The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued:

Loving Structure—A Review.

Since some of you have only just begun to start getting into Cosmolosophy. And since what you
are presented with initially are tenets that are a few iterations down in the progression, I thought it
would be helpful to present not only a review, but a further declaration of where I am coming from.

This latter point is important for you to understand because, as the tenets continue to be expressed,
there will be an unavoidable crossover into politics of a kind; politics and social organization. Indeed, I
think this has already begun with the most recent posts. Full disclosure demands that I make my bias
clear in all of this; for certainly, being a subjective point of reference presupposes a natural bias.

I am what I have come to think of as a Libertarian Socialist; a term I believe I first encountered in
reading Noam Chomsky. It is a term that I find delightful precisely because of what might seem as an
expression of opposites. Perhaps even an oxymoron in the vein of “Reality TV.” It should come as no
surprise that opposites, or contradictory elements, are an important theme in Cosmolosophy. It is in
finding a necessary balance between these opposites that a meaningful expression of Loving Structure
occurs. In this new philosophy Mind (the bounded elemental portion that demands a practical response
to cause and effect) must be balanced with Love and all of the interactive imperatives that transcend
objective reality. In the case of Libertarian Socialist I like to try to describe the need to balance the
necessary desire for personal liberty with the equally necessary need to keep faith and connection to the
greater good (which is, in one sense, what love is all about). Expressed in all sorts of ways, over the
course of human history, this has always been the conundrum facing human kind.

I want there to be no mistake, however. A good portion of what prompted me to come up with a
better philosophical framework was not only the desire to promote a shared vision for change, but to
give that vision a proper moral foundation. If you look at the last time a major effort was mounted to
formulate a new social organizational model, its underlying foundation was sorely lacking (even
though it did have it's own useful insights) as a balanced form of philosophy. I am speaking, of course,
about Dialectical Materialism. I urge you to check out the link because, as I said, it did have useful
insights.

So, with that disclosure out of the way lets review a bit. What I want to do in this endeavor is
both go back over what I feel Loving Structure is, and then give you the current comprehensive list of
the tenets now available. Let's get started.

Loving Structure. Like so much of what I have been expressing, it is both a metaphor and a literal
reality. The entirety is the most wondrous and amazing churn of interaction precisely because
everything derives from the balance of Love and Mind. Love is the expression of the “Elemental
Embrace.” This was the need, seen at all scales of consideration (be it electrons around a nucleus,
planets around a star, the shared electrons of a molecule, or our need to hold each other in all of our
varied ways). This elemental need has as its essence the fundamental that is exchange and transfer.

Meaning is where we start the bridge to the Mind portion of the balance. As was postulated,
space-time is the bridge of meaning. And for space-time (that vector of experience association) to exist
there has to be the singularity that is a point of reference. This is where things got a bit technical in the
cosmological sense, which is why I did the “Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle:”

“In the first tenet of Cosmolosophy I stated that space-time was not only the bridge of meaning, but
 the vector of association that stems from consciousness. I would like to expand on that now. I would
like to propose that there is a master, or container dimension. Let's call it Meaning. It could also be
called Question-Answer. It is the foundational element that is, was, and will be. Inside this master
dimension are at least 4 other primary dimentions. Let's call them Mind (or Interaction-Connection),
Embrace (or Attraction-Repulsion), Hold (or Matter-Antimatter), and Time. All of the primary
dimentions comprise to form infinite bounderies within a finite process. Because of this it follows
that, as meaning cannot exist without information, and that information cannot exist without there
being bounded elements and gap, that bounderies are the process of lesser dimentionalization that
allows a vector of association to create a reality. I say lesser dimentionalization because the X, Y and
Z axis dimentions of cartesian space are in a sense both real and not real. The bounderies perceived in
each reality are the artifice of the interaction of the primary dimentions with the vectors. It's all the
same grand matrix, it's just associated along an endless array of different vectors. In all of this it is the
angular momentum of the give and take of the primary dimensions with the association vectors, that
keeps creating new vectors (one might think of this in terms of momentum as it is expressed in a
reality, but it is not. It is simply the impetus of new angles that connection and choice create in a
sequence of association). And it is only the possibility of loving structure that this momentum
provides that keeps the vectors going.”

From this point we then moved into a description of the self and how its formulation was part and
parcel in the process of the formation of boundaries. To quote from my response to posts by Meleagar
and Belinda:

“Meaning is the process of associating various bounded elements into new structures which take on
their own reactive, or interactive, potential (with their own new boundaries of effect). And it is
important to remember that meaning is expressed differently depending on the scale of consideration
(as in, say, a word, a planet, an electron, or light).

The self is the start of a singular point of reference. But in creating this singularity is the necessary
divergence between perceived and perceiver. A separation, if you will, between interior and exterior
phenomena. If you study a bit of developmental psychology you discover a fascinating process in this.
Let me quote from "Bimodal Consciousness" by Arthur F. Deikman (from the Archives of General
Psychiatry, 12/25/71 and reprinted in "The Nature of Human Consciousness" by Robert Ornstein, p.
70). In describing the attributes of the "action mode" as the human organism interacts with its
environment he says:

"...For example, very early in life focusing attention is associated not only with the use of the
intrinsic muscles of the eyes, but also becomes associated with muscle movements of the neck,
head, and body, whereby visual interest is directed toward objects. Likewise, thinking develops
in conjunction with the perception and manipulation of objects and, because of this, object-
oriented thought becomes intimately associated with the striate muscle effort of voluntary
activity, particularly eye muscle activity (Piage, 1954). Specific qualities of perception, such as
sharp boundaries, become key features of the mode, because sharp boundaries are important for
the perception and manipulation of objects and for acquiring knowledge of the mechanical
properties of objects. Sharp perceptual boundaries are matched by sharp conceptual boundaries,
for success in acting on the world requires a clear sense of self-object difference..."

I would maintain that it is the filtering inherent in this process of the vast wash of stimuli that we swim
in that is the dual edge sword of practicality that makes survivability possible. It cuts through the
welter to give us real adaptive advantage in this reality, but it also cuts us off from a great deal as well.
This is the nature of objectification when the term becomes the thing being described.”

As is no doubt obvious now, this is a complex interplay of concepts, but how could it be
otherwise? When one has as their subject an infinite complex array of tightly integrated complex
systems, it could be nothing less. If one were to try and settle on a bottom line summation, a good
candidate might be this: Loving Structure dirives from loving connection; the kind of engagement that
inherantly desires more connection, more meaningful interplay (an interplay that, by definition nurtures
the links that make is possible) and thus, more Loving Structure. Unfortunately, these are only words
and what the words really connotate relies soly on the feelings they've been associated with. And thus
is the game of balance set afoot. You, dear reader, are an essential part of how this game plays on.
Your connection to me, mine to you, and your connection to each other, will determine what the
ongoing balance is. The practical interplay of meaning with the essential transcending connection of
love. Think about it. Ask the deeper questions. Live a connected and loving life. And try to
remember that love is the first and most essencial act of faith.

Here is the current list of tenets:

1. The Main Tenets of Cosmolosophy And Some of Their Consequences (posted here as
“A New Synthesis in Scientific Philosophy.”)
2. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: Good & Evil (I goofed with the posting of this
one by placing it inside the topic of tenet #1 as post number 12).
3. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: Loving Too Much & The Notion Of Letting
Go.
4. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle.
5. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: What is Savant?
6. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: What carries on after a self no longer
associates?
7. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: The Immorality of the Hard Sell.
8. The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued: Loving Structure—A Review