> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009 1:28 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] addressed to mr. lofting
>
> chris,
>
> if in fact you are not simply a computer-generated plant from
> the fascist fringe,

LOL! ;-)

> would you be so good as to advise me on
> how to manage my paranoia?  i keep thinking that people dont
> trust me because im black.

;-) These days it is more applicable to those of 'middle eastern appearance'
so you have moved up the scale of trust! Where you born in the UK or did you
migrate to the UK?

> considering i have been deceived
> all my life by my own skin, it leaves me most confused.

Yes it would. In a social, symmetry-focused collective the emphasis is on
SAMENESS and with that comes stereotyping etc. The emergence of
consciousness has introduced DIFFERENCE where it is not the physiological
that is an issue. That said, cooperation of LIKE-MINDEDNESS can transcend
racial issues but still maintain a symmetry focus in that sameness - as such
there is somatic racism as there is psychic racism. (e.g. my prose can
elicit comments along the line of 'you are not one of us!' and the passion
of that can be mapped to an equivalent form of 'racism' where the 'true'
race is 'pure existentialist' etc etc!)

> what
> is your opinion on the entitlement of subliminally
> trans-racial types to mainstream education?

I focus more on mind/brain and as such how one uses what is in-between our
ears. Education is required for (a) socialisation but also (b)
understanding. The former symmetric (lots of copying etc) the latter
asymmetric (ultimate supposed to be in a unique expression, a 'difference
that makes a difference'). Yes there ARE intellectual differences, often
tied to metabolic differences, some are 'faster' than others, some are
qualitatively more 'aware' than others but in a social hierarchy these
specialist traits bring out professions etc 'suitable' for those
differences; we all can contribute or we can go off on our own (although
still dependent on the collective for survival etc). The issues with
metabolic rates etc bring out education requiring some suitable time-span;
we can all, in principle, gets PhDs but it could take decades rather than
the set two to four years and the issue then, from a social perspective, is
'bang for buck'.

The physiological dynamics of use of recursion of dichotomies to acquire
information introduces the dynamic of mindless rote learning (the copy
focus) shifting to an emerging rich associative memory system grounded in
constructive/destructive interference patterns (and with THAT comes an
emerging teleological element in the development of
consciousness-as-language and so identification of 'purpose' etc -
establishment of a sense of direction so essential for a symmetric form to
maintain development through a cycle of re-configurations to 'fit in' to
context changes)

One of the advantages of the 'net is that these sorts of list interactions
are based solely on brain power - I do not 'see' you and so avoid/minimise
any subliminal factors that may bias assessments due to cultural background
(WASP). That said, my background covered living a vast number of different
countries in the first 21 years of my life and that included 12 years in
Asian countries (Hong Kong, Thailand, Japan, Singapore) before coming to
Australia in 1970. I thus 'escaped' the UK 11+ categorisation process in the
50s (although implicit in later abilities etc suggested a channelling into
grammar school over secondary-modern and so a path to university over
polytechnic) and had a diverse education (home schooling in Japan, UK style
grammar in HK, US style high school in Thailand, private boarding school in
the UK, LCC school in UK etc etc) mixing theory with practice, intellect
with being 'street wise' and often in countries where I was in a minority -
elitist in some (HK), considered 'inferior', and so 'tolerated', in others
(Japan) and 'one of the guys' in others (Thailand).

The diversity in experiences and the exposure to different theories etc has
led to the IDM material that covers developing an understanding of core
information processing dynamics at the general level PRIOR to our
development of specialist perspectives. As such it is open to all and is
free of local context sensitivities since it covers the basics of all
neuron-dependent life forms - what local adaptations favoured development of
white or black or brown or yellow etc etc skins is meaningless in the
context of brain dynamics; it is the issues of symmetrisation that leads to
'issues' in that early education of sameness can elicit a natural negative
reaction to differences ('stranger danger', ghetto development etc).

Current education systems do not touch on the basics of mind/brain over
'look' and as such we still promote an 'ape' perspective in our
socialisations - how people look, smell, taste, sound etc dominates
assessments when the fact it these are superseded by consciousness (if
allowed).

The dependence on early exposure to context in the development of a sense of
SELF DOES introduce basic symmetry-related issues upon personality
development where lack of focus on the mental can favour internalisation of
stereotyping, applicable to self or to others. Education can get around
these sorts of issues - as can travel! - but it requires some daring changes
in methodologies to 'transcend' our species nature and move into a focus on
consciousness. IDM aids in such in that it shows what is SAME for ALL of the
species and as such grounds us in a sense of 'one' form (general) to many
expressions (particulars) whereas the more common perspective moves
particular to general (one 'bad apple' is generalised to all etc)

As for issues with paranoia - go local. Talk. Communicate to bring out your
uniqueness and so reduce any generalisations to specifics that can be easily
addressed. Use humour. As a conscious being you are unique - there is no
'racism' since there is no 'race'! The problem with symmetric thinking, and
it dominates society, is the stereotyping so there is a requirement when not
with those of 'like-mind' to put in more energy in clearly establishing your
uniqueness and so potential contribution to any social dynamic; establishing
rapport, even an agreement to disagree, is a step towards increase in
respect/trust.

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

Great! Let's make this the thread and see where it goes. I am open to
suggestions. Tell me. What did you think about the whole bit about the
look? You remember? Being caught peeking through a keyhole by the
other?

Does this experience of "being shamed" really contain all of the
dynamics that Sartre claims it contains? The alienation of my
possibilities? The upsurgence of the freeom of the other over me? And
the recognition of the reciprocity of that alienation/upsurgence and
the freedom/non-freedom that it brings to light?

When you get "caught in the act" does it or does it not "bring up" your
freedom in this peculiar negative way? Or, is Sartre simply inflating a
common psychological event into something ontological or existential?
Why does Sartre, and, for that matter, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard, and
even Hegel, latch onto the negative mood to reveal these
ontological/existential insights? What about positive moods? Can't
those be just as revealing? If so, which ones? How? And how do we show
this is all truly ontological/exixtential and not just "hopped up"
psychology? Why moods? What is so special about them? What does the
mood reveal that simple thinking or reasoning does not reveal? Is it
the immediacy? The fact that it is in a sense pre-reflective?

Hb3g

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
wrote:
>
> I  agree that Sartre is  much  better than Heidegger , he  is
actually
> fun to read. Also he does not give me  a headache and occasionally
> makes me smile. Then again Camus is a great storyteller and his prose
> flows . I  will continue to follow your perusal of JPS . Thanks,Bill
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
> Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009 3:46 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Hermann and Sartre
>
> Great! Let's make this the thread and see where it goes. I am
> open to suggestions. Tell me. What did you think about the
> whole bit about the look? You remember? Being caught peeking
> through a keyhole by the other?
>
> Does this experience of "being shamed" really contain all of
> the dynamics that Sartre claims it contains? The alienation
> of my possibilities?

Top-down perspectives reduce the degrees of freedom available and so cut
down possibilities that an individual has. Social forms are symmetric forms
and contain a core regulatory element that works top-down through use of
emotions as the 'universal language' of our primate natures.

> The upsurgence of the freeom of the
> other over me? And the recognition of the reciprocity of that
> alienation/upsurgence and the freedom/non-freedom that it
> brings to light?
>
> When you get "caught in the act" does it or does it not
> "bring up" your freedom in this peculiar negative way? Or, is
> Sartre simply inflating a common psychological event into
> something ontological or existential?
> Why does Sartre, and, for that matter, Heidegger, and
> Kierkegaard, and even Hegel, latch onto the negative mood to
> reveal these ontological/existential insights?


The dynamics of aspect/whole analysis covers the anti-symmetric/symmetric.
The logic operators at work are the exclusive OR, XOR, (anti-symmetry) and
equivalence, EQV, (symmetry). The part/whole emphasis means the
anti-symmetric covers DIFFERENCES WITHIN SAMENESS; as such you cannot
'break' the whole, only distort it, rotate it, reflect it, amplify some
aspect and damp the rest etc etc. this brings out the reciprocal
relationships at work, the nature of 'whole numbers' vs 'rational numbers'
(and so the harmonics series)

Freedom is linked to transcending the anti-symmetric to becoming asymmetric
and so entering a mediation position - as such there is a tie of
discretisation to negation, the 'cut' of positive feedback. Here we can
break symmetry as well as make symmetry.

The realm of symmetry is a realm of socialisation, of equivalence, of social
rule/law and so of sameness and the 'other'. Uniqueness of being favours
YOUR rules, YOUR subjectivity over that of the collective and with that
comes attempts to discretise self, to be 'free' of all social constraints.
(the dynamic of general to particular is top-down, regulatory as compared to
bottom-up that is creative of such systems). Of note here is that the realm
of local context interactions (open system focus), high differentiating
(positive feedback), seeds the emergence of self-organising systems such
that the social species emotion of 'shame' can be suppressed through
development of consciousness although it can also be turned into feelings of
guilt.

Hegel's perspective of A/NOT-A as both mutually exclusive and at the same
time equivalent brought out his intuitions about the thinking process and so
brain function in general. This function is manifest in ALL of our maps of
reality in that each map is a relabelling of our general filtering system -
thus the dynamics of particle physics and the play of fermions vs bosons
reflects the play of XOR vs EQV, the rigid opposition of electron/positron
vs the superposition capabilities of bosons, the opposition, competition, of
A/NOT-A and the equivalence, cooperation, of A/NOT-A.

Consciousness is the agent of mediation and so an asymmetric form that
interprets the dynamics across anti-symmetry/symmetry, across difference
dynamics and sameness dynamics, across fermions and bosons. etc etc etc

> What about
> positive moods? Can't those be just as revealing? If so,
> which ones? How? And how do we show this is all truly
> ontological/exixtential and not just "hopped up"
> psychology? Why moods? What is so special about them?

They set an emotional context for interpretation of reality. People can be
born with a general 'mood' as they can a dynamic of 'moodiness'. The CORE of
emotions is in fight/flight (anger/fear) and covers a more generic focus on
context issues - to REPLACE the existing context or to COEXIST with the
existing context. The expression of emotion communicates that intent.

Thus the development of primary emotions from the recursion of fight/flight
includes the emergence of the fight-joy relationship where both focus on
context replacement, either by eradication of other(s) or by replication of
self. With the development of a sense of self joy transforms into sexual
love and presents us with the dynamics of the love/hate dichotomy.

> What
> does the mood reveal that simple thinking or reasoning does
> not reveal?

symmetry bias; emotional dynamics are dominatingly symmetric such that being
'moody' can elicit 'irrational' behaviours.

We can in fact identify classes of consciousness tied to emotional
groundings. Philosophically Nietzsche covers the extremes of anger/power.
Freud brought out the sexual aspect of such power games (but in doing so
missed a LOT of the other categories).

You asked:

> What about positive moods? Can't those be just as revealing?

No. anger is more differentiating and so more PRECISE. Anger is better at
getting a transcendence experience than love/joy. Most true innovations come
out out of struggle, of conflict with self/demons and so the border of
sanity/insanity - you can break symmetry/make symmetry through competition.
Cooperative perspectives work more to distort symmetry, are more adaptive
than innovative WHEN COMAPARED to what is possible through anger (that gets
into self-respect, competitiveness, 'hard play' etc). The issues from a
rational perspective are to USE anger over BEING angry since the latter can
be too symmetric in extremes; we use consciousness to regulate emotions ;-)
- the borderline between sanity and insanity can be crossed if we become
angry rather than use it, push the border, dont cross it. As such we are
born to argue in that it aids in resolving the seemingly paradoxical (see
the paradox page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

If we shift from a focus on 'self' to 'others' then the dominating emotion
is anticipation of WRONG doing and covers the pair of
anticipation/rejection. The positive side emerges from the negative in that
anticipation of wrong doing transforms into anticipation of right doing aka
cultivation. Issues of rejection transform into being protective and so
rejecting.

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
> Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009 3:46 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Hermann and Sartre
<snip>
>
> Does this experience of "being shamed" really contain all of
> the dynamics that Sartre claims it contains? The alienation
> of my possibilities? The upsurgence of the freeom of the
> other over me? And the recognition of the reciprocity of that
> alienation/upsurgence and the freedom/non-freedom that it
> brings to light?

"Emergence through collective self-organization thus has two aspects. Once
is local-to-global determination, as a result of which novel macrolevel
structures and processes emerge. The other is global-to-local determination
whereby global structures and processes constrain local interactions. These
global-to-local influences do not take the same form as the local-to-global
ones: they typically manifest themselves through changes in control
parameters ... and boundary conditions rather than through changes to the
individual elements... Coherent and ordered global behaviors, which are
described by collective variables or order parameters, constrain or govern
he behavior of the individual  components, entraining them so that they no
longer have the same behavioral alternatives open to them as they would if
they were not interdependently woven into the coherent and ordered global
pattern. At the same time, the behavior of the components generates and
sustains the global order. This two-sided or double determination is known
as circular causality." pp 61-62

Thompson, E., (2007)"Mind in Life : Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences
of Mind" Belknap Harvard

Thompson is a professor of philosophy at uni of Toronto and strongly tied to
autopoiesis dynamics and so self-organising systems. The PLAY of
anti-symmetry/symmetry in our brains reflects the above dynamic with
mediation in the form of consciousness/language development.

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

Geeze!  Is there no safe place, for irony to lay down her weary head,
and rest?  Let the threads of debate intertwine!  Battle evolution.

It is not after all a crime to idealise.  The English sparrows are
gathered and attentive, around the tower of song.

Louise
... white by appearance

After I finish "Nicholas Nickleby," think I'll have a go at some works
by Richard Rorty. Suggestions, anyone? Bill wonderfully provokes me
with his jabs at postmodernism and deconstruction, and I want to
consider how these intersect with existentialism. PoMo and DeCon
intrigue me as possible rationalizations for radical individualism and
creativity, but Ex seems more concerned with political activism...

Mary

Yes,  Mary, I have been the political pig but to everything
turn,turn,turn. It is near time to turn it all over to the pros, the
bureaucracy. I doubt I can factually support the  meshing and
drifting of what amounts to trends. What one trend  does to another
trend  is little more than  conjecture but it can be informative and
is not hard work.
You have  always been a voracious intellect and fear  no exposure
thus you have  gone where I declined to go . I must point to  my
last  expedition. It was "Please Mr. Custer,I don`t want to go" . I
speak of the unspeakable from Mr. Australia. What a waste of time.
  Please inform why I am writing under the title #9? If you are
referring to the musical collage by the Beatles I get it. Da.
  I know I pulled your chain with those comments but I think post
modernism, if it ever existed, will be forgotten along with Da Da ism
and know nothing ism and any number of trends that wore out quickly.
Then again your trend might be my ad version.
  Being a conspiratorial  animal I would try to connect  PM with
every  available evil, again, wheres the meat?
  I went political  because I  thought there was a bleeding need .
Remember when  what we needed to worry about was Clinton's
proclivities with  a cigar and a blow job. I rest my case and wait
for the pigs  to quit beating up hippies  by executive order.
Bill

Politics, now that would be a good idea.  Looking for a way to speak
the truth, that may be trusted.  Really, I trust verbal conflict.
Keeping it gentle, visible, looking for progress.  Philosophically
speaking, the first recourse for my own guidance would be
Kierkegaard.  For I do not see politics as a means of changing
anything, but of preventing the human sabotage of natural process.
Hmm, might be a little over-simplified, putting it like that.  It's a
certain kind of emphasis.  Citizens are like dams in motion, all that
potential energy.

So I read, wonder, live in experimental fashion, wait.  These
dreams.  To bring the news here, without false construction.  Mine is
slow and mostly bipedal.  Keeping the heart engaged, the mind
receptive to thought.  It is possible to be a contemplative, subject
to certain conditions.  An achievement of civilisation, a recurrent
communal permission, to return to primitive awareness without
sacrifice of the thought which makes technical advance possible.  Our
different natures may complement one another.  Quiet reflections from
a peaceful Sunday evening, in a small corner of England.  Feeling
much more feline again, ready for intense activity if called upon, as
it were.  Existentially, it amounts to a belief in rhythm.  I
remember a truth from early Nooism: "sleep is the most important meal
of the day".  Whatever connects.  Nietzsche brings recurrent
inspiration still, and poignancy.  I find no desire to quote and
discuss, unless specific occasion prompts.

Do we perish, without an enemy?  The philosophers of France remain at
distance, probably especially Descartes.  It's the same old story for
me, ever renewed.  Vive la France, a bas la revolution!  Long live
evolutionary democracy.  The sleeping passion of the human creature,
when will it burst forth, or flower, without the curse of exclusivity?

Louise

It was suggested by Christopher Corey's post #44968, Bill. He
referenced a Rorty text, and I was wondering if anyone recommended
another, more suited to a beginner. My meager impression of PoMo and
DeCon is that they are artistic/literary criticism and classically
analytical, respectively. Politics enters into history so overtly, but
as you say, one can burn out that candle when it burns from both ends.
I'll report back on anything that might be of interest, though I
guarantee it will be greatly condensed and flavored with my own
simplicity. Mary

I have been  watching the  World Championship  skiing from  Val DE
Sayre. European manners and sport  always shock me. You take incredible
risks and I think it good to remember the sporting classes of Europe
retain games considered barbarous in desenex coated USA.
  In philosophy you  have taken ultimate risks and have  had failures
that cost millions. Modern philosophy was dead center in all of that
and it would be boorish to accuse today's Europeans. You would just
tell us to  sit on it if we did.
  Now I see Nooism as a mini movement probably spent. I see  post
modernism as a trend that also seems spent. I will use the term modern
philosophy to extend from Descartes to the present but is that great
philosophy spent?
  I say no since I do not want to live in a time post.Or is that post
time? There is too much confusion there for me. Just dealing with the
present  is a chore for me. I think the Europeans will  have or have
recently  had  a political debate about  where to go and even how to
get there. When I see  the French cheering in the streets for  a ski
star I have  a good feeling about  a long and dangerous future. Bill

It's very quiet.  Yes, though I do trust verbal conflict, in gentle
manner, there is much else I trust.  Nothing to start conversation
with, at present.  Thinking of going to the pub.

Louise
... planning the Nooist revival

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
>
> It's very quiet.  Yes, though I do trust verbal conflict, in gentle
> manner, there is much else I trust.  Nothing to start conversation
> with, at present.  Thinking of going to the pub.
>
> Louise
> ... planning the Nooist revival
>Louise, I fear that  since my last post was ignored there is great
agreement with the idea that our  existential  European roots are
superior to the post modernist  adventure we have entertained in the
US. You know I think philosophy is not a pigeon hole subject , I
think it is the seed of other disciplines. If your philosophy is that
gods and spirits rule your life you will act as a superstitious fool.
If your philosophy states that you are responsible for  decisions
that  rule the world you will have a greater chance of acting
responsibly and perhaps build a better world.
  Yesterday an executives  mansion was  burned to the ground. Some say
he burned it for insurance  proceeds, some say  those  whose bills
remained unpaid  by him are responsible. Time may tell but  the level
of discontent is reaching  violent activity.  Us policy has shifted
far right  as  a religous administration pushed us away from modern
European philosophy and revisited theocracy. I think we might  have
to  go back to  classical European existentialism to regain a
foothold in reality. Now that may anger nearly everybody but it has a
resonance with me that I cannot ignore.
  Words mean what  Websters says they mean, individuals are the atoms
in society and  hold final responsibility for their actions  and god
or gods will not save us especially from our own greed and laziness.
Your European philosophers finally  gave us a rational chance at
existence and I want  us to go reclaim that great gift. Bill

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
> >
> > It's very quiet.  Yes, though I do trust verbal conflict, in
gentle
> > manner, there is much else I trust.  Nothing to start conversation
> > with, at present.  Thinking of going to the pub.
> >
> > Louise
> > ... planning the Nooist revival
> >Louise, I fear that  since my last post was ignored there is great
> agreement with the idea that our  existential  European roots are
> superior to the post modernist  adventure we have entertained in
the
> US. You know I think philosophy is not a pigeon hole subject , I
> think it is the seed of other disciplines. If your philosophy is
that
> gods and spirits rule your life you will act as a superstitious
fool.
> If your philosophy states that you are responsible for  decisions
> that  rule the world you will have a greater chance of acting
> responsibly and perhaps build a better world.
>  Yesterday an executives  mansion was  burned to the ground. Some
say
> he burned it for insurance  proceeds, some say  those  whose bills
> remained unpaid  by him are responsible. Time may tell but  the
level
> of discontent is reaching  violent activity.  Us policy has shifted
> far right  as  a religous administration pushed us away from modern
> European philosophy and revisited theocracy. I think we might  have
> to  go back to  classical European existentialism to regain a
> foothold in reality. Now that may anger nearly everybody but it has
a
> resonance with me that I cannot ignore.
>  Words mean what  Websters says they mean, individuals are the
atoms
> in society and  hold final responsibility for their actions  and
god
> or gods will not save us especially from our own greed and
laziness.
> Your European philosophers finally  gave us a rational chance at
> existence and I want  us to go reclaim that great gift. Bill
> Bill, I only drank a couple half pints, and the effects are already
wearing off, so this is an attempt to make some kind of constructive
reply.  Nooism has never really been understood for what it was, and
the project does not admit of discursive interpretation, unless among
those already receptive.  I do not consider myself to be engaged in
any kind of evangelistic or obscurantist mission, and have no need to
bring in arguments about god or gods.  The views of Chris Lofting
about angels are expressed with the kind of intellectual complacency
typical of those who know they have the power of numbers on their
side.  My own experiences are signally atypical, and I have no
particular wish to draw attention to their singularity.  A return to
lively respectful discussion (was there such a golden age, or am I
imagining a mythical existlist history?) would be welcome.  European
philosophical texts are undoubtedly on topic, and they are still part
of my daily meat and drink.  It is simply that, as I believe
Nietzsche's life implied, and as Heidegger emphasises, biographical
discussion may prove a serious impediment to their interpretation.
We are all different, and I do trust human good will to find paths
through even the most impenetrable territory.  Not sure, though, how
ready I am to make an early return to regular writing here.  Maybe
beer is best.  Louise

On Feb 11, 2009, at 13:57, louise wrote:

> It's very quiet.

It will be for the next four to six weeks on my end... Maybe by the
end of April I'll have some time to even read the posts. Just swamped
with work and life in general.

Isn't that a key choice, anyway? To be busy with something else?

- C. S. Wyatt
I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
that I shall be.
http://www.tameri.com  - Tameri Guide for Writers
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist  - The Existential Primer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:57 AM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
>
<snip>
> Bill Bill, I
> > only drank a couple half pints, and the effects are already
> wearing off, so this is an attempt to make some kind of
> constructive reply.  Nooism has never really been understood
> for what it was, and the project does not admit of discursive
> interpretation, unless among those already receptive.  I do
> not consider myself to be engaged in any kind of evangelistic
> or obscurantist mission, and have no need to bring in
> arguments about god or gods.  The views of Chris Lofting
> about angels are expressed with the kind of intellectual
> complacency typical of those who know they have the power of
> numbers on their side.

;-) the brain telling stories in attempt to explain an experience is common
- and so the distinction of "AS INTERPRETED" vs "AS IS" reality.

Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) are also mappable to neural dynamics. e.g.:

--------------------------
Nature, 2002 Sep 19;419(6904):269-270

Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions.

Blanke O, Ortigue S, Landis T, Seeck M.

'Out-of-body' experiences (OBEs) are curious, usually brief sensations in
which a person's consciousness seems to become detached from the body and
take up a remote viewing position. Here we describe the repeated induction
of this experience by focal electrical stimulation of the brain's right
angular gyrus in a patient who was undergoing evaluation for epilepsy
treatment. Stimulation at this site also elicited illusory transformations
of the patient's arm and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and
whole-body displacements (vestibular responses), indicating that out-of-body
experiences may reflect a failure by the brain to integrate complex
somatosensory and vestibular information.
-------------------------

Temporal lobe thunderstorms are renown for eliciting strong visual and
auditory experiences that are life-changing when not understood - the
experience can elicit an embarking on a religious focus (spontaneous
conversion in some) to seek-out/repeat the experiences, to find the
'meaning' in such, of such. Those who suffer from epilepsy can have regular
experiences of the images and sounds (voices etc) but it is the 'one time'
experience that usually elicits the sudden change in behaviour/focus, all
due to the intensity of the experience (repeated experiences can lead to
habituation etc and recognition that there is a 'problem' rather than the
experience being an example of 'enlightenment')

Overall the issues are then of a consciousness having these experiences and
making-up an imaginative story about them and their cause vs the science
explaining the cause (and able to replicate the experience) and so seen to
be 'dismissing' the personal experience!

The fact of neural dynamics eliciting sensations that can be interpreted in
an imaginative way does not take away the experience of consciousness; it
just localises the experience, grounds it in the individual and not
necessarily in ALL individuals as some universal experience.

The science then brings to light (!) the acts of many driven by some moment
of 'enlightenment' where they interpreted the event as being spoken to, or
seeing, 'god' or some other 'spiritual' being etc and EXPLOIT that
experience for a push to power (e.g. evangelical religion etc).

The emerging tie of philosophy, and in particular phenomenology, with
neurology is covered in such recommended texts as:

Thompson, E., (2007)"Mind in Life : Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences
of Mind" Belknap Harvard

The strong differentiation of consciousness is well covered in psychotherapy
as reported by such as Jung in his "On the Nature of the Psyche" -

"We can say that individuals are equal only in so far as they are in a large
measure unconscious - unconscious, that is, of their actual differences. The
more unconscious a man is, the more he will conform to the general canon of
psychic behaviour. But the more conscious he becomes of his individuality,
the more pronounced will be his difference from other subjects and the less
he will come up to common expectations. Further, his reactions are much less
predictable. This is due to the fact that an individual consciousness is
more highly differentiated and more extensive. But the more extensive it
becomes the more differences it will perceive and the more it will
emancipate itself from the collective rules, for the empirical freedom of
the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.
As the individual differentiation of consciousness proceeds, the objective
validity of its views decreases and their subjectivity increases, at least
in the eyes of the environment, if not in actual fact. For if a view is to
be valid, it must have the acclaim of the greatest possible number,
regardless of the arguments put forward in its favour. "True" and "valid"
describe what the majority believe, for this confirms the equality of all.
But differentiated consciousness no longer takes it for granted that one's
own preconceptions are applicable to others, and vice versa" p83

The uniqueness of a well differentiated consciousness covers the CHOICES
available combined with a top-down regulation system that limits the degrees
of freedom of our 'what is possible' nature and so allowing for quick
identification/categorisation of local experiences as we play with
difference/sameness.

The asymmetric nature of consciousness reflects the emergence away from our
more symmetric form of thinking associated with our being a social species
and with that issues that come with 'different' thinking that is not
tolerated by those more focused on 'sameness' and so social forms.

It is this asymmetry that allows us to locally break/make symmetries and so
form specialist, self-organising, systems (e.g. 'existentialist' perspective
etc) where the formal dynamics of such, covered in complexity/chaos theory
etc were not known by Jung other than as manifestations of 'unique'
expressions of consciousness, and it was Merleau-Ponty who started to get
into these dynamics (e.g. "The Structure of Behaviour").

A good coverage of the dynamics of asymmetric and symmetric thinking and the
differences in logic for both is covered from the perspective of a
mathematician and psychoanalyst in:

Matte-Blanco, I., (1998,1975)"The Unconscious as Infinite Sets" Karnec

The coverage is good and fits well with coverage of brain dynamics and its
focus on precision. From an existentialist position the consideration of
asymmetry/anti-symmetry/symmetry leads into consideration of such issues as
Heidegger's 'surrender' to symmetry through his acceptance of national
socialism etc (Being and Time never being completed etc in that social
acceptance of an extreme work shifts thinking to the more 'easier' position
of symmetry and enthusiasm can wane (or the success favours cashing in on
such and so surrendering to the masses!)

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

Chris,

You are most assiduous in explaining the kind of things science sets
itself to explain.  The drawback here is that you are writing for a
list concerned with existential philosophy and literature.  I have yet
to see any sign that you understand the basic distinguishing feature
of existential thought, and since you had the temerity recently to
quote Kierkegaard, am less inclined than previously to even offer you
the benefit of the doubt.  (That is, to be clear, when you were first
posting, I responded instinctively, by telling you that your stuff was
self-indulgent drivel, and was subsequently, in my evergreen naivety,
won over by your politeness and industry to tolerate or even engage
with a methodology that my high levels of stress prevented me from
appraising in any meaningful way at all.)

The whole point of Kierkegaard's critique of the 'natural sciences',
as I understand it, is that the scientist typically does not see how
he too is 'telling himself stories'.  If you can convince large
numbers of people that your stories are relevant and important, they
will be accepted as inviolable truths, at least for a while, and in
such manner science tends to operate somewhat like a religion.  I do
not expect much support for this view, but since I have found no
reason yet to change my perception, first developed in response to
reading Kierkegaard's work in the early nineteen eighties', I may as
well reiterate it at this point.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> > Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:57 AM
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
> >
> <snip>
> > Bill Bill, I
> > > only drank a couple half pints, and the effects are already
> > wearing off, so this is an attempt to make some kind of
> > constructive reply.  Nooism has never really been understood
> > for what it was, and the project does not admit of discursive
> > interpretation, unless among those already receptive.  I do
> > not consider myself to be engaged in any kind of evangelistic
> > or obscurantist mission, and have no need to bring in
> > arguments about god or gods.  The views of Chris Lofting
> > about angels are expressed with the kind of intellectual
> > complacency typical of those who know they have the power of
> > numbers on their side.
>
> ;-) the brain telling stories in attempt to explain an experience is
common
> - and so the distinction of "AS INTERPRETED" vs "AS IS" reality.
>
> Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) are also mappable to neural dynamics.
e.g.:
>
> --------------------------
> Nature, 2002 Sep 19;419(6904):269-270
>
> Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions.
>
> Blanke O, Ortigue S, Landis T, Seeck M.
>
> 'Out-of-body' experiences (OBEs) are curious, usually brief
sensations in
> which a person's consciousness seems to become detached from the
body and
> take up a remote viewing position. Here we describe the repeated
induction
> of this experience by focal electrical stimulation of the brain's right
> angular gyrus in a patient who was undergoing evaluation for epilepsy
> treatment. Stimulation at this site also elicited illusory
transformations
> of the patient's arm and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and
> whole-body displacements (vestibular responses), indicating that
out-of-body
> experiences may reflect a failure by the brain to integrate complex
> somatosensory and vestibular information.
> -------------------------
>
> Temporal lobe thunderstorms are renown for eliciting strong visual and
> auditory experiences that are life-changing when not understood - the
> experience can elicit an embarking on a religious focus (spontaneous
> conversion in some) to seek-out/repeat the experiences, to find the
> 'meaning' in such, of such. Those who suffer from epilepsy can have
regular
> experiences of the images and sounds (voices etc) but it is the 'one
time'
> experience that usually elicits the sudden change in
behaviour/focus, all
> due to the intensity of the experience (repeated experiences can lead to
> habituation etc and recognition that there is a 'problem' rather
than the
> experience being an example of 'enlightenment')
>
> Overall the issues are then of a consciousness having these
experiences and
> making-up an imaginative story about them and their cause vs the science
> explaining the cause (and able to replicate the experience) and so
seen to
> be 'dismissing' the personal experience!
>
> The fact of neural dynamics eliciting sensations that can be
interpreted in
> an imaginative way does not take away the experience of
consciousness; it
> just localises the experience, grounds it in the individual and not
> necessarily in ALL individuals as some universal experience.
>
> The science then brings to light (!) the acts of many driven by some
moment
> of 'enlightenment' where they interpreted the event as being spoken
to, or
> seeing, 'god' or some other 'spiritual' being etc and EXPLOIT that
> experience for a push to power (e.g. evangelical religion etc).
>
> The emerging tie of philosophy, and in particular phenomenology, with
> neurology is covered in such recommended texts as:
>
> Thompson, E., (2007)"Mind in Life : Biology, Phenomenology, and the
Sciences
> of Mind" Belknap Harvard
>
> The strong differentiation of consciousness is well covered in
psychotherapy
> as reported by such as Jung in his "On the Nature of the Psyche" -
>
> "We can say that individuals are equal only in so far as they are in
a large
> measure unconscious - unconscious, that is, of their actual
differences. The
> more unconscious a man is, the more he will conform to the general
canon of
> psychic behaviour. But the more conscious he becomes of his
individuality,
> the more pronounced will be his difference from other subjects and
the less
> he will come up to common expectations. Further, his reactions are
much less
> predictable. This is due to the fact that an individual consciousness is
> more highly differentiated and more extensive. But the more extensive it
> becomes the more differences it will perceive and the more it will
> emancipate itself from the collective rules, for the empirical
freedom of
> the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.
> As the individual differentiation of consciousness proceeds, the
objective
> validity of its views decreases and their subjectivity increases, at
least
> in the eyes of the environment, if not in actual fact. For if a view
is to
> be valid, it must have the acclaim of the greatest possible number,
> regardless of the arguments put forward in its favour. "True" and
"valid"
> describe what the majority believe, for this confirms the equality
of all.
> But differentiated consciousness no longer takes it for granted that
one's
> own preconceptions are applicable to others, and vice versa" p83
>
> The uniqueness of a well differentiated consciousness covers the CHOICES
> available combined with a top-down regulation system that limits the
degrees
> of freedom of our 'what is possible' nature and so allowing for quick
> identification/categorisation of local experiences as we play with
> difference/sameness.
>
> The asymmetric nature of consciousness reflects the emergence away
from our
> more symmetric form of thinking associated with our being a social
species
> and with that issues that come with 'different' thinking that is not
> tolerated by those more focused on 'sameness' and so social forms.
>
> It is this asymmetry that allows us to locally break/make symmetries
and so
> form specialist, self-organising, systems (e.g. 'existentialist'
perspective
> etc) where the formal dynamics of such, covered in complexity/chaos
theory
> etc were not known by Jung other than as manifestations of 'unique'
> expressions of consciousness, and it was Merleau-Ponty who started
to get
> into these dynamics (e.g. "The Structure of Behaviour").
>
> A good coverage of the dynamics of asymmetric and symmetric thinking
and the
> differences in logic for both is covered from the perspective of a
> mathematician and psychoanalyst in:
>
> Matte-Blanco, I., (1998,1975)"The Unconscious as Infinite Sets" Karnec
>
> The coverage is good and fits well with coverage of brain dynamics
and its
> focus on precision. From an existentialist position the consideration of
> asymmetry/anti-symmetry/symmetry leads into consideration of such
issues as
> Heidegger's 'surrender' to symmetry through his acceptance of national
> socialism etc (Being and Time never being completed etc in that social
> acceptance of an extreme work shifts thinking to the more 'easier'
position
> of symmetry and enthusiasm can wane (or the success favours cashing
in on
> such and so surrendering to the masses!)
>
> Chris
> http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 3:49 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
>
> Chris,
>
> You are most assiduous in explaining the kind of things
> science sets itself to explain.  The drawback here is that
> you are writing for a list concerned with existential
> philosophy and literature.  I have yet to see any sign that
> you understand the basic distinguishing feature of
> existential thought, and since you had the temerity recently
> to quote Kierkegaard, am less inclined than previously to
> even offer you the benefit of the doubt.  (That is, to be
> clear, when you were first posting, I responded
> instinctively, by telling you that your stuff was
> self-indulgent drivel, and was subsequently, in my evergreen
> naivety, won over by your politeness and industry to tolerate
> or even engage with a methodology that my high levels of
> stress prevented me from appraising in any meaningful way at all.)
>

The whole of existentialism is a story - an INTERPRETATION as compared to
"WHAT IS". To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity. This
includes identifying the core seeding of experiences PRIOR to the
imaginative nature of consciousness trying to interpret limited by personal
experiences and local context 'traditional' social perspectives.

As for this list - it covers existentialism and that includes phenomenology
and is NOT limited to literature. The list introduction:

"Founded (elsewhere) in November, 1996, this mailing list is a community
interested in existentialism and phenomenology. Yes, Sartre, Nietzsche, and
Kierkegaard, but also many others: Frankl, May, Jaspers, and Merleau-Ponty
to name a few. This list encourages questions and exchanges of information.
We want to know about the latest literature, articles, book releases, and
more. Participate!"

If YOU are favouring of a more specialist focus that is not my problem, it
is your problem.

> The whole point of Kierkegaard's critique of the 'natural
> sciences', as I understand it, is that the scientist
> typically does not see how he too is 'telling himself
> stories'.

Close scrutiny my IDM work shows how this is done and IT is founded on
scientific research on brain/mind dynamics. There is a fundamental
difference in non-scientific vs scientific story-telling in that the stories
are asserted to be 'facts' regarding nature and our being and as such are
open to being retold by others and verified as to their 'truth' or
demonstrated to be 'false' through empirical studies. Scientific method is
grounded in a formal manner of presenting hypothesis, methodology, results,
discussion. Verification includes the ability to demonstrate the false
nature of the experiment etc and so is not limited to how good one is in
using rhetoric to make and maintain a point. As such the stories are not
social and aimed to make one 'feel' good/bad or the other range of emotions.

The emphasis in phenomenology has been on a focus on the unique, something
traditional science has an issue with in that traditional, statistic-based,
science needs a PAIR to be able to deal with its focus through use of
statistics and so pattern matching.

The tie of phenomenology and basic, science-focused neurosciences/psychology
etc is in the study of autonomous systems and so self-organising systems and
the work of Varela etc al in the dynamics of autopoiesis. As such we get
'closer to' considering the unique.

Focusing on the dynamics of the neurology and personal experience as a
unique conscious being introduces us to identifying CLASSES of consciousness
and so move close to mapping INSTANCES of those classes. Feeling paranoid
yet? ;-) Advertising companies and on-line marketing already use these to
customise one's 'experience' of a website such as Amazon etc.

The ISSUES with science, from my perspective, is that it has come up with
all sorts of specialist perspectives that are metaphors (stories) for the
ONE perspective we all share as neuron-dependent life forms, our filtering
system. As such, focusing on the filtering system gives us insights into
what is 'attractive' about all of those stories and so aids in selecting
'best fit' stories over the more 'doubtful' ones and those covering the real
vs the imagined vs a hybrid form (called guerilla ontology
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_ontology_)  where fact and fiction
are mixed into a seamless whole and the reader has to interpret what is
what! - also see http://www.backwash.com/community_content.php?id=8 & for
list of books etc see http://www.librarything.com/tag/guerilla+ontology)


Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

It is a bit confusing what to select while compsoing one's thoughts
on the subject.

I am not seeking to join a scholarly debate, I am only trying to see
how far my focus, thought and experience conform to existentialist
way of looking at things in the immediate vuicinity.

My principal concerns are :

1) What is the reality about consciousness as it applies to human
beings
2) Where does it derive its contents, essence and substance?
2) What is its role vis-a-vis individual's participatory style,
character, encounters, experience and interpretation and projections
3) How does it function/work with the march of time towards
individual destination and through individual destiny

and I am seeking answers to these questions to utilise my time with
better sense, direction and purpose than hitherto.

NRR

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> > Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 3:49 PM
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > You are most assiduous in explaining the kind of things
> > science sets itself to explain.  The drawback here is that
> > you are writing for a list concerned with existential
> > philosophy and literature.  I have yet to see any sign that
> > you understand the basic distinguishing feature of
> > existential thought, and since you had the temerity recently
> > to quote Kierkegaard, am less inclined than previously to
> > even offer you the benefit of the doubt.  (That is, to be
> > clear, when you were first posting, I responded
> > instinctively, by telling you that your stuff was
> > self-indulgent drivel, and was subsequently, in my evergreen
> > naivety, won over by your politeness and industry to tolerate
> > or even engage with a methodology that my high levels of
> > stress prevented me from appraising in any meaningful way at all.)
> >
>
> The whole of existentialism is a story - an INTERPRETATION as
compared to
> "WHAT IS".

Your assertion.  The classical European existentialists, to borrow
Bill's recent phrase, live their ideas (or may claim to do so, and
fail); to exist is not a form of art in the way a film is a form of
art.  An interpretation is an intellectual effort.  My own experience
of engaging with the ideas of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, is that it is
  DANGEROUS, in a way basically telling stories is not.  It relates to
  EXISTENCE.  The same may be said of those who are inspired by Sartre
or Camus. The examined life tends to be strenuous. One of the
shortcomings of discussion at the list in my own estimation, is that
we have never really arrived at a just appreciation of what will to
power is, for Nietzsche.  I am still not strong enough as yet to take
this point further.  The disappointments of seeing historical errors
repeat themselves is not something I imagine you can understand.

To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
> the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity.

My, what a godlike project.  Not a simple matter, even to attempt.

This
> includes identifying the core seeding of experiences PRIOR to the
> imaginative nature of consciousness trying to interpret limited by
personal
> experiences and local context 'traditional' social perspectives.

Science and sociality do not begin to take the question back to its core.

>
> As for this list - it covers existentialism and that includes
phenomenology
> and is NOT limited to literature. The list introduction:
>
> "Founded (elsewhere) in November, 1996, this mailing list is a community
> interested in existentialism and phenomenology. Yes, Sartre,
Nietzsche, and
> Kierkegaard, but also many others: Frankl, May, Jaspers, and
Merleau-Ponty
> to name a few. This list encourages questions and exchanges of
information.
> We want to know about the latest literature, articles, book
releases, and
> more. Participate!"
>
> If YOU are favouring of a more specialist focus that is not my
problem, it
> is your problem.

I am not favouring a specialist focus at all.  Unlike you, I am
interested in the critique philosophy makes of those interpretations
which precede the scientific and sociological presuppositions from
which you comfortably begin your analyses.

>
> > The whole point of Kierkegaard's critique of the 'natural
> > sciences', as I understand it, is that the scientist
> > typically does not see how he too is 'telling himself
> > stories'.
>
> Close scrutiny my IDM work shows how this is done and IT is founded on
> scientific research on brain/mind dynamics. There is a fundamental
> difference in non-scientific vs scientific story-telling in that the
stories
> are asserted to be 'facts' regarding nature and our being and as
such are
> open to being retold by others and verified as to their 'truth' or
> demonstrated to be 'false' through empirical studies. Scientific
method is
> grounded in a formal manner of presenting hypothesis, methodology,
results,
> discussion. Verification includes the ability to demonstrate the false
> nature of the experiment etc and so is not limited to how good one is in
> using rhetoric to make and maintain a point. As such the stories are not
> social and aimed to make one 'feel' good/bad or the other range of
emotions.
>

What a lovely fairy-tale this is.  As though political and economic
considerations, not to say the ordinary social pressures on human
beings did not have a vast impact on what those paid to be scientists
are interested in investigating, and all that they do not take into
consideration.

> The emphasis in phenomenology has been on a focus on the unique,
something
> traditional science has an issue with in that traditional,
statistic-based,
> science needs a PAIR to be able to deal with its focus through use of
> statistics and so pattern matching.
>
> The tie of phenomenology and basic, science-focused
neurosciences/psychology
> etc is in the study of autonomous systems and so self-organising
systems and
> the work of Varela etc al in the dynamics of autopoiesis. As such we get
> 'closer to' considering the unique.

This kind of science goes on, to be sure.  I do not trust it unless it
  is allied with a political awareness that understands the dynamics of
consent and coercion implicit in the application of psychological
theories.  Am still waiting to find out if there is anyone else
interested in existentialism who understands what I am talking about.

>
> Focusing on the dynamics of the neurology and personal experience as a
> unique conscious being introduces us to identifying CLASSES of
consciousness
> and so move close to mapping INSTANCES of those classes. Feeling
paranoid
> yet? ;-)

I have completely lost my fear of the associations your theories have
tended to evoke, now that I am more focussed, so I am not feeling at
all paranoid.

  Advertising companies and on-line marketing already use these to
> customise one's 'experience' of a website such as Amazon etc.

How very philosophical.  You're simply talking business now.

>
> The ISSUES with science, from my perspective, is that it has come up
with
> all sorts of specialist perspectives that are metaphors (stories)
for the
> ONE perspective we all share as neuron-dependent life forms, our
filtering
> system. As such, focusing on the filtering system gives us insights into
> what is 'attractive' about all of those stories and so aids in selecting
> 'best fit' stories over the more 'doubtful' ones and those covering
the real
> vs the imagined vs a hybrid form (called guerilla ontology
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_ontology_)  where fact and
fiction
> are mixed into a seamless whole and the reader has to interpret what is
> what! - also see http://www.backwash.com/community_content.php?id=8
& for
> list of books etc see http://www.librarything.com/tag/guerilla+ontology)

As I have tried to make clear, my own politics are liberal.  In no way
do I wish to take away from you any lawful interest you may have in
exploring the literature of social realism or anything else that makes
your neurons happy.  My intent is to challenge statements that I wish
to see subjected to questioning, on the grounds of my belief that
uncritical beliefs and unchallenged assumptions can do a great deal of
harm in a complex world of competing interests.  Life is simply a
serious matter for me, and I have little trust of textual play and
word games generally, in a philosophical context, though that does not
mean that there is necessarily any harm in them.  L.

>
>
> Chris
> http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
>

NNR: 1) What is the reality about consciousness as it applies to human
beings

That it is concrete and lived more so than abstract. We tend to refer
to consciousness with various abstract and oblique terms. But it always
goes back to that concrete lived experience. That is an individual
thing. My consciousness is not your consciousness. I can't crawl inside
of your skin. I don't see the world from your exact point of view. Only
mine. We are the same. But we are also different. I don't think the
idea of a superconsciousness with your consciousness and my
consciousness being modes or facets of that superconsciousness helps us
out very much.

NNR: 2) Where does it derive its contents, essence and substance?

Through what is lived through. But that doesn't really say where. It
just says how. The where is something of a mystery. Obviously,
situation, being engaged in a world, experiences, relations with other
people, are all essential parts of that essence. But we can't really
pin down just one thing and say, "Ah hah!" that is the essence of
consciousness. There is always something "left over." Something that
is "not yet." As paradoxical as it may seem, we can't even begin to
come close to a comprehension of that "essence" that consciousness is
without taking seriously the contingency that lies at its very core.
You could just as well have been someone else. You could just as well
have been not. This doesn't mean consciousness is a mere accident. It
means that, for consciousness, its contingency is a necessity, and, its
necessity is a contingency. It is what it isn't. And, it isn't what it
is. That is one of Sartre's formulations.

NNR: 2) What is its role vis-a-vis individual's participatory style,
character, encounters, experience and interpretation and projections

Character, like essence, is elusive. Especially when it comes to
consciousness. How do you really pin that down? It is a flux. An
ekstasis. A flow. A perpetual becoming. Not at all like a thing. Its
permanence is its lack of permanence. Its evanescence. Sartre describes
it as "diasporatic." A "detotalized totality." We can't really "talk
about" consciousness without talking about it in these paradoxical and
even seemingly contradictory ways. But that is a sign, I think, not of
inconsistency, but of a profound richness to the experience that
consciosuness is.

NNR: 3) How does it function/work with the march of time towards
individual destination and through individual destiny

From what I am reading in Sartre's Being and Nothingness, right now, I
gather that Sartre thinks that its function is primarily temporal. But
he ties that into possibility, and, in a profound sense, possibility is
freedom. So, you have temporality, possibility, and freedom all woven
into the concept of what consciousness is, its for-itselfness, to use
the technical term that Sartre uses. Temporal, by the way, also means
finite. But that doesn't exclude transcendence. It isn't just pure
immanence. If it were that, it would be only an in-itself, a thing,
like that rock over there, or this table, or the "ink well" that sartre
keeps mentioning. But in-itselfness isn't totally excluded from it
either. The past dimension of the temporality of our consciousness is
where we find the in-itselfness. When you are dead, you totally become
an "in-itself" and cease to be a "for-itself." Only finite
possibilities are real possibilities. You can't strive to be a doctor
of medicine if you are unable to read. You can't yearn to be a poet if
you don't have some kind of an innate strong connection with your own
emotions. Possibility presumes an already existing context of
actualities in which you are engaged and over most of which you really
do not have control. Then how is freedom to be understood? As capable
of being fulfilled or not. The concept of "failure to actually be free"
is not excluded from the concept of freedom. Similarly, the concept
of "missing out" on one's destiny, i.e., "missing the boat" so to
speak, is an integral part of that essence of that consciousness.
Consciousness can be either naive or self-reflective. Consciousness cna
be "more" or "less." Even if you are not free, your are free. Even when
you are unconscious, you are a consciousness.

Your final remark puts it to the very point. It is about "making it
happen" and that should matter on an individual, concrete level. That
is what we mean when we say "existential." It is also what we mean when
we say "Socratic." That it isn't of "merely academic" interest. That it
has little to do with science and gathering up facts and information.
It has everything to do with us. With ourselves. With our "who."
With "who we are." Not just the "whats" of which the world is made.

That, right there, is the fundamental difference between science and
philosophy. Science is all about the world. Philosophy is about us. I
get that sense from Socrates. The Socrates of the supposedly "earlier"
Platonic dialogues. The "Socratic" ones. Especially the Phaedo and the
Crito. I think that all of the other Platonic dialogues have to be read
with that "Socratic" intent always kept firmly in view. We can very
easily lose that perspective, and fall back into theoretical bickering.
But, I think, part of Plato's genius is that he shows us very clearly,
for example, in the Protagoras, where even good old Socrates takes an
intellectual beating, how futile that theoretical bickering really is.
It gets us nowhere.

If we can take the Socratic approach to this whole thing about
consciousness, and if we can factor into that, what Descartes brought
up, the "existential bedrock" that we have hit upon when it comes down
to the "I am-ness" of that consciousness, I think we can begin to
realize that the proper attitude toward consciousness has to be a kind
of "Well, let's go there, look inside, and see what's in there," kind
of attitude toward it. Consciousness isn't the answer. It is the place
where the questions happen. Where the questioning happens.

Hb3g

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
wrote:
>
> NNR: 1) What is the reality about consciousness as it applies to
human
> beings
>
> That it is concrete and lived more so than abstract. We tend to
refer
> to consciousness with various abstract and oblique terms. But it
always
> goes back to that concrete lived experience. That is an individual
> thing. My consciousness is not your consciousness. I can't crawl
inside
> of your skin. I don't see the world from your exact point of view.
Only
> mine. We are the same. But we are also different. I don't think the
> idea of a superconsciousness with your consciousness and my
> consciousness being modes or facets of that superconsciousness
helps us
> out very much.
>
> NNR: 2) Where does it derive its contents, essence and substance?
>
> Through what is lived through. But that doesn't really say where.
It
> just says how. The where is something of a mystery. Obviously,
> situation, being engaged in a world, experiences, relations with
other
> people, are all essential parts of that essence. But we can't
really
> pin down just one thing and say, "Ah hah!" that is the essence of
> consciousness. There is always something "left over." Something
that
> is "not yet." As paradoxical as it may seem, we can't even begin to
> come close to a comprehension of that "essence" that consciousness
is
> without taking seriously the contingency that lies at its very
core.
> You could just as well have been someone else. You could just as
well
> have been not. This doesn't mean consciousness is a mere accident.
It
> means that, for consciousness, its contingency is a necessity, and,
its
> necessity is a contingency. It is what it isn't. And, it isn't what
it
> is. That is one of Sartre's formulations.
>
> NNR: 2) What is its role vis-a-vis individual's participatory
style,
> character, encounters, experience and interpretation and projections
>
> Character, like essence, is elusive. Especially when it comes to
> consciousness. How do you really pin that down? It is a flux. An
> ekstasis. A flow. A perpetual becoming. Not at all like a thing.
Its
> permanence is its lack of permanence. Its evanescence. Sartre
describes
> it as "diasporatic." A "detotalized totality." We can't
really "talk
> about" consciousness without talking about it in these paradoxical
and
> even seemingly contradictory ways. But that is a sign, I think, not
of
> inconsistency, but of a profound richness to the experience that
> consciosuness is.
>
> NNR: 3) How does it function/work with the march of time towards
> individual destination and through individual destiny
>
> From what I am reading in Sartre's Being and Nothingness, right
now, I
> gather that Sartre thinks that its function is primarily temporal.
But
> he ties that into possibility, and, in a profound sense,
possibility is
> freedom. So, you have temporality, possibility, and freedom all
woven
> into the concept of what consciousness is, its for-itselfness, to
use
> the technical term that Sartre uses. Temporal, by the way, also
means
> finite. But that doesn't exclude transcendence. It isn't just pure
> immanence. If it were that, it would be only an in-itself, a thing,
> like that rock over there, or this table, or the "ink well" that
sartre
> keeps mentioning. But in-itselfness isn't totally excluded from it
> either. The past dimension of the temporality of our consciousness
is
> where we find the in-itselfness. When you are dead, you totally
become
> an "in-itself" and cease to be a "for-itself." Only finite
> possibilities are real possibilities. You can't strive to be a
doctor
> of medicine if you are unable to read. You can't yearn to be a poet
if
> you don't have some kind of an innate strong connection with your
own
> emotions. Possibility presumes an already existing context of
> actualities in which you are engaged and over most of which you
really
> do not have control. Then how is freedom to be understood? As
capable
> of being fulfilled or not. The concept of "failure to actually be
free"
> is not excluded from the concept of freedom. Similarly, the concept
> of "missing out" on one's destiny, i.e., "missing the boat" so to
> speak, is an integral part of that essence of that consciousness.
> Consciousness can be either naive or self-reflective. Consciousness
cna
> be "more" or "less." Even if you are not free, your are free. Even
when
> you are unconscious, you are a consciousness.
>
> Your final remark puts it to the very point. It is about "making it
> happen" and that should matter on an individual, concrete level.
That
> is what we mean when we say "existential." It is also what we mean
when
> we say "Socratic." That it isn't of "merely academic" interest.
That it
> has little to do with science and gathering up facts and
information.
> It has everything to do with us. With ourselves. With our "who."
> With "who we are." Not just the "whats" of which the world is made.
>
> That, right there, is the fundamental difference between science
and
> philosophy. Science is all about the world. Philosophy is about us.
I
> get that sense from Socrates. The Socrates of the
supposedly "earlier"
> Platonic dialogues. The "Socratic" ones. Especially the Phaedo and
the
> Crito. I think that all of the other Platonic dialogues have to be
read
> with that "Socratic" intent always kept firmly in view. We can very
> easily lose that perspective, and fall back into theoretical
bickering.
> But, I think, part of Plato's genius is that he shows us very
clearly,
> for example, in the Protagoras, where even good old Socrates takes
an
> intellectual beating, how futile that theoretical bickering really
is.
> It gets us nowhere.
>
> If we can take the Socratic approach to this whole thing about
> consciousness, and if we can factor into that, what Descartes
brought
> up, the "existential bedrock" that we have hit upon when it comes
down
> to the "I am-ness" of that consciousness, I think we can begin to
> realize that the proper attitude toward consciousness has to be a
kind
> of "Well, let's go there, look inside, and see what's in there,"
kind
> of attitude toward it. Consciousness isn't the answer. It is the
place
> where the questions happen. Where the questioning happens.
>
> Hb3g
>Herman, What is nnr1? Bill

What is nnr1? Bill




  NR Rajkumar's first question, from earlier post. Wil




-----Original Message-----
From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 4:05 pm
Subject: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing


























--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>

wrote:

>

> NNR: 1) What is the reality about consciousness as it applies to

human

> beings

>

> That it is concrete and lived more so than abstract. We tend to

refer

> to consciousness with various abstract and oblique terms. But it

always

> goes back to that concrete lived experience. That is an individual

> thing. My consciousness is not your consciousness. I can't crawl

inside

> of your skin. I don't see the world from your exact point of view.

Only

> mine. We are the same. But we are also different. I don't think the

> idea of a superconsciousness with your consciousness and my

> consciousness being modes or facets of that superconsciousness

helps us

> out very much.

>

> NNR: 2) Where does it derive its contents, essence and substance?

>

> Through what is lived through. But that doesn't really say where.

It

> just says how. The where is something of a mystery. Obviously,

> situation, being engaged in a world, experiences, relations with

other

> people, are all essential parts of that essence. But we can't

really

> pin down just one thing and say, "Ah hah!" that is the essence of

> consciousness. There is always something "left over." Something

that

> is "not yet." As paradoxical as it may seem, we can't even begin to

> come close to a comprehension of that "essence" that consciousness

is

> without taking seriously the contingency that lies at its very

core.

> You could just as well have been someone else. You could just as

well

> have been not. This doesn't mean consciousness is a mere accident.

It

> means that, for consciousness, its contingency is a necessity, and,

its

> necessity is a contingency. It is what it isn't. And, it isn't what

it

> is. That is one of Sartre's formulations.

>

> NNR: 2) What is its role vis-a-vis individual's participatory

style,

> character, encounters, experience and interpretation and projections

>

> Character, like essence, is elusive. Especially when it comes to

> consciousness. How do you really pin that down? It is a flux. An

> ekstasis. A flow. A perpetual becoming. Not at all like a thing.

Its

> permanence is its lack of permanence. Its evanescence. Sartre

describes

> it as "diasporatic." A "detotalized totality." We can't

really "talk

> about" consciousness without talking about it in these paradoxical

and

> even seemingly contradictory ways. But that is a sign, I think, not

of

> inconsistency, but of a profound richness to the experience that

> consciosuness is.

>

> NNR: 3) How does it function/work with the march of time towards

> individual destination and through individual destiny

>

> From what I am reading in Sartre's Being and Nothingness, right

now, I

> gather that Sartre thinks that its function is primarily temporal.

But

> he ties that into possibility, and, in a profound sense,

possibility is

> freedom. So, you have temporality, possibility, and freedom all

woven

> into the concept of what consciousness is, its for-itselfness, to

use

> the technical term that Sartre uses. Temporal, by the way, also

means

> finite. But that doesn't exclude transcendence. It isn't just pure

> immanence. If it were that, it would be only an in-itself, a thing,

> like that rock over there, or this table, or the "ink well" that

sartre

> keeps mentioning. But in-itselfness isn't totally excluded from it

> either. The past dimension of the temporality of our consciousness

is

> where we find the in-itselfness. When you are dead, you totally

become

> an "in-itself" and cease to be a "for-itself." Only finite

> possibilities are real possibilities. You can't strive to be a

doctor

> of medicine if you are unable to read. You can't yearn to be a poet

if

> you don't have some kind of an innate strong connection with your

own

> emotions. Possibility presumes an already existing context of

> actualities in which you are engaged and over most of which you

really

> do not have control. Then how is freedom to be understood? As

capable

> of being fulfilled or not. The concept of "failure to actually be

free"

> is not excluded from the concept of freedom. Similarly, the concept

> of "missing out" on one's destiny, i.e., "missing the boat" so to

> speak, is an integral part of that essence of that consciousness.

> Consciousness can be either naive or self-reflective. Consciousness

cna

> be "more" or "less." Even if you are not free, your are free. Even

when

> you are unconscious, you are a consciousness.

>

> Your final remark puts it to the very point. It is about "making it

> happen" and that should matter on an individual, concrete level.

That

> is what we mean when we say "existential." It is also what we mean

when

> we say "Socratic." That it isn't of "merely academic" interest.

That it

> has little to do with science and gathering up facts and

information.

> It has everything to do with us. With ourselves. With our "who."

> With "who we are." Not just the "whats" of which the world is made.

>

> That, right there, is the fundamental difference between science

and

> philosophy. Science is all about the world. Philosophy is about us.

I

> get that sense from Socrates. The Socrates of the

supposedly "earlier"

> Platonic dialogues. The "Socratic" ones. Especially the Phaedo and

the

> Crito. I think that all of the other Platonic dialogues have to be

read

> with that "Socratic" intent always kept firmly in view. We can very

> easily lose that perspective, and fall back into theoretical

bickering.

> But, I think, part of Plato's genius is that he shows us very

clearly,

> for example, in the Protagoras, where even good old Socrates takes

an

> intellectual beating, how futile that theoretical bickering really

is.

> It gets us nowhere.

>

> If we can take the Socratic approach to this whole thing about

> consciousness, and if we can factor into that, what Descartes

brought

> up, the "existential bedrock" that we have hit upon when it comes

down

> to the "I am-ness" of that consciousness, I think we can begin to

> realize that the proper attitude toward consciousness has to be a

kind

> of "Well, let's go there, look inside, and see what's in there,"

kind

> of attitude toward it. Consciousness isn't the answer. It is the

place

> where the questions happen. Where the questioning happens.

>

> Hb3g

>Herman, What is nnr1? Bill


























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

consciousness is a paradox, it is both being and nothingness


-JPS
----- Original Message -----
From: "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:05:40 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing






--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
wrote:
>
> NNR: 1) What is the reality about consciousness as it applies to
human
> beings
>
> That it is concrete and lived more so than abstract. We tend to
refer
> to consciousness with various abstract and oblique terms. But it
always
> goes back to that concrete lived experience. That is an individual
> thing. My consciousness is not your consciousness. I can't crawl
inside
> of your skin. I don't see the world from your exact point of view.
Only
> mine. We are the same. But we are also different. I don't think the
> idea of a superconsciousness with your consciousness and my
> consciousness being modes or facets of that superconsciousness
helps us
> out very much.
>
> NNR: 2) Where does it derive its contents, essence and substance?
>
> Through what is lived through. But that doesn't really say where.
It
> just says how. The where is something of a mystery. Obviously,
> situation, being engaged in a world, experiences, relations with
other
> people, are all essential parts of that essence. But we can't
really
> pin down just one thing and say, "Ah hah!" that is the essence of
> consciousness. There is always something "left over." Something
that
> is "not yet." As paradoxical as it may seem, we can't even begin to
> come close to a comprehension of that "essence" that consciousness
is
> without taking seriously the contingency that lies at its very
core.
> You could just as well have been someone else. You could just as
well
> have been not. This doesn't mean consciousness is a mere accident.
It
> means that, for consciousness, its contingency is a necessity, and,
its
> necessity is a contingency. It is what it isn't. And, it isn't what
it
> is. That is one of Sartre's formulations.
>
> NNR: 2) What is its role vis-a-vis individual's participatory
style,
> character, encounters, experience and interpretation and projections
>
> Character, like essence, is elusive. Especially when it comes to
> consciousness. How do you really pin that down? It is a flux. An
> ekstasis. A flow. A perpetual becoming. Not at all like a thing.
Its
> permanence is its lack of permanence. Its evanescence. Sartre
describes
> it as "diasporatic." A "detotalized totality." We can't
really "talk
> about" consciousness without talking about it in these paradoxical
and
> even seemingly contradictory ways. But that is a sign, I think, not
of
> inconsistency, but of a profound richness to the experience that
> consciosuness is.
>
> NNR: 3) How does it function/work with the march of time towards
> individual destination and through individual destiny
>
> From what I am reading in Sartre's Being and Nothingness, right
now, I
> gather that Sartre thinks that its function is primarily temporal.
But
> he ties that into possibility, and, in a profound sense,
possibility is
> freedom. So, you have temporality, possibility, and freedom all
woven
> into the concept of what consciousness is, its for-itselfness, to
use
> the technical term that Sartre uses. Temporal, by the way, also
means
> finite. But that doesn't exclude transcendence. It isn't just pure
> immanence. If it were that, it would be only an in-itself, a thing,
> like that rock over there, or this table, or the "ink well" that
sartre
> keeps mentioning. But in-itselfness isn't totally excluded from it
> either. The past dimension of the temporality of our consciousness
is
> where we find the in-itselfness. When you are dead, you totally
become
> an "in-itself" and cease to be a "for-itself." Only finite
> possibilities are real possibilities. You can't strive to be a
doctor
> of medicine if you are unable to read. You can't yearn to be a poet
if
> you don't have some kind of an innate strong connection with your
own
> emotions. Possibility presumes an already existing context of
> actualities in which you are engaged and over most of which you
really
> do not have control. Then how is freedom to be understood? As
capable
> of being fulfilled or not. The concept of "failure to actually be
free"
> is not excluded from the concept of freedom. Similarly, the concept
> of "missing out" on one's destiny, i.e., "missing the boat" so to
> speak, is an integral part of that essence of that consciousness.
> Consciousness can be either naive or self-reflective. Consciousness
cna
> be "more" or "less." Even if you are not free, your are free. Even
when
> you are unconscious, you are a consciousness.
>
> Your final remark puts it to the very point. It is about "making it
> happen" and that should matter on an individual, concrete level.
That
> is what we mean when we say "existential." It is also what we mean
when
> we say "Socratic." That it isn't of "merely academic" interest.
That it
> has little to do with science and gathering up facts and
information.
> It has everything to do with us. With ourselves. With our "who."
> With "who we are." Not just the "whats" of which the world is made.
>
> That, right there, is the fundamental difference between science
and
> philosophy. Science is all about the world. Philosophy is about us.
I
> get that sense from Socrates. The Socrates of the
supposedly "earlier"
> Platonic dialogues. The "Socratic" ones. Especially the Phaedo and
the
> Crito. I think that all of the other Platonic dialogues have to be
read
> with that "Socratic" intent always kept firmly in view. We can very
> easily lose that perspective, and fall back into theoretical
bickering.
> But, I think, part of Plato's genius is that he shows us very
clearly,
> for example, in the Protagoras, where even good old Socrates takes
an
> intellectual beating, how futile that theoretical bickering really
is.
> It gets us nowhere.
>
> If we can take the Socratic approach to this whole thing about
> consciousness, and if we can factor into that, what Descartes
brought
> up, the "existential bedrock" that we have hit upon when it comes
down
> to the "I am-ness" of that consciousness, I think we can begin to
> realize that the proper attitude toward consciousness has to be a
kind
> of "Well, let's go there, look inside, and see what's in there,"
kind
> of attitude toward it. Consciousness isn't the answer. It is the
place
> where the questions happen. Where the questioning happens.
>
> Hb3g
>Herman, What is nnr1? Bill




--
Christopher Corey
Freedom is Existence

> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ccorey@...
> Sent: Friday, 13 February 2009 2:37 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing
>
> consciousness is a paradox, it is both being and nothingness
>

it actually comes out of mediation space and as such is only present when
mediation is required - the moment mediation has served its purpose
consciousness disappears. Mediation space is relational space; it ties to
the parietal cortex where use of anesthesia to knock out that cortex will
also knock out consciousness. The SAME cortex covers social dealings and the
emergence of consciousness is in the first two years of life and dependent
upon social dynamics to elicit a sense of self.

As a SPECIES all certainty is in the form of instincts/habits - this is
energy conserving and reflects an adaptation to a thermodynamic universe.
Mediation introduces the emergence of consciousness-as-language (verbal and
non-verbal). The more differentiating the consciousness the more unique the
consciousness (see previous post quotes of Jung etc)

The mediation space derives its categories used to mediate through recursion
of the neurology. This realm is also the realm of paradox processing and the
indication is the emergence of consciousness from simple sensory paradox
processing (part/whole confusions) where success in such allows for a
transcendence - a common property of consciousness and use of language.

Given the categories derived in mediation so these serve to describe classes
of consciousness where the individual is a customised instance of a class
and as such reflects difference WITHIN sameness. The more differentiating
that consciousness, the more distant it develops from the 'crowd'.

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

Your response is quite enlightening and interesting.  One makes so little use of
the mediating space, which appears to be the right vehicle towards clarity and
certainty
 
NRR

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, chris lofting <lofting@...> wrote:


From: chris lofting <lofting@...>
Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 9:55 AM








> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogrou ps.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of ccorey@frontiernet. net
> Sent: Friday, 13 February 2009 2:37 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogrou ps.com
> Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing
>
> consciousness is a paradox, it is both being and nothingness
>

it actually comes out of mediation space and as such is only present when
mediation is required - the moment mediation has served its purpose
consciousness disappears. Mediation space is relational space; it ties to
the parietal cortex where use of anesthesia to knock out that cortex will
also knock out consciousness. The SAME cortex covers social dealings and the
emergence of consciousness is in the first two years of life and dependent
upon social dynamics to elicit a sense of self.

As a SPECIES all certainty is in the form of instincts/habits - this is
energy conserving and reflects an adaptation to a thermodynamic universe.
Mediation introduces the emergence of consciousness- as-language (verbal and
non-verbal). The more differentiating the consciousness the more unique the
consciousness (see previous post quotes of Jung etc)

The mediation space derives its categories used to mediate through recursion
of the neurology. This realm is also the realm of paradox processing and the
indication is the emergence of consciousness from simple sensory paradox
processing (part/whole confusions) where success in such allows for a
transcendence - a common property of consciousness and use of language.

Given the categories derived in mediation so these serve to describe classes
of consciousness where the individual is a customised instance of a class
and as such reflects difference WITHIN sameness. The more differentiating
that consciousness, the more distant it develops from the 'crowd'.

Chris
http://members. iimetro.com. au/~lofting/ myweb/AbstractDo main.html
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

you seem intelligent from your post...I believe to have a strong but at the same
time basic understanding but what is YOUR comprehension of and how do you
envision the temporality of disclosedness in Husserlian internal-time
consciousness, with some detail??

-c-

Christopher Corey
Existence is Freedom


----- Original Message -----
From: "chris lofting" <lofting@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:25:01 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing








> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto: existlist@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ccorey@...
> Sent: Friday, 13 February 2009 2:37 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Being and nothing
>
> consciousness is a paradox, it is both being and nothingness
>

it actually comes out of mediation space and as such is only present when
mediation is required - the moment mediation has served its purpose
consciousness disappears. Mediation space is relational space; it ties to
the parietal cortex where use of anesthesia to knock out that cortex will
also knock out consciousness. The SAME cortex covers social dealings and the
emergence of consciousness is in the first two years of life and dependent
upon social dynamics to elicit a sense of self.

As a SPECIES all certainty is in the form of instincts/habits - this is
energy conserving and reflects an adaptation to a thermodynamic universe.
Mediation introduces the emergence of consciousness-as-language (verbal and
non-verbal). The more differentiating the consciousness the more unique the
consciousness (see previous post quotes of Jung etc)

The mediation space derives its categories used to mediate through recursion
of the neurology. This realm is also the realm of paradox processing and the
indication is the emergence of consciousness from simple sensory paradox
processing (part/whole confusions) where success in such allows for a
transcendence - a common property of consciousness and use of language.

Given the categories derived in mediation so these serve to describe classes
of consciousness where the individual is a customised instance of a class
and as such reflects difference WITHIN sameness. The more differentiating
that consciousness, the more distant it develops from the 'crowd'.

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html




--
Christopher Corey
Freedom is Existence

> -----Original Message-----
> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:43 PM
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > The whole of existentialism is a story - an INTERPRETATION as
> compared to
> > "WHAT IS".
>
> Your assertion.  The classical European existentialists, to
> borrow Bill's recent phrase, live their ideas (or may claim
> to do so, and fail); to exist is not a form of art in the way
> a film is a form of art.  An interpretation is an
> intellectual effort.  My own experience of engaging with the
> ideas of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, is that it is  DANGEROUS,
> in a way basically telling stories is not.  It relates to
> EXISTENCE.  The same may be said of those who are inspired by
> Sartre or Camus. The examined life tends to be strenuous.

Only to those who have NOT examined the unconscious. Only to those
over-sensitive to the immediacy of experience and so blind to the push of
context on behaviours. The 'classical' existentialists could only deal with
what they were CONSCIOUS of and as such covered the making of stories when a
simple behaviour of context pushing an instinct/habit, and unconscious
activity, elicited awareness of the sensation of 'push' and the
extrapolation of that sensation to the existence of 'imagined' beings etc.
etc. The examination was focused on literalisation of events, totally blind
to the figurative focus; the neurology's focus on analogy/metaphor, on
pattern matching and so classes of meaning that can get confused with
instances of the class.

> One
> of the shortcomings of discussion at the list in my own
> estimation, is that we have never really arrived at a just
> appreciation of what will to power is, for Nietzsche.

The derivation of classes of consciousness from consideration of unconscious
processes brings out a high level differentiating position that equates with
charisma and attempts to assert one's own context over the existing.
Genetically this is traceable back to basic alpha male/female dynamics in
collectives and is identified all the way up to primates (see such texts as
Demonic Males - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_males )

The further exaggeration of this competitive dynamic through development of
humans covers the development of fundamentalism around some charismatic
individual.

>  I am
> still not strong enough as yet to take this point further.
> The disappointments of seeing historical errors repeat
> themselves is not something I imagine you can understand.
>

The IDM material covers EXACTLY this dynamic where LACK of understanding the
unconscious and its seeding by context allows for repetition of history.
Karl Popper did not believe in such (see his "The Poverty of Historicism")
but recent work with small world networks etc re-introduces a focus on such
- also see my page and refs listed there -
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html - you continue to
underestimate my capabilities/understanding ;-)

> To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
> > the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity.
>
> My, what a godlike project.  Not a simple matter, even to attempt.
>

not really. It just takes time, generations in fact, to accumulate the
information - this these days we have more choices than the past but often
can have too many choices and so we open up a place for learning
discernment.

> This
> > includes identifying the core seeding of experiences PRIOR to the
> > imaginative nature of consciousness trying to interpret limited by
> personal
> > experiences and local context 'traditional' social perspectives.
>
> Science and sociality do not begin to take the question back
> to its core.
>

The core is in the unconscious and so a focus on (a) neurosciences, (b)
psychiatry, (c) psychology, (d) sociology. The generic sameness spanning all
species members (and so a symmetric foundation of determinism) seeds the
asymmetry nature of consciousness and the development of the unique being.

> >
> > As for this list - it covers existentialism and that includes
> phenomenology
> > and is NOT limited to literature. The list introduction:
> >
> > "Founded (elsewhere) in November, 1996, this mailing list is a
> > community interested in existentialism and phenomenology.
> Yes, Sartre,
> Nietzsche, and
> > Kierkegaard, but also many others: Frankl, May, Jaspers, and
> Merleau-Ponty
> > to name a few. This list encourages questions and exchanges of
> information.
> > We want to know about the latest literature, articles, book
> releases, and
> > more. Participate!"
> >
> > If YOU are favouring of a more specialist focus that is not my
> problem, it
> > is your problem.
>
> I am not favouring a specialist focus at all.  Unlike you, I
> am interested in the critique philosophy makes of those
> interpretations which precede the scientific and sociological
> presuppositions from which you comfortably begin your analyses.
>

Science is grounded in a methodology covering critique in that it does NOT
favour direct proof of something but more so indirect proof through attempts
to falsify past claims. Thus if you claim 'the sky is blue' then the focus
is not on validating the claim but falsifying it. FAILURE to do so serves to
validate.

What precedes all is the dynamics of the neurology and its sensory systems -
take that away and all sensations of 'human' disappear.

<snip>
>
> What a lovely fairy-tale this is.  As though political and
> economic considerations, not to say the ordinary social
> pressures on human beings did not have a vast impact on what
> those paid to be scientists are interested in investigating,
> and all that they do not take into consideration.
>

Your not considering the depth of what is going on. The political and
socio-economic dynamics fall within the bounds of what the neurology allows,
anything outside of that is interpreted as paradox and can be characterised
as 'psychotic'. The CLASSES of political and socio-economic conditions are
identifiable as is the consequence of such in regard to what is of value.

Unique individuals born into specific conditions will have a definite
behavioural bias, some accepted, some rejected. For example the classes of
persona applied to USA population shows a socio-economic bias to persona
traits of (a) security seeking and (b) sensation seeking - they make-up 70%
of the population and so dominate social, economic, and political dynamics
within the USA and attitudes to the world. A property of sensation-seeking
is a failure to consider consequences of one's actions beyond the immediate.
Something US foreign and even home policies demonstrate time and time again.
A property of security seeking is 'trust no one', strong experience of being
betrayed by others and covers over-vigilance, over-policing, zero-tolerance,
mindsets. The overall focus is on Sensing over Intuiting. Move to UK and
Europe and the dynamics shift.

Given the work in neurosciences is it now possible to determine the outcome
of classes of conditions and so guide things towards or away from such
through uses of subliminal means - again a use of push on the unconscious to
seed consciousness; one's "freedom of choice" is not so "free" UNLESS one
examines these dynamics very carefully where one is up to date on the
dynamics of the unconscious. To deal with manipulations, to examine one's
life through such, requires understanding of the methods involved - or one
just surrenders to the moment and 'go with the flow'!

<snip>
>
> As I have tried to make clear, my own politics are liberal.
> In no way do I wish to take away from you any lawful interest
> you may have in exploring the literature of social realism or
> anything else that makes your neurons happy.  My intent is to
> challenge statements that I wish to see subjected to
> questioning, on the grounds of my belief that uncritical
> beliefs and unchallenged assumptions can do a great deal of
> harm in a complex world of competing interests.

That continues to be the case and, with the bias to symmetric, sensing,
thinking is not removable, at best suppressed. The focus on all being
'equal' forces a perspective that exposes positions to abuse through being
too trusting. The trust issues cover two dimensions:

total trust/distrust in another
total trust/distrust in self

total trust in others leads to a focus on identity seeking and covers 15% of
the US population
total distrust in others leads to a focus on security seeking and covers 35%
of the US population
total distrust in self leads to a focus on problem solving (solution
seeking) and covers 15% of the US population
total trust in self leads to a focus on sensation seeking (extreme is
hubris) and covers 35% of the US population

The general dynamics covered here allow for subliminal 'push' of behaviours
and their seeding of consciousness and its 'freedom to make choices' - this
includes an examined life being more so a narrative of rationalisations for
being pushed by the unconscious!

The cost of science has been the identification of unconscious behaviours
and the exploitation of such through implicit means. Often the original
intent was on PROTECTION but with all of these sorts of dichotomies, they
get self-referenced to cover a range of states mixing protection with
exploitation and local context then selects the 'best fit'. The more
differentiated consciousness can assert the context and as such push
themselves, become self-organising, but there are issues with that in the
dynamics of being competitive/cooperative as we are social beings.

Chris
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html

I experience existing, therefore I AM.



When I was six one of the questions which I asked myself was that given
that conscious awareness exists (which is axiomatic) then what exists
for consciousness to become conscious of?  In the years that followed I
became gob-smacked of what exists to be conscious of. Especially that
event when one no longer experiences existing on this world, and in a
realm where time does not move (for there are no changing events) one
cannot even think (for thinking takes time) and there is no
contradiction or alienation. I think some have called it paradise :- )
But it is plainly Primordial Consciousness; and exists at the root of
our very being; or the life force within us. But plainly very few per
capita of any one generation have found it. Maybe they all out to find
it; for that would eliminate so much hostility and alienation on this
world.



It has been said (and I concur with it) that humanity will not come
right until such time that people have a better understanding of the
mysterious nature of their consciousness.



Dick.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How many English folks are on this group?



In a cyberspace dominated by America I just wondered. I will await
answers whilst having a few pints of real ale down at the old
Bull-n-Bullshit Inn, hard by the gates of the Travellers Rest in the
vale of peace and tranquillity; whilst the rising sea levels do pound
against the cliffs of Avalon driving it further away from Europe - thank
the Lud of the Dance.  Hallelujah, and pass the cigars.



Merlin of Exmoor.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
> > Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:43 PM
> > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
> >
> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >
> > > The whole of existentialism is a story - an INTERPRETATION as
> > compared to
> > > "WHAT IS".
> >
> > Your assertion.  The classical European existentialists, to
> > borrow Bill's recent phrase, live their ideas (or may claim
> > to do so, and fail); to exist is not a form of art in the way
> > a film is a form of art.  An interpretation is an
> > intellectual effort.  My own experience of engaging with the
> > ideas of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, is that it is  DANGEROUS,
> > in a way basically telling stories is not.  It relates to
> > EXISTENCE.  The same may be said of those who are inspired by
> > Sartre or Camus. The examined life tends to be strenuous.
>
> Only to those who have NOT examined the unconscious. Only to those
> over-sensitive to the immediacy of experience and so blind to the
push of
> context on behaviours. The 'classical' existentialists could only
deal with
> what they were CONSCIOUS of and as such covered the making of
stories when a
> simple behaviour of context pushing an instinct/habit, and unconscious
> activity, elicited awareness of the sensation of 'push' and the
> extrapolation of that sensation to the existence of 'imagined'
beings etc.
> etc. The examination was focused on literalisation of events,
totally blind
> to the figurative focus; the neurology's focus on analogy/metaphor, on
> pattern matching and so classes of meaning that can get confused with
> instances of the class.

All of this is still your interpretation, and only one possible
interpretation.  You practise an exclusivist utopianism without
apparent consciousness of same whilst counselling examination of the
unconscious to those who see more than you do in the works of authors
whose exactnesses escape your notice.  This is about as far as I can
go in spelling out my scepticism to you, since in general you show
yourself as impenetrable to a different view as any wide-eyed cultist.

>
> > One
> > of the shortcomings of discussion at the list in my own
> > estimation, is that we have never really arrived at a just
> > appreciation of what will to power is, for Nietzsche.
>
> The derivation of classes of consciousness from consideration of
unconscious
> processes brings out a high level differentiating position that
equates with
> charisma and attempts to assert one's own context over the existing.
> Genetically this is traceable back to basic alpha male/female
dynamics in
> collectives and is identified all the way up to primates (see such
texts as
> Demonic Males - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_males )
>
> The further exaggeration of this competitive dynamic through
development of
> humans covers the development of fundamentalism around some charismatic
> individual.

I find this a typically reductive caricature of the idea of will to
power.  It's commonplace in the culture, but that does not prove it
has any link with Nietzsche's thought and life.

>
> >  I am
> > still not strong enough as yet to take this point further.
> > The disappointments of seeing historical errors repeat
> > themselves is not something I imagine you can understand.
> >
>
> The IDM material covers EXACTLY this dynamic where LACK of
understanding the
> unconscious and its seeding by context allows for repetition of history.

Rubbish.  How can you teach anyone anything when you have not learnt
how to listen, how to doubt your own understanding of someone else's
words?


> Karl Popper did not believe in such (see his "The Poverty of
Historicism")
> but recent work with small world networks etc re-introduces a focus
on such
> - also see my page and refs listed there -
> http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html - you
continue to
> underestimate my capabilities/understanding ;-)
>
> > To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
> > > the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity.
> >
> > My, what a godlike project.  Not a simple matter, even to attempt.
> >
>
> not really. It just takes time, generations in fact, to accumulate the
> information - this these days we have more choices than the past but
often
> can have too many choices and so we open up a place for learning
> discernment.

I accept that this is like a religious faith to you.

>
> > This
> > > includes identifying the core seeding of experiences PRIOR to the
> > > imaginative nature of consciousness trying to interpret limited by
> > personal
> > > experiences and local context 'traditional' social perspectives.
> >
> > Science and sociality do not begin to take the question back
> > to its core.
> >
>
> The core is in the unconscious and so a focus on (a) neurosciences, (b)
> psychiatry, (c) psychology, (d) sociology. The generic sameness
spanning all
> species members (and so a symmetric foundation of determinism) seeds the
> asymmetry nature of consciousness and the development of the unique
being.

The unconscious is a word you are taking to indicate your own
interpretation of how you believe the humanly accessible world to be
structured.  The various sciences you invoke do not interest me
vitally until I become convinced that their practitioners are not
trying to pull a fast one, philosophically, and hence become simply
tools of a partially-hidden political process that depresses human
culture in favour of a (relatively) coarse biologism.  Just the sort
of thing Nietzsche was trying to counter in the aftermath of the
Franco-Prussian war.

>
> > >
> > > As for this list - it covers existentialism and that includes
> > phenomenology
> > > and is NOT limited to literature. The list introduction:
> > >
> > > "Founded (elsewhere) in November, 1996, this mailing list is a
> > > community interested in existentialism and phenomenology.
> > Yes, Sartre,
> > Nietzsche, and
> > > Kierkegaard, but also many others: Frankl, May, Jaspers, and
> > Merleau-Ponty
> > > to name a few. This list encourages questions and exchanges of
> > information.
> > > We want to know about the latest literature, articles, book
> > releases, and
> > > more. Participate!"
> > >
> > > If YOU are favouring of a more specialist focus that is not my
> > problem, it
> > > is your problem.
> >
> > I am not favouring a specialist focus at all.  Unlike you, I
> > am interested in the critique philosophy makes of those
> > interpretations which precede the scientific and sociological
> > presuppositions from which you comfortably begin your analyses.
> >
>
> Science is grounded in a methodology covering critique in that it
does NOT
> favour direct proof of something but more so indirect proof through
attempts
> to falsify past claims. Thus if you claim 'the sky is blue' then the
focus
> is not on validating the claim but falsifying it. FAILURE to do so
serves to
> validate.
>
> What precedes all is the dynamics of the neurology and its sensory
systems -
> take that away and all sensations of 'human' disappear.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > What a lovely fairy-tale this is.  As though political and
> > economic considerations, not to say the ordinary social
> > pressures on human beings did not have a vast impact on what
> > those paid to be scientists are interested in investigating,
> > and all that they do not take into consideration.
> >
>
> Your not considering the depth of what is going on. The political and
> socio-economic dynamics fall within the bounds of what the neurology
allows,
> anything outside of that is interpreted as paradox and can be
characterised
> as 'psychotic'.

In other words, you are a conformist.  L.