> > I like to think
> >of it this way (which is a lot easier for me to draw out than try to put
> >in words):
> >
> >1. Singularity (unity, wholeness) which divided creates,
> >
> >2. Duality (black/white, male/female, good/evil) which creates
> >
> >3. Systems (shades, relationships, religions/myths) which are composed of
> >three elements, both sides of the duality (1 and 2) and the interaction of
> >the two (3rd)
And Tony, who always asks the best questions, pointed out:
> I think I follow this so far. Shouldnt it say (in part 3) "both
> sides of duality (2a and 2b)" though?
Yes, it should. This was the first time I've put this idea down in type,
so I'm a pleasantly surprised that it made sense. It all came to me in a
flash of insight ten years ago during a bout of insanity (yep, I've even
got the paperwork to prove it!) and I've been trying to express it in
rational terms, with limited success, ever since (hence my stance in the
"rational/irrational" debate). I'm glad it worked.
> >
> >And I see the next step as,
> >
> >X. Meta-System, the process of defining steps 1, 2, and 3 (in my drawings
> >step X is shown as a word balloon around the previous three steps).
>
>
> lets call this word balloon a, here is what happens next.
>
> 1) Singularity of a divides and creates
>
> 2)duality (a1 and a2) which creates
>
> 3) systems which are composed of 3 elements. The first two
> elements are the two parts of the duality (a1 and a2) and the process of
> thier interaction is the third element.
>
> Ando so on, right?
Yes, yes! Very, very right!!!
And continued good luck in your stand-up. Wish I could catch it, but
your, well, just a little bit out of the way for me here.
-Prof. Tim