AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:19 am
I understand that is the narrative you support, but I don't agree with it and neither does JP.
Unless JP has given you the power of an attorney, it's not kosher to speak for him.
It is basically equating Western civilization, all the way down to the level of its mathematical origins, with class oppression in the worst sense of the word "oppression". It is cynical to the very core and infects every aspect of Western civilization with resentment, perhaps the only negative emotion capable of disguising itself as spiritual meaning. Maybe you are not resentful, but then you are by far the exception and it's easy to understand why so many people who follow that logic are.
The wrong turn was "Cantor's paradise" (as called by Hilbert, father of Formalism) which lead to the prevailing set theory. Not Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek math as such, or Indian, Chinese, Maya etc. math. The resentment you refer to seems to be mostly phenomena of settler self-hatred originating from complex Shadow projection and integration processes on cultural level. Echoed and amplified by the hysterics of very American outrage culture. As Lou said, forgiveness to self can be the hardest thing.
If sin is defined as separation from God, as Christian scholars very often explain the deeper spiritual meaning, then those separated by a false theory of mathematics are lost lambs, don't you agree?
Honestly I view this as a means of setting a standard for the foundation of "authentic" spirituality which you know, or should know, will never be met. It's the easiest way of making sure no one will take nondual Western monotheism seriously again, ever. It serves as an anti-theory to pragmatism by making the most exclusive framework and the framework which is least likely to be adopted as the one which is most "important" for spiritual faith. And that's a terrible way to go about it.
Open interval is not an exclusive concept, it's
both more
and less. Nor is it a competing religion, no belief is required, it's only offering ability to
think more clearly about the age old problem between continuity and discontinuity. It's just math, prior to Aristotelean logic. Aristotelean etc. logic of either-or becomes really possible only with the concept of a closed interval, such as empty set. Closed intervals of
finite sets are not denied, the only trick is to switch the foundational order. Closed intervals (etc. school arithmetics) can be coherently (<and prag[ma]tically!>) derived from open interval, but not vice versa. The initial truth theory is here same as BK applies,
coherence theory of truth. The coherence theory in turn enables more specific proof theories, such as classical logic, intuitionist logic, etc. as they become defined in further construction of the foundational theory.
both-and - inclusive
either-or - exclusive
Do you get it now? Closed intervals, which enable meaningful either-or relations between
objects, can be derived from
halting the process of an open interval, ie. "neither more nor less/neither increases nor decreases". The good, computable aspects of math are not lost, only given a coherent foundation.
Thank you for your patience and attention. You are helping much to learn to speak this more plainly. Perhaps some day so plain, that even Lou comprehends, despite his "resentment" towards intellectual comprehension...
