ZERO AND ONE:
All geometric significations of spin-orbit-rolls are quantifiably borrowed and balanced to zero: 0.
The immeasurable agency by which such balancing is constantly, continuously, coherently, coordinately, conservationally copied, iterated, fluxed, represented, and qualitatively signified is of a reconciling singularity: 1.
All of fluxing, measurable unfoldment of Reality is potenalized, manifested, adopted, represented, and signified in respect of nothing more than an infinite, perpetual, iterative combining of such 0 and 1.
MEMBER OF CLASS OF ONE:
One may consider an idea that no thing is existent, real, valid, or worthwhile unless a signifier can be attached, with which the existent-thing can be coordinately and linearly converged, mapped, and measured. To accept such as true would be to engage an ontology that assumes a person or identifiable perspective cannot meaningfully entertain or rationalize any idea, quality, aspect, or “thing” unless it can be reduced to measure. To accept such an idea as true is to pretend to prove it by assuming it. To accept such as true is to neglect that every expression of measuring math, like every other symbol, word, and measurable signification, conveys more than a Presently measurable and QUANTIFIABLE meaning. Rather, each such expression of math, measure, and representation also conveys another meaning, i.e., an implication of a potently contextual and eternally transitional QUALITY of Potential.
Conceptualize a System that Conserves its Essence by Obeying Looping Equations:
Let S = Signifier.
Let [s] = Signified.
Let S[s] = function of qualitative signifier expressing quantitative significations.
Suppose S1[s1] dominates S2[s2], which dominates S3[s3], which dominates S1[s1].
Suppose S1[s1] series dominates S2[s2] series, which dominates S3[s3] series, which dominates S1[s1] series.
To loop in order to avoid infinite regression (for 1 in practice to dominate 2, to dominate 3, to dominate 1), there would need to be:
- Either innate, practical, discrete separation in the dominance feedback sequence;
- And/or such a balance as would always reconcile equations, so that none of 1,2, and 3 could detect merging fluxation or phase shifting in the loop, apart from perpetually re-normalizing, re-balancing, and rationalizing it.
May the holism of S, unknown to its avatars [s], by how S1 qualitatively signifies [s1], therewith focus to dominate and know what is measurably being done to control S2[s2], and so on?
In series, may each of an S series, unknown to its avatars of [s] series, by how S1 series qualitatively signify [s1] series, therewith focus to dominate and know what is measurably being done to control S2[s2] series, and so on?
May it reasonably be rationalized that OUR universe of S1[s1] itself is part of a looped system, which is a member of a Qualitative Class of One?
Is Whatever may limit the regressive potentiality of an infinity of perspectives, to us, immeasurably qualitative and emotively intuitive, as opposed to quantitatively reducible or measurable? May S1 (our God?) reasonably be rationalized as qualitatively “feeling” itself free (or contemporaneously determinative) as far back as it can sequentially rationalize and balance its infinities — even though it, itself, may be determined by S3? May the S of S1,S2, and S3 by reasonably rationalized as the immeasurably qualitative member of a class of one? May S, as the Common-most Quality, presently and perpetually abide as an immeasurable class of one, which has capacity to entertain perspectives that identify with all manner of formulize-able, potential classes of measurable significations (i.e., “[s]” series)?.
OF MORAL GUIDANCE: The only moral thing we “know” from intuitive experience regarding “The Singular Quality” is that IT facilitates expression of, and identification with, conservations of empathetically meaningful purposefulness. IT’s moral guidance seems to reduce to: Be empathetic!
So, how may/should sustainable civilization go about governing itself in order to facilitate contemporaneous determinations of decently meaningful empathy? Generally, with good faith and good will. Such depends on one’s point of view, frame of reference, attachments of purposeful interests, and empathetic regard for all parts thereof. For more specific guidance, it may help to refer to culture, tradition, technology, and individual capacities. For practical, functional guidance, one may learn to consider and predict how dominant signs and significations will unfold, and then be amenable of being made useful to one’s purposes. Thus, one needs general moral guidance about “the Why,” combined with practical instruction about “the How."