# Guanxi, miànzi, and Garlic Number Theory aka Guanxi Ontology

### Forums:

Infinite /Finite correlates to one and the many. Difference correlates to Existence, and Identity correlates to Life. In that Difference anchors Identity, and Identity is not a necessary attribute of Difference, logical relations anchor mathematical relations in much the same way. But this is not to say that it is possible to talk about Difference (Existence) without inherent reference to Identity (Life) or logic without inherent reference to mathematics. The two aspects of any given moment (of a 'whatness') are inseparable and yet separate. Garlic argues that this Difference / Identity relation is what Aristotle meant by A=A, and also that this is the nature of the field where and when quantum mechanics exists as a "whatness" (or presentation), if only as an illusion…but 'where' and 'when' (the thereness) does the 'whatness' of quantum mechanics live? Perhaps this is the flummoxing problem that seems to overshadow Quantum physics. Garlic is not flummoxed because Garlic 'is' an answer.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Garlic defines numbers as “vehicles of deliverance into the now” or “nowing vehicles of delivery,” a definition that falls in line with Pythagoras’ definition of numbers.(1)

Garlic chose to use the terms “guanxi” (关系) and “face” (面子, miànzi/mien-tzu) because their meanings tend to embody Difference / Identity and any and all the duality of thereness, in the absolute sense of wholeness, in the living experience thereof and therein. Difference, like guanxi, defines itself in relationships, which is “living experiencing”, as presentation (or appearance or miànzi), and both aspects (Infinite /Finite) of such thereness of presentation are bound in illusions defined by the strong/weak states of Difference / Identity to Difference / Identity (or guanxi / miànzi to guanxi / miànzi) —as it is in the duality of Difference / Identity of thereness itself.(2)

In Garlic numbers or Guanxi Ontology, the Difference / Identity relationship is still acknowledged in numbers but with the existential center of numbers, Difference, still being recognized as the “anchoring center” (see footnote for Pythagoras’ definition of numbers). We, in our current states of Individuality, believe numerical therenesses (or essences) to be defined in their Identities without Difference—and, thus, as “objects” without an anchoring center. For example, “5” has a value that correlates to the sum of “3” and “2: For “5”, as it is for “2” and “3”, embodies an absolute “-stance” that, because we no longer are even capable of recognizing its Difference “sub-stance” (or anchoring center or essence), the Identity holds and defines absolute value...but it’s a value, to quote Nietzsche, “that has no place of shine.” It is a value that now searches or moves along the linear line—-a “life” without an anchoring center—-toward absolution: The actual “nowing”, living moment of the number, as it is of the essential, is always categorically absent.(3) (If I recall correctly it was Bertrand Russel who would later apply a “zero” bracket to the “Identity”, thus enabling numbers to continue on, existence-free, without an anchoring center or Difference,and, consequently, to no longer be the “Pythagorean seedling monad” to all that is and could ever be.) But “5” (or “3” or “2” for that matter) has a substance or a Difference existence that doesn’t necessarily correspond to its “Identity” value of “5”: Every number is, as a natural, primary essence, an original “seedling monad” and is, therefore, indistinguishable from all other numbers. The “Difference” essence (monad) is primary to the Identity: Numbers, in Guanxi Ontology, are not “objects” but vehicles of deliverance, and, thus, their presentation (appearance or miànzi) never deny their anchoring Difference dynamic. To do so, to live without an origin or anchoring center, only leads living into an abyss.

Numbers have lost their anchoring center with the rise of Cartesian/post-Cartesian algebra. The word algebra, correspondingly, comes from, as I recently refreshed my memory of its definition at the website Multi Sense Realism (4), the Arabic “al-jebr”, and means “reunion of broken parts.” Seeing that algebra, in the era of Descartes, was lineated through, as Garlic argues, the collapse of Difference into the Identity as presented in “symbolic representation” or an “objective state”—-as a direct result or reflection of the idea of “self” as found in “one’s” to ability to doubt, i.e. cogito ergo sum—“algebra” has thus been reinvented, in a historical dialogue, to mean “the destruction of the broken parts”: “One’s mind is no longer delivered by numbers, but now numbers are synthesized by one’s mind….one, as in an Identity sans Difference. Mind/Body dualism.

Garlic numbers like any and all other “things”, when revealed in their dual natures of Identity / Difference, have the possibility of having a Difference that can be strong (nearing the Infinite “power” of presence or miànzi) with a strong, harmoniously nearing the infinite power of presence (miànzi) or a weak, nearing the finite dyadic fragility of miànzi (see “dyad” below) presence (miànzi)—-or somewhere there in between—-or they can have weak Difference with either a strong (there again nearing the infinite power of presence or miànzi) or a weak (nearing the finite dyadic fragility of) presence (miànzi)-—or somewhere there in between. Garlic numbers always recognize the Difference (Infinite / Finite) as the grounding vehicles of deliverance to the Identity. “5”, for example, in its “5” deliverance remains truer to deliverance when all Difference is “present”; thus, “5’s” Difference value is “strong” and can support an “Identity” with “living dynamic” or “living deliverance”.

Footnotes

(1) “Believing that nothing exists without a center (everything exists with a center), mathematical philosophers started with a point and drew a circle around it. This symbol is called the monad and represents the number one. This figure is the most stable, and the mathematical philosophers also called it The First, The Essence, The Foundation, and Unity. Pythagoras believed the monad to be god and the good. The monad is origin of the One. The monad is the seed of a tree for which the numbers are to the monad as what the branches of a tree are to the seed of a tree. The monad in relation to other numbers preserves the identity of every other number or anything it encounters. Any number multiplied by one is itself, and any number divided by one is itself.” (Pythagoras and the Mystery of Numbers, http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa06/Hobgood/Pythagoras.html)

(2) “The Pytahgoreans believed that nothing exists without a venter around which it revolves. The center is the source and it is beyond understanding, it is unknowable, but like a seed, the center will expand and will fulfill itself as a circle.” (Pythagoras and the Mystery of Numbers,) In regards to the duality of Difference / Identity thereness itself (numbers), their “bound in illusions” existence is a play in the balancing act, as it is Life living, between center and circumference. http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa06/Hobgood/Pythagoras.html)

(3) "The dyad involves the principles of 'twoness' or 'otherness'. Greek philosophers referred to the dyad as “audacity” because of the boldness of separation from the one, and 'anguish' because there is still a sense of tension of a desire to return to oneness. They believed that the dyad divides and unites, repels and attracts, separates and returns. 'Pythagoras held that one of the first principles, the monad, is god and the good, which is the origin of the One, and is itself intelligence; but the undefined dyad is a deity and the evil, surrounding which is the mass of matter' (Aet. 1. 7; Dox. 302). The dyad is the door between the One and the Many. Recall the symbolic figure of the vesica piscis. The vesica piscis is a passageway to the journey of spiritual self discovery. The notion of fertility is associated with its vulva shape, and is thus related to the passage of birth.” (Pythagoras and the Mystery of Numbers, http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa06/Hobgood/Pythagoras.html)

Unfortunately in our Zeitgeist, the “oneness” has become a “unique yet universal machine of self-discovery through shopping.” As for numbers, “dyad” now defines numbers in that their “Identities” now seed themselves in nothingness instead of a “center”… everything exist without a center or nothingness has become God.

(4) (http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/a-new-theory-of-information/multisen...)