The proportional equation can be stated: 1 is to 2 as 2 is to 4; the answer,
2 is not a form--it is 1/2 or 2 times the form. And what is the process
which produces halving or doubling? Mirroring. So is 2 1/2 or is it 2
times? The processes of "addition" and "subtraction" are suggested. If the
form is seen to be four then 2 is something which is subtracted from the
form to leave 2. If the form is seen to be 1, then 2 results when the form
is added to itself. As something can infinitely be added to itself
(replication) it can also be divided into itself by itself (reproduction).
The mirroring which occurs--the one producing the illusion of 2 as a form
when it is in fact only a portion of the form--is indicative of the
biological splitting of a cell to form a new organism and the process is
either reproduction or replication.
Can the equation 2+2 actually speak to us about biological reproduction? If
one is the individual and four is the individual what are the pieces of the
whole from which the parents "2" and "2" are formed. Are the parents 1/2 or
2 times the original? Are they subtracting from the whole to form a union
or are they adding to it?
Using the biological example, I would say that a parent in a dependent
relationship is only part of the whole--is no longer a proper representation
of the individual...the 2+2 equation suggests that either one of the symbols
can come to represent 2 times the original at the death of the other or that
the qualities embodied in the original, renamed the 4, can be split
(either/or) between the parts--and this is the "hetero" relationship
either/or, all-or-nothing (and I'm using "hetero" to mean heterogenous not
merely "male/female" which would take into account the either/or mentality
but not the all-or-nothing mentality: Or, if 2 is half of 4--the male is
not fully the child formed through the union of male and female...that is,
is not *both* male AND female which is represented in the form of child--but
if 2 is 2 times 1--or twice the original in one body--then the child is
neither male nor female being only 1/4th or 1/2 the totality of one or both
parents successively* *the 1/4 referring to two doubled parents and the 1/2
referring to one doubled parent either in the body of one parent or two).
Replication on the other hand suggests that the child is merely 1+1+1+1, or
1, 2, 3, 4, a developmental being which is independent of the splitting
and/or competitive destruction of its parents (the parents can either/or
and/or all-or-nothing all they want and the child will continually develop
from the original form of it's "true parent" an original form containing
within it the ability to grow--1+1+1+1--and develop 1, 2, 3, 4.
And here, is--I think--where the majority of people fail to see steady
growth, development, and prime cause and effect: They are caught up in the
reproductive cycle--which is divide and conquer. They have "ego" which is a
reflection of the original form and the subsequent claim that this part of
the whole is a true form and not merely the symbolic representation of the
form--they claim to be a "2" without acknowledging that 2 arises from 1.
Because of that, they become only half of their potential...represented by
the child who grows from the compost of his/her parents. They can never be
the 4 not having the original form of unity; but instead choosing the
reproductive, egoistic, form of duality or competitiveness.
And finally here is the difference between Darwinism and Complexity:
Darwinism says that the parts of the original are shared between the parents
who destroy each other so that the parts can be reformed into an original
whole which is equal to the sum of it's parts (that 4 merely restates 1/is
the same thing and not a superior form)--and that "chance" determines which
parts of this whole each parent can contribute--"REPRODUCTION". Complexity
says that the entire original is taken in by the new offspring which
utilizes the processes of growth and development to reform the original in
such a was as to show a more complex relationship between the parts...a
relationship which better represents the original--"REPLICATION". And
again, why the hetero can't see this correlation--they haven't yet
internalized the original whole, or externalized their successor.
Brett
(as promised to Reed in post "Existence")
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of
Thursdays."
Arthur Dent