I am new on this forum, so I hope I am not intruding, but I am interested. I read 2 of your messages about your 'holistic mathematics' and I find the analogy with consciousness rather elegant and attractive but a little obsure at times. I am not sure I follow the train of thought that leads to your analogies. I would like to know more, though. My point in this message is to try to understand what you have in mind, because if your model stands and can accurately describe Ken Wilber's spectrum, it could solve the problems of terminology for the various states of consciousness development (something I still have trouble with). Each level or sub-level would have an exact description, which would make its characteristics a lot clearer. This, I imagine, would also be useful in cataloguing dysfunctions, their characteristics, and could highlight the various methods that could be useful in each case. [psychological disorders]. This model could also possibly be applied to many non-exact disciplines or domains of human activity, and thus help us discover new solutions to our problems. If your model could actually be developped to the point of a scientifically acceptable description of the whole spectrum, that would be a big step towards creating the consensus we need about 'Gaia's problems' (re. KW's recent posted message).  With a mathematical description of inner reality, few would contest the existence of the problem.

I trust that my questions will be useful to everyone, to clarify your ideas.

Application of the model: Beyond your description of basic number forms, how far have you developed your model?
 

Have you worked out calculations that can be interpreted with meaning?
 

How do you apply your mathematics? To what?
 

Do you use it in your economist profession? How?
 

How, in practice, do you 'express the fundamental structure of each level of 'understanding' mathematically, in more detail than your summary of forms of numbers?
 

How do you 'translate indirectly the holistic aspect of integral mathematics' which is 'directly intuitive' in 'precise mathematical terms'?
 

Do you work out formulas and interpret them?
 

Have you yet tried to translate or fully map Ken Wilber's spectrum of consciousness in your mathematical terms? What does it look like?
 

What do you make of more sophisticated mathematical functions? Basically, how do you apply the model?
 

Point of detail: In your model, what do you make of the entity 'holon'? How is it represented?
 

Point of detail: In your 'point level' (4-directional), why do you equate 'real' with 'conscious' and 'imaginary' with 'unconscious'? Ex: the fear of an event can be quite conscious, yet 'imaginary' (seen in imagination but actually rather unlikely). Many unconscious fears are quite real to us... I am not sure either to follow your thought in comparing real/imaginary numbers with individual/collective. Is there a symbolic meaning, here, or is it an arbitrary convention of representation?
 

Is the following summary of your analogies accurate? Can you expand? - Circular system - 2-directional Horizontal axis: Positive/Negative --- exterior (objective) / interior (subjective) ( Is there a reference to good/bad, to irrationality being seen as a negative trait?) - Point system - 4-directional complex plane - Horizontal + Vertical axes: Real/Imaginary --- individual / collective (what is the logic, here?) - Radial system - Diagonals - 8-directional: Finite/Transfinite -- natural/spiritual ...What does that mean? phenomenal or sensitive world as opposed to Spirit/Mind?

Diagonals: Diagonals: in geometric terms, where do you place them on a spatial diagram? In making your analogy to Ken Wilbers 'four corners of the Kosmos', you seem to be dropping the diagonal, third level of your analysis. Why? Is it impossible to interpret what it would mean? Is Ken Wilber missing one more level in his model? It seems to me that Linear, Circular and Point levels are relevant to numbering systems (arithmetic,algebra, complex numbers), whereas the Radial level is simply the result of the Point level system of maths. It seems to me that your level Circular would already bring on intuition, direct knowing, spirit... Can you expand or explain? Your paragraph on 'diagonal or null lines' and the nature of light: needs some more explanation. I have forgotten my maths and physics too much to get this.
 

You refer to Ken Wilber's theory of holons...why not call this 'holarchic' mathematics, to avoid the controversy about the word 'holistic', as put forward by Ken Wilber?... That is if the model stands full scrutiny. Have you tried to formulate mathematically the meaning of Ken Wilber's tenets?

Cheers. Stella.