perhaps awaiting further revisions, antitheses, counter-proposals, or elaborations in the “Dialectic of Creativity.”  – Wheee!


Enough for now. You might enjoy reading other confabulations about the textures of reality,  the nature of soul-concrescence,