Hi
Tom,
Very
worthy effort to make big principles simple.
A____

R C
B____
or algebraically
(A,B)R=C.
where C stands for the (whole) dividing/ arising from A and B, and
R the connection/relation of A and B.
Such notation is simple, yet
insistent, calling for the articulation of unity C, the relation R and
the
"parts" A and B.
Well,
it right away reminds me of several similar attempts. Hegelian Dialectics, of
course. Thesis and AntiThesis produce a Synthesis.
And
it reminds me of what some people call Triads. I did some writings on that.
They're however for a very specialized audience, so I'm not sure how meaningful
they'll be to you. Many years ago I was a scientologist, and one of the
fundamental elements of Hubbard's philosophy was different kinds of triangles.
Which all mostly add up to that there's one side and another side, and together
they produce a third side, and all together, those 3 add up to something else.
The most well known is the "ARC" triangle. Affinity (how close one is
to somebody, or how much one likes them) and Reality (how much one agrees, or
sees the world the same way) will produce Communication (i.e. one has something
to talk about, and one feels like talking). All together they three are said to
add up to Understanding.
Anyway,
if you're interested, you might glance at some things I wrote about it here: http://freezoneamerica.org/funch/te1/te15.html#essay41 Which, again, wasn't
meant for a general audience, but rather for recovering scientologists, so
there are weird words that aren't necessarily explained.
Also,
interestingly, there was a german fellow named Nordenholz who in the 1930s
wrote a book called "Scientologie", which really is completely
unrelated to Hubbard's Scientology, but incidentally he talks a good deal about
very similar things, in terms of polarities and their resulting vector. http://www.scientologie.de/scientologie/index.htm Or look here: http://www.scientologie.de/scientologie/e_34c02.htm for some talk about
particularly that sort of phenomena.
I
know you're not necessarily talking about polarities, and the above references
tend to focus on them being opposites.
I
also get to thing of this:
http://www.worldtrans.org/essay/wholemath.html which I called "Universal Wholeness
Math". You take a zero (a wholeness or a nothing) and split it in two.
Which still adds up to zero, as it is an equation. But those two can interact,
and produce a third, which is the result of their interaction. And together
that can add up to more complexity. Which keeps adding up.
Anyway,
just some thoughts and connections that might or might not be useful.

Flemming


OrgSpace: http://www.orgspace.com
WebLog: http://ming.tv
ffunch@cr8.com