The language of involvement
The work of Cees van Schooneveld.
Cees van Schooneveld is a Slavic linguist who lived between 1919 and 2003.
He studied the properties of this Slavic languages, specifically in the way they pertain to the way we formulate or define our relationship with and within a context.
His work is based on the function of prepositions and prepositions in the language structure which are identifier of our relationship with in our context.
They are the linguistic equivalent of the function of our arms and legs, and hands and feet in specifying how and what we think, and corresponds with what we do
The work of Cees van Schooneveld makes explicit that (in his analysis) there is a 4x4x4x4 grid, which is a 4D cube or Tesseract in which we can specify the relationship between ourselves and our environment in three dimensions say in XYZ-direction, which would also be the forward-backward, left-right, top-bottom relationships, specifying the shape of a cube - but that we also have the capacity to invert those relationships by changing our involvement which means that we must be able to have a description for the inverse of that cube as a whole.
That is where the three-dimensional cube will by definition have to be given an added dimension (of the zero point transition) which will make it into a 4D cube.
The importance of this description is that this is a framework for
1) the analysis of the language that we use, and of
2) the way we relate to one another, and of
3) how we relate to our environment, but it also shows that it is
4) a model of the way language functions as a specifier for our relationship to our environment in general and it is this concept that we must apply to the use of mathematics in physics and in science.
Mathematicians and physicists tend to ignore their own involvement in their 'scientific' observation.
Classical science specifically explicitly stated that the scientist was an outsider Observer and thus is not to be considered in the equations.
In fact, this exclusion of the Observer was a consequence of an edict by the Roman church, which at the onset of science wished to maintain a monopoly on social relationship, and thereby forbade scientists to study consciousness and the functioning of mind, confidence and spirit.
As a result scientists were sent into a 'dead-end street' (the study of dead matter) where they came to look at the universe as a whole as if it was a construct of inanimate matter; dead matter.
The consequences thereof we can see in the way science has created enormous damages on the planet, specifically by considering everything to be material and by considering themselves to be outside of the equations scientists made themselves unable to respond, and thereby irresponsible.
This is also the reason why the mathematics of involvement is needed: to resolve the irresponsibility of the scientist, in nature and in culture, and to thereby also be able to create a science of involvement, which is one of the cornerstones of the science of life, which is essential to be able to give a foundation for the science of healing.
The work of Cees van Schooneveld helps to do this, because it makes explicit that we can describe our involvement and that in fact will have the characteristics of a four dimensional cube, which is a cube turning inside out on itself.
What is needed, is that the description which he gives for this Tesseract organisational structure of language , is applied in the mathematical formulations as used in physics.
That means that the scientist must describe his or her own involvement in the scientific observation and thereby ofcourse also specifies the relation between one scientific Observer and the other, which is also one of the main tools and techniques to eliminate seeming conflict in observation.
If scientists do not perceive the same outcome it is because they are not looking in the same manner. Their INVOLVEMENT is different.
As soon as they do specify in which manner they do their scientific observation, then immediately they can see how their involvement differs and how the differences in their observations can be explained; and in fact complement each other.
Evidently this is also very much needed in the political environment, where people likewise always ‘forget’ to formulate their own specific involvement in the situation at hand, and as a result seem to antagonise each other, while again most often they simply are providing complimentary views on the same event.
Once this is made explicit, then political situations can be resolved.
The same tool/technique of the description of individual involvement is also basis for a model of description for healing, and in doing so it will be able to make explicit what kind of error involvement or their basis and cause of various diseases.
The work of Cees van Schooneveld is a clear indication that it is possible to describe our involvement, in a mathematical geometric metric.
This finding can de directly applied to mathematics and science itself.
It requires that the relationship between the observer and the observed is specified within this metric.
Thereby seemingly unrelated findings can then be understood in the manner they complement each other.