Okay, just checking. In that case, I really like this. I am in love with metalanguage and metadescriptions that can carry over from one thing to another--in fact, it is the key to the way I learn--synthesizing and analogizing. For a musician, dancer and martial artist, this is pure gold.If this is to be taken as reality rather than a way of thinking, it strikes me as sweet, delicious bullshit. The kind you know you should stop eating but you can't.
I think we are only capable of describing models. I don't think anybody is presenting this as a really for real true description of the universe - more of a thought experiment so far.
QuoteI have desperately wanted and tried to believe in a Jungian or Campbellian universal motif, but it's seemed wrong from any approach outside wishful thinking. Not only are archetypes ill-defined, they are supposed to be ineffable.
models cannot be true or false, they can only have degrees of usefulness.
While models can and will
In this case I do think they are useful in that we can learn something about humanity, and ourselves, by examining the patterns which recur in nearly every culture.For William Blake via Northrop Frye, humanity is a single being which has fallen and forgotten itself. The highest aim is the remembrance of the identity of the great and primordial man, and to be a visionary who sees the unfallen world of wholeness. But, I'm wandering a bit afield.
Do you see any incompatibility between archetypes and an almost mathematical similarity?
QuoteFor same-level and interlevel pattern similarity, I would use the terms 'tesselation' and 'homology', respectively. Homology is the term we used in History of Chinese Religion class to describe the notion of the link between the microcosm and the macrocosm--e.g., between the health of the emperor and the wellbeing of the state. Tesselation refers to a shape that can fill a space with copies of itself all placed side-by-side. While that in and of itself does not require or directly suggest reproduction, I like the idea that certain shapes create a negative space patterned after themselves.
good notes... I wrote the bullet points in the above post before I saw this.. I think you're onto something with the homology. This calls for more research on my part.
Tesselation is definitely a nod in the right direction but I think it also implies uniformity, which does not sit well with complexity.
ahh it turns out tessellation does not imply uniformity. my bad, I was thinking too hard about those escherian lizards
Even so, perhaps it is better to speak of people, situations, beliefs, things, etc. as having tesselational properties. A particular instantiation of interest is interpersonal dynamics. In a two-person interaction pattern there are two roles. We learn our role by participation, and the other person's role by observation. Obviously you will not become the same person as the other person, but once a pattern is established, we often try to (or inadvertently do, as dynamics function as attractors) recreate said pattern in other interactions. This is how, to use a trite example, abusees can become abusers.