The Law of nOne

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

The Law of nOne

Post by LoneBear » Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:06 pm

I got into an interesting philosophical debate last night with some proponents of the "Law of One" (not the Elkins-Rueckert interpretation) whom wanted to recruit me to their cause. They look at "One" in a very, shall I say, "single-minded" fashion, where the unity associated with one-ness is representative of a unification--making everything the same, as in "one world, united." But in their united world, the one was divided into dichotomies, like 2/1 x 1/2 = 1, but those dichotomies represented "class" structures of the more and less important, resulting in a stratified, caste-like system of "haves" and "have-nots." The further from "one" you are, the less important you are.

It was my argument that the unity implied by the Law of One was not that of a unification of something, but more like Dewey Larson's "natural datum." In Larson's system, unity is a SPEED, a ratio, not an "object" and as such, can not be "unified" for it is merely a reference of measurement and that in the human case, EVERYONE was their own process of unification, interpreted in the sense of becoming whole. Unity, itself, represents the condition of "lack of everything and anything"--it is the dichotomy that is where things become manifest and more complex (or "dense", as in "density"). Even the core of every atom is a displacement from Unity. But since each "unit" was built upon "unity," each is as important as the other, for each is nothing more than a different "combination" of motions. Some may be more complex than others, some have a different twist, but complexity is not a measure of importance, just the ability to interact.

I ended up commenting that their approach was not much more than philosophical slavery, even if you put "one God" at the top of that hierarchy, for all those "below" would always be subservient to the "will" of those above. In a true "law of one", no subservience is necessary because each "one" is God and there is ONLY "one"--no separation of that unity. Their interpretation was more of a Law of not-One, or as I put it, a "Law of nOne."

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The Law of nOne

Post by Gopi » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:23 pm

LoneBear wrote:It was my argument that the unity implied by the Law of One was not that of a unification of something, but more like Dewey Larson's "natural datum."
So you mentioned that it is not a movement OF light, but light IS motion!
It is time.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: The Law of nOne

Post by Arcelius » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:05 pm

LoneBear wrote:I got into an interesting philosophical debate last night with some proponents of the "Law of One" (not the Elkins-Rueckert interpretation) whom wanted to recruit me to their cause. They look at "One" in a very, shall I say, "single-minded" fashion, where the unity associated with one-ness is representative of a unification--making everything the same, as in "one world, united." But in their united world, the one was divided into dichotomies, like 2/1 x 1/2 = 1, but those dichotomies represented "class" structures of the more and less important, resulting in a stratified, caste-like system of "haves" and "have-nots." The further from "one" you are, the less important you are.
I have come across this concept as well. According to this, everyone will eventually become a complete one that is equivalent to the original one. Rather like an assembly-line factory as opposed to a piece of art. I see the one-ness as being more of an all-ness. There is far too much going on for me to think that eventually everyone will effectively become equivalent or the same. Also, I fail to see why this would even be desirable. The creative process is not really done in a factory.
LoneBear wrote:I ended up commenting that their approach was not much more than philosophical slavery, even if you put "one God" at the top of that hierarchy, for all those "below" would always be subservient to the "will" of those above. In a true "law of one", no subservience is necessary because each "one" is God and there is ONLY "one"--no separation of that unity. Their interpretation was more of a Law of not-One, or as I put it, a "Law of nOne."
Looking out into the world of nature, there is never only one of anything. AS much as humans like to places ourselves at the top of the "food chain", there is also not any true hierarchy. Although the concept of the "survival of the fittest" is well entrenched in the West anyway, if nature truly worked that way, then it would have destroyed itself long ago; and probably in a similar way as to how we are doing it currently. I like the nOne though I might prefer to refer to it as n-One where n is an integral number (i.e. the Law of n-Ones).

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The Law of nOne

Post by LoneBear » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:42 pm

I also noticed that the two "laws" reflect the natural systems of measure:

Law of One: Datum is "1"; the objective reference system (Larson's "scalar" realm), based on the concept of ratio (speed s/t or energy t/s). This law is a dichotomy and is not manifest. You cannot see "45 miles-per-hour" directly--you can only determine that through a subjective system of measure; how much something changes (is displaced through space and time).

Law of nOne: Datum is "0"; the subjective reference system (Larson's "coordinate" or "extension" realms), based on the concept of displacement (how much the ratio changes). This law is a polarity and manifest as "things" (space) and "functions" (motifs, time).

The Laws are both systems of measure, not "things," such as the classic "drop of water (1/n) returning to the ocean (1/1)." It brings up an interesting perspective because the oneness that is much talked of in metaphysics is analogous to Larson's unity--the speed of light--which remains constant in all reference frames, everywhere in the universe. That all-pervasiveness would also infer that if there is "one God," that God is an objective measure and not something that can be directly perceived. God could only be "detected" by the way the subject measure changes.

This makes some sense in religious context, as most beliefs indicate you have to remove the physical body (subjective manifestation) to return to the One (objective, not manifest).

But as Arcelius implied, there is not much point in creating a Universe whose sole purpose is to dissolve itself back into the nothingness from whence it came. If you just look at life, in general, a different pattern emerges, documented somewhat in Larson's book, Beyond Space and Time:

Level 1 (inanimate): purely service-to-self; use your gravity to pull everything towards yourself and consume it all to become the ultimate "one." But there are limits... things can only get so large before they bloat up and explode, destroying the "oneness" accumulated and giving another aggregate a chance to try for oneness. We see this on the astronomical scale with exploding stars (supernovae) and galaxies (M81). So STS isn't the answer, since there are built-in limits. The "big crunch" idea (the reverse of the "big bang") just doesn't work. It also infers that the "big bang" is incorrect, which probably stems more from the idea of, "the best bang since the big one." Life bursts out of the womb, egg, or whatever with a "bang" to that consciousness.

Level 2 (biologic): yang (male) and yin (female) merge to produce offspring, whose purpose is NOT to return to the womb from where it originated, but to further the complexity by keeping the family tree building. Unlike Level 1, this is more STO in the sense it wants to create and spread more "matter" throughout the universe, rather than consume it. In the psychological sense, this would comprise "Tier 1" of the valuing system; the anima archetype.

Level 3 (ethical): According to Larson, ethics adds the ability to override either (or both) of the first 2 level impetuses. A person will sacrifice their life for a friend, a cause or a loved one and thus defy the Level 2 reproductive law. A larger picture can be seen, the "Tier 2" of Spiral Dynamics starts here; the animus archetype. This is where concepts of Free Will and Predestination start to be understood consciously. For example, an actor knows his part and can execute it perfectly on the stage, but all the importance is on the presenting of that role--not the actual plot of the entire play. Level 3 takes that actor off the stage and into the audience, where he can now see the bigger picture.

Level 4 was not researched by Larson, but can be deduced from the emerging pattern. It is what I call the Tomorrow People on this site, where you are not only off the stage but leave the theater to see an even larger picture. Larson dumped everything into Level 3 that did not fit into Levels 1&2--sort of a "catch-all." Spiral Dynamics did the same thing with their Tier 2 values--everything that did not fit into Tier 1 went into Tier 2. Since the Universe is "discrete" in its spatial manifestation, there are distinct divisions between Levels and Tiers that demarcate their attributes and behaviors. Level 4 is distinct from Level 3 because it switches dichotomy--it is the "yin" side to ethics that adds the increased scope (the world outside the theater).

It can be seen that BOTH Laws, One and nOne, apply in all contexts, interacting as a reference system (a measure, not a "thing"). It appears that in Level 1, STS, every"thing" tries to become one, big "thing." In Level 2, one thing tries to become everything. Not contradictory at all--just two nOne views of One--as a ratio, One has two aspects. An increase in one is tantamount to a decrease in the other, what is being seen in the first 2 levels is just that--Level 1 is attractive in one aspect; Level 2 is attractive in the other resulting it being a dispersal when viewed from the first.

To quote Kosh, "... and so, it begins..."

Post Reply