Anderz

One way of thinking of service to others in the Law of One is to align oneself with what all people in Christ consciousness want. The ego consciousness is sadistic so serving people in ego consciousness is dangerous and counterproductive. We should only serve people who have entered Christ consciousness. And it's service to others because when we ourselves are in ego consciousness it's not about serving oneself. When we ourselves have entered Christ consciousness service is no longer needed because the term service is duality and in oneness service loses its meaning. Here is a video from Aaron Abke where they talk about Christ consciousness:

It's efficient to have a description as abstract as possible, but not too abstract because then it becomes meaningless. I think the text categories will work since even mathematical notion can be considered text. So the text categories include the other categories. For example an object can be a set and with all the complicated notions they have around that, or the elements in the set can be objects in the category, so it's very flexible. Also, Stephen Wolfram has found what he calls computational irreducibility which means that many processes, even simple ones, can't be calculated beforehand and must be run step by step in order to find out what the result will be. Wolfram told a story about how he discovered a simple rule which he calls Rule 30 and in the 80s I think it was he had printed out a large sequence of Rule 30 showing very complicated patterns. Richard Feynman saw the printout and asked Stephen how he found that rule. Stephen told Feynman that he just listed all possible simple rules and found Rule 30 and Feynman was relieved because he first thought Stephen had some special math skill Feynman (who was a master at calculating things) was unaware of, haha. And with the text categories it's possible to build all kinds of complicated categories and then use computers to see what happens instead of predicting the result analytically. Although traditional analytical and logical approaches can be used too. But are the text categories any different than the already existing definition of category theory? I don't know yet, but it makes it easier for me to work with. I'm exploring possibilities and logging some of that in this journal.

What happens when using text that describes something that is not a category? Then axiom 1 doesn't apply since it's only valid for categories. An example of a text description that is NOT a category is three numbers X, Y and Z with "divided by" arrows between them. It fails to define a category because X divided by Y divided by Z is not associative. For example (3 / 6) / 2 = 0,25 which is different than 3 / (6 / 2) = 1. If instead of division we use multiplication, then the text defines a category. (3 * 6) * 2 = 36 which is the same as 3 * (6 * 2) = 36.

I have an idea of a very general use of category theory using axioms. An axiom is a statement taken for granted without having to be proved. Axiom 1: All categories, objects and arrows can be defined with text. Axiom 2: For any and all objects, their identities can be defined with text. Axiom 3: For all two arrows f from A to B and g from B to C, there is an arrow h from A to C that can be defined with text. Axiom 4: Associativity for all objects and arrows can be defined with text. An example of axiom 1 and 2 is a category with four objects where A is an atom, B is a molecule, C is a cell and D is a flower. Between the objects are arrows indicating "part of" relationship: A is a part of B is a part of C which is a part of D. An example of axiom 3 is an arrow between B and D which is that the molecule is a part of the flower. Axiom 4 in the example is that going from the atom to the molecule and then to the flower is the same as going from the atom to cell to the flower.

Now I'm getting even more confused than with the reversed arrows they used in their definition. As can be seen in my previous post, the people and the breakfast beverages are put into circles in the example. I tried to learn more about category theory, but what I found frustrating is that they all do this kind of encapsulation! For example, instead on directly making Donald Trump an object, they make an object that is "type President" and then they do all kinds of stunts in order to try to fit actual U.S. Presidents into the category. Maybe I have missed something but it seems way easier to just directly make say Barack Obama an object instead of messing with types. It feels a bit like how the first cars manufactured looked like horse wagons, without the horse! They try to cram the old set and type theories into category theory and it just becomes a big mess. Well, that's my amateur guess at the moment.

An example of love arrows is where person A loves person B and person B loves Donald Trump. Then it follows according to category theory - if all arrows mean "love" - that person A also loves Trump. But what if person A hates Trump and loves Hillary Clinton instead? Interestingly, arrows (morphisms) can be more nuanced. Here I found a powerful usage of a category: From: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/presentations/cat101.pdf So in my example, the connection between person A and Trump is: "The President that the person I love (B) loves." So person A can hate Trump and the category still works.

What happens when category theory is used for nonduality? Then it becomes even simpler! ACIM talks about fear and love. And Bruce Lipton said that fear causes cells to wall themselves off from their environment and going into a state of protection. So more generally fear can be seen as a disconnect, meaning only love is needed in the category and represented by arrows and fear is the absence of arrows. So only love exists in the category which is a nondual perspective. Society is represented as a category with people and material and immaterial things as objects in the category with arrows between them. It will be interesting to examine what happens to love and fear as arrows are added or removed from the category. In classical mythology, the god Cupid represents love and of course, he shoots arrows.

I forgot one requirement for a category which is that the arrows must be associative: At first it looked puzzling to me, but then I realized that they have put the arrows in reverse order for some reason. What associativity for arrows means is simply that going from A to C to D is the same as going from A to B to D. For holons this means that "A is a part of C which is a part of D" is the same as "A is a part of B which is a part of D".

In category theory, there can be several arrows going to and from an object. So there can be several types of arrows. Holons are formed by objects connected with "part of" arrows. That's different than for example "ancestor of" arrows. This means that holons can be precisely defined: Definition: A part-arrow is a morphism indicating "part of" relationship. Definition: A holon is an object with at least one part-arrow going from it. The standard definition of holon is: That's the same as my definition! Because object in category theory is an abstraction of a whole entity, and the part arrow makes the object simultaneously a part. The purpose and advantage of my definition is that it can be used directly in category theory.

ACIM says, to have, give all to all. The ego says, to have, grab all from all. We can look at money with category theory. Society is an object and the people in society are objects connected to society with arrows. The actual flow to and from the people and in and out of society is always balanced! So there is no actual tension in the flow of money. The money tension is caused by the ego trying to pull money towards itself. And ACIM's message about giving all to all is simply to recognize that there already is a balance in society. It's about dropping the struggle with money and abandoning the strife with all other possessions, including the efforts with all special relationships.

When using category theory the way I have done, what happens when a loved one turns into hated one? Or even into an enemy? Then the lack of arrow which represents a special relationship still remains. The difference is that the complexity becomes lower with the enemy type of relationship. This is a consequence of the more plentiful interactions with a loved one than with an enemy. With holy relationships, the special relationships are replaced. This means that the complexity value that the special relationships added is removed when they are replaced. So what happens to the overall complexity? The answer is that a holy relationship adds arrows to all other people in the holy relationship, and that adds much more complexity than is lost due to the removal of special relationships.

Ken Wilber has described what he calls dominator hierarchies. I found this from a blog: When using category theory, a dominator hierarchy has all the arrows pointing up in the power pyramid. In an actualization hierarchy there are also lots of arrows between people on the same level and even to lower levels. This means that dominator hierarchies have less complexity than actualization hierarchies. The dominator hierarchies have a simple structure where the arrows can be counted directly. In actualization hierarchies the situation is more complicated, similar to the friendship relationships in my previous post. How to count absence of arrows? My solution is to give a negative value to the initial arrows and adding a constant so that the value starts with zero. And then when arrows are removed the count goes up in the same way as for the basic use of arrows. I think what Ken Wilber calls growth hierarchies in this video are the same as actualization hierarchies in the blog post:

Ouch. When using category theory for things in A Course in Miracles it gets a bit tricky. When category theory is used for social relationships, then it would produce the wrong result if we say that if person A is friend with person B and person B is friend with person C, then A is friend with person C. That's not always the case. I found this paper which says the same thing: In the paper they solve the social friendship relationships by adding new types of connections (morphisms). I want to use category theory for things like ego relationships (called special relationships in ACIM) and the holy relationship, but I want to use the simple basic form of arrows. One idea I came up with is to start with having arrows between all people! And then friendship is a result of removing arrows. For example, if person A is friend with person B then if person B is friend with person C, it does not mean that person A is friend with person C. Those are special relationships. For holy relationships, then adding arrows can be used since everybody within the holy relationship is connected.

Can I use simple undirected graphs instead of category theory to describe complexity? Not if I want to describe holons, and I have defined complexity as information structured as holons. The arrows are needed to indicate the "part of" relationship. For example for a molecule, an atom is a part of the molecule, but the molecule is not a part of the atom. So there is a directional (arrow) relationship needed. And also, if the molecule is a part of say a cell, then there is an arrow from the atom to the molecule and another arrow from the molecule to the cell. And with category theory this means that there is an arrow from the atom to the cell, which is precisely the holon "part of" relationship, in this case the atom is a part of the cell as well as a part of the molecule.

Another neat result when using category theory for complexity is that it can explain the difference between simple forms of order and complex order. The atoms in a crystal for example are ordered into a simple pattern. The crystal has zero entropy but also low complexity from that perspective. Because even though the objects in the category representing the crystal all have arrows connected to them those are relatively few arrows compared to a more complex object. An iPhone is a much more complex object than a crystal from the perspective of looking at atoms as separate objects. Because in the iPhone the atoms are related to each other in much more complicated ways, meaning many more arrows needed to represent the iPhone than for the crystal. A simple metric is to simply count the number of arrows in the category. The higher the number of arrows, the larger the complexity.

It's even possible to easily model entropy with category theory! Take for example a box filled with gas. The molecules in the gas can be represented as objects in a category. When there are no arrows connected to the molecules, then that's maximum entropy. No connected arrows represents the molecules moving randomly at maximum temperature. The lower the temperature the more arrows are connected to the molecules. And take a situation where the gas in the box on one side has low temperature and on the other side high temperature, then the molecules on each side all have arrows connecting each other making the overall entropy lower.

What I found surprising is that the foundation of category theory is super simple. A category is just a bunch of objects connected with arrows and with only two rules: 1) if an arrow goes from A to B and another arrow from B to C, then there is an arrow from A to C, and 2) every object has an arrow to itself to indicate identity. From that simple foundation, category theory can quickly become incredibly complicated, but I will examine if it's possible to use just the basic foundation to describe complexity. I mentioned earlier an example of how a single oxygen atom can be seen as something simple (low complexity) or as very complex depending on perspective. Categories seem to reflect that. Higher complexity is achieved by having lots of arrows going to and from the atom as a single object, and lower complexity is achieved by categories with few arrows connected to the atom.

Using math to describe complexity requires ways of describing perspectives. And a perspective is a form of context. And there is a type of math called category theory that deals with context rather than content. Category theory can seem like advanced math, but Eugenia Cheng said that she teaches category theory to art students! She bypassed all the complicated math and went straight to category theory, she said.

Rupert Sheldrake suggested that the laws of nature are habits instead of fixed rules. I now came to think of how the laws of nature can be a second order phenomenon! Meaning, that there is a first order reality as a foundation that can take the form of the laws of nature we experience, but that can potentially also take other forms, even intelligent expressions. Third density in the Law of One is then a limited expression of the physical foundation. And fourth density is physical reality with less limitation. And fifth density physical reality with even less limitation and more potential and so on. Here is the scene from the movie Moana again showing physical reality with less limitations and (more complexity, higher density and intelligence) than our usual third density (fallen) world:

When the ego as an ice cube melts into the ocean of oneness, what happens to the individual self? Here I think Ken Wilber's integral approach of transcend and include is useful. The ego needs to dissolve in order for the new stage to emerge. At the same time the ego needs to be included. So the picture I got is that the ice cube first dissolves into the ocean and out of the ocean then a new self emerges which is both individual and collective. Jesus Christ said something like: deny thyself, which sounds similar to the idea of the ego as an ice cube needing to dissolve. Even Jesus himself was sacrificed and died as a person with a body of flesh and blood and then ascended into heaven which is similar to the ego ice cube dissolving into the ocean, and then Jesus returned in a new resurrection body out of the ocean/heaven. And the reason then for why ACIM lacks the integral perspective is that it focuses on the first part where the ego as an ice cube dissolves into the ocean. The Law of One is more of an integral continuation of ACIM and includes things like social memory complexes which means collective consciousnesses. So it's useful to complement ACIM with other teachings to get a more complete picture.

But Q wrote "People gave up control." How does that fit with the idea of surrendering control? I does fit! How? First we must look at what ego control is. Shunyamurti said that the ego is a mind parasite. And Eckhart Tolle said that we have become possessed by our minds. It's society as a collective ego that has programmed our personal egos. So what we think of as personal control is actually to be a slave to society as a collective ego. We are slaves to money, to authorities to fashion, to beliefs etc. We are slaves to managing risk that constantly is being outsourced from the collective ego to the people. We are slaves to upholding the whole power pyramid of egoic control. Therefore surrendering the ego means becoming free of the slavery to society and its collective egos.

If life is increasing complexity then how to manage that? By surrendering the ego! Because the ego is the struggle against complexity which causes tensions as a result of the experience of being a separate ice cube. The ego mistakes the complexity for disorder and deterioration (entropy). Evolution is the increase of complexity. The ego has become an obstacle to evolution instead of a vehicle for evolution as it was in the past. And surrendering of the ego is a recognition of mistaken view of complexity. We can also look at it very practically and examine what will happen as society becomes more complex and with more and more people are interacting with each other. What will happen if everybody remains in ego consciousness? The answer is that if everybody tries to control the future according to his or her own separate experience there will be more and more clashes with the wants of other people in ego consciousness! It may seem that QAnon is ego consciousness and about conflict, but WWG1WGA means Where We Go One, We Go All and that's for all of humanity. One of the latest Q posts reflects this:

If control is an illusion, then why is our whole world still based on the belief in separate control? My answer is that the ego is a necessary development to form individuality and second-order creativity. It's the necessary fall of humanity and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Without ego development humanity would still be in a state of undifferentiated oneness in the garden of Eden. God knew that humanity would leave the garden of Eden in order to grow and develop into today's civilization. The sense of separation from God has produced uniqueness and creativity. But now we have reached the limit of the caterpillar stage and need to return to the tree of life, not as undifferentiated oneness but as unique individuals integrating back into oneness. One thing that ACIM lacks is the integral perspective of the ego (at least I haven't found that yet in ACIM). Roger Castillo said that in the future children will be taught about personal doership. Today not even the adults know about the role of doership, he said. I think that first the illusion of separate control needs to be recognized. Anna has this new video about how control is an illusion:

Staying away from the internet just made my energy even more blocked. I will try an integral approach instead and use the internet mindfully. There is even such thing as internet addiction! So the integral approach includes how much access there is to the internet.

The internet is useful for finding out how society works but most of the information on the internet is ego consciousness. Shunyamurti said that the ego is a mind parasite. This means that the internet is a part of that mind parasite! The ego has been a necessary development throughout history but Shunyamurti may be correct that the ego has now served its role and needs to be removed. I will detach myself from the internet for a while to see what happens to my energy.