The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

...your honest, alternate explanation for your practice encourages me to question the motive behind it in a different, and in an unexpected, more human, and potentially positive, way.

Frank's posts are not too bold; they are too long.

Further to the Projective Geometry reference (in which "infinities" meet) I found this interesting point on Wiki.
"Paul Dirac studied projective geometry and used it as a basis for developing his concepts of Quantum Mechanics"
I think this might have heuristic significance for our holistic position*,

Very good… funny…clear... enlightening post.

Try looking up posts from 7 or 8 years ago using the MY POSTS feature…and see how that works out.

I was not clear: I do not suggest that YOU use too many words. My reference was to your practice of copying excessively large quotations, which tire me out unnecessarily. It would be so much easier to get through your often enlightening posts if you would condense your references to the essential ideas of those you quote. I would find considerable relief if you would paraphrase when you can.

I know of no evidence that Maturana was significantly funded by "businessmen". If you have, I would find it interesting but not a serious detraction from the intellectual import of his writings. Indeed , it would be difficult to classify any research as "pure"in view of a wider definition of "a social construction of reality", which like "non-duality" makes excellent sense to me.

Indeed , it would be difficult to classify any research as "pure"in view of a wider definition of "a social construction of reality", which like "non-duality" makes excellent sense to me.

Layman says that "Some people go too far in the other direction, and start thinking that empirical observation, standing alone, is "science."
I agree: facts do not speak for themselves; they require interpretation, and this usually--in the context of scientific investigation, at least--occurs within a framework of "theoretical postulations" (i.e., observations referring to concepts and vice versa).

* bringing us back on topic.

us-world.

The first time i asked Fresco that, he immediate indulged in a vicious, personal attack. It's the one question upon which his religious faith founders.

Any anthropocentrism implied by "language users" (normally implying humans) is one of level of systems complexity when discussing such users. For example, Maturana makes the case that all we call "observation" should be limited to the system employed by such languagers. This leads to the counter intuitive scenario of an animal, a cat say, not "observing" its quarry (the mouse) but engaged in a mutual process of "structural coupling" in which the two living structures are engaged in a single process we might call " a chasing".. The argument is that we language users anthropomorphically assign the concept of "observation" to "the mind of the cat"...a misnomer according to M on the basis that all we call "observation" involves verbal reporting. The analogy is to point out that we should no more talk about the heart "observing" muscle activity and altering its rate,than we should talk about cats "observing" mice and chasing them. Both are examples of biological structural coupling at different levels of system complexity.
Similarly, at even higher levels of systems complexity, society say, languaging itself is subject to structural mechanisms such as the transactional rules operating in "language games" which thinkers like Habermas have attempted to describe as essential elements of societal structures.

In summary, "holistic thinking" is not confined to human observer-observed, but to all living systems at levels of complexity from the cell upwards. Maybe this last point goes some way in illustrating my thoughts about "the social construction of reality" vis-a-vis "non-duality".