Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reality as "is", co-created and fracturing

Expand Messages
  • Elaine Phipps-Earl
    Dear (((((((((((((Henry))))))))))), One of my Professors, in the Christmas card he sent to me, wrote :- U are a true seeker . I am indeed the seeker and as
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear (((((((((((((Henry))))))))))),



      One of my Professors, in the Christmas card he sent to me, wrote :- "U are a true seeker". I am indeed the seeker and as the seeker, I sometimes struggle to bring it all together. This email will make evident such struggling, the grasping of differing threads and their entwining, in an attempt to define meaning or truth, if there is in fact any truth to be found, the eternal quest of the Philosopher ;))))). As such, before I begin, I apologise to those who may find my struggle irritating. Of course I could have written privately. However, I perceive the subject matter as well worthy of discussion and would hope that others will be inspired to contribute their own insight and understanding.



      U wrote :- in basic agreement with you, there are such problems as "fracturing" IN the world... & although it comes in differing ways for different situations, & their complex of interactions, these separations are pervasive. & as we are in the world (the universe, for that matter) we necessarily become infected with, one way or the other... and later in the email .....

      You're darn right, during the Vietnam war/Watergate period... when I lived in California, I used to read the headlines of newspapers on the news stands... & swear I could see these troubles in the eyes, behaviour of my fellow "citizens," right in the streets!!! i.e., a correspondence as certain events showed themselves in this way (a provocative manner of headline news). I saw this as an eruption of a massive social crisis/psychosis... that probably was there all the time, in more seemingly manageable form... for many (masked by politeness, self/imposed censorship, bureaucratic form, etc.)





      U say "I saw this as an eruption of a massive social crisis/psychosis... that probably was there all the time".



      My Dearest Ronnie (R.D. Laing) in his revolutionary theories of Mental Illness, in particular Schizophrenia, believed the greater majority exist, as Jung suggested, in a state of unconsciousness, blissfully unaware of the delusional drama in which each is merely an actor, this unconscious collusive delusion created in order to maintain ontological security.



      Ronnie perceived the Schizophrenic as the visionary, overtly aware of his/her "own" experience and motives, hypertrophy of self-consciousness conferring a greater sense of psychological mindedness.[1] Psychosis, rather than an apparition of senseless delusion, was the unconscious becoming conscious,[2] visions of the literal and figurative truth,[3] the overwhelmingly violence, hostility and alienation within the patient's own micro-social system.



      Both u and I are overtly aware of a massive social crisis/psychosis. As written in my previous email, I have become blatantly aware of this crisis/psychosis both within the micro and macro social system. My saving grace, as I suggested, appears to be my ability to stand outside of myself, as mere observer. As u say, and Ronnie would obviously agree, this mass social psychosis would appear to have been maintained throughout the entire history of mankind. However, as Taylor suggests, humanity is moving ever forward toward consciousness, becoming conscious of and as such, many are now confronted by the seeming absurdity of created reality. Our modern civilization is in crisis. Mental illness has now become the "norm", the greater majority now suffering from some form of neurosis or psychosis.



      I am presently half way through my Honours Degree and my study is focusing upon this very subject. I cannot be sure if this is my intention or the University's lol. In an Honours Degree u are given no course material, no distinct subject matter and the combination of units in the degree is the student's choice. I should imagine, given the diversity of choice, what becomes the student's thesis is rather like lotto. While there are a certain number of units/topics available, the combination gives endless possibilities. In first semester this year I will be studying "Foucault and Deleuze" and in second semester "Eastern Philosophies of Mental Illness" and upon completion I begin my thesis. I am the seeker and as Sartre, Jung and my Dearest Ronnie, I seek to free humanity from this delusional drama, in order for each and every human being to authentically embrace their own experience of being-in-the-world.



      I was most fortunate in having the opportunity to study the Philosophy of Time, which touched upon Physics and since have had an overwhelming urge to study Physics and Cosmology in more detail.



      U wrote :- I now turn toward the rather well known cite of Albert Einstein regarding the development of atomic fission... (& I paraphrase from memory): "When we fissioned the atom, we changed everything save our way of thinking." I believe he meant exactly that... changed EVERYTHING.



      Please could u explain the above in more detail ;)))))))))))))))))))))))) to enable me to comprehend your statement:- "the potencies for physical realization would be on a differing track than those charged (willingly or no) for the cares & considerations for those physical potencies realizations... (or elimination) which is us. & I am laying aside here, for the moment any analysis of relations of social stratifications... but do see the necessity to appropriately include this... to accurately understand any relations... between humans... (& nature as well).



      I don't know if u have ever experienced this phenomena, but with each study I find something, this something incomplete, which begs me to remember in order to build upon it at a later date. While the study of the Philosophy of Time was indeed most enlightening, the something, which seemed incomplete and begged for me to remember, was physics suggestion that all physical matter is of one, energy, and the only difference in manifestations of matter is the differing dance of neutrons and quarks. While at this moment I do not know the profound significance of this, I do know I must seek its significance.



      The tomatoes sound great ;)))) In consciousness, I can taste it, oops juice running down chin lol.



      Love & Massive Hugs

      Elaine





      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      [1] Burston D. -"The Crucible of Experience"; p.41.

      [2] Mullan B. -"Mad To Be Normal"; p.161.

      [3] Burston D. -"The Crucible of Experience"; p.65.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Henry W. Peters
      ... Dear Elaine, As you may already be aware, Being & Nothingness is most descriptive of relations between the natural/physical & human... as well as the
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 8:56 AM +1000 01/05/04, Elaine Phipps-Earl wrote:
        >Please could u explain the above in more detail
        >;)))))))))))))))))))))))) to enable me to comprehend your
        >statement:- "the potencies for physical realization would be on a
        >differing track than those charged (willingly or no) for the cares &
        >considerations for those physical potencies realizations... (or
        >elimination) which is us. & I am laying aside here, for the moment
        >any analysis of relations of social stratifications... but do see
        >the necessity to appropriately include this... to accurately
        >understand any relations... between humans... (& nature as well).

        Dear Elaine,

        As you may already be aware, "Being & Nothingness" is most
        descriptive of relations between the natural/physical & human... as
        well as the attempts by humans toward each other, i.e.; "in-itself" /
        "for-itself..." This work, also facing courageously the largely
        prohibited understanding of the place/s of negativity in its'
        multifaceted forms... (usually, until then, thought of as evil...) &
        thereby offering some of the implications thereby lost & gained for
        human understanding/possibility. "Critique of Dialectical Reasoning"
        Sartres' final major work, begins further the more expansive journey
        toward the social understandings of the implications of aforesaid
        findings; "praxis," ("the activity of an individual or group in
        organizing conditions in the light of some end"), "practico-inerte,"
        ("matter in which past praxis is embodied"), etc..

        A wider or deeper discussion of "physics" is probably best, for the
        moment, for another forum... but as I think that raising the issue of
        physicality & intentionality... are reasonably germane &
        contemporaneous problems... for "existential" comprehensions...
        which, to take the ideas, findings, etc. of J. P. Sartre for anything
        more than academic exercises in mental stimulation... we should
        understand this thought (& others) though the lens of intentionality
        & current problem solving, I therefore proceed, as briefly as I can.

        I have always taken the cautionary statement previously given... by
        Albert Einstein re fissioning the atom as serious (& importantly,
        though not woven into an attempted "holistic" philosophy such as B.&
        N., an experiential insightful) warning regarding the DISJUNCTION of
        knowledge & the known... i.e., that the physical powers available
        to be unleashed... newly discovered had insufficient (or no)
        controls... because sufficient attentions/means/methodologies were
        not established as prerequisites for unleashing (or leveraging) these
        new found energy sources/means, & often disequilibria in the extreme,
        (& which likely were/are, manifestations of possible physical prowess
        at the tip of the iceberg, so to speak...). This is to say... we
        have had (possibly until recently) insufficient scientific / cultural
        / social awareness of the serious NEED for actual confidence in
        fielding appropriately such powers...

        An "enemy" missle gets fired from somewhere... as it flys... or is
        it a crow... or what? This really happens. From the "other side,"
        it is just a moveing blip on a radar screen...

        Around 1985 or 86 I attended an honors ceremony for the late great
        scientist/peace advocate... Linus Pauling in which he said something
        like: He had just visited the then president Ronald Reagan at the
        White House, to (try to) talk about his volatile rhetoric regarding
        the "evil empire"(i.e., the Soviet Union), the cavalier statements
        about preemptive use of nuclear weapons... star wars, etc.

        He further said something like Reagan would not look him in the
        eye... & that the course of discussion revealed the distinct
        possibility that this man (Reagan) did not really understand that
        nuclear weapons were anything more than "glorified bullets & bows &
        arrows."

        The fact of six billion human beings on planet Earth... & growing...
        also presents some ticklish problems that yet have no sure
        resolution... & given the fractious nature of historical/social
        developments & the institutionalized edifice of largely anti nature
        resolve... bodes not well... Especially since given recourse to
        resolve is "status quo;" i.e., to EXTERNALIZE all costs for
        resources ( that may be conned, pirated, captured, etc., for
        succeeding generations to "pay" never mind the impending global
        changes such as extreme temperature, chemical, etc. which these same
        generations will be facing fuller costs from as well... but that's
        another discussion (forum).

        So yes, it's all the same energy base... dancing... but then there
        is the polka... the waltz... tango... shotish... salsa... boogie...
        rock... rap... soul... the death wish doodle (not really a dance),
        etc., with many more & more local variations on all!

        Peace & Great Tasting Tomatoes,

        Henry

        p.s. What does "lol" mean?
      • Henry W. Peters
        ... I hope I may clearify this statement... read instead: (Reagan) seemed to think that nuclear weapons were merely glorified bullets & bows & arrows.
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          >He further said something like Reagan would not look him in the
          >eye... & that the course of discussion revealed the distinct
          >possibility that this man (Reagan) did not really understand that
          >nuclear weapons were anything more than "glorified bullets & bows &
          >arrows."


          I hope I may clearify this statement... read instead: (Reagan)
          seemed to think that nuclear weapons were merely "glorified bullets &
          bows & arrows."

          Apologies for any confusions.

          Regards,
          Henry
        • Elaine Phipps-Earl
          Dear Henry, Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Henry,

            Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have
            managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
            physical to create our own manifestations of power, our own processes of
            logic are inferior to the power we have created?

            Love & Massive Hugs
            Elaine
          • Henry W. Peters
            ... Hi Elaine, First off, I would like to make mention that I think there are even significant scientific/technological success stories humans can claim... in
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 7, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              >Dear Henry,
              >
              >Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have
              >managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
              >physical to create our own manifestations of power, our own processes of
              >logic are inferior to the power we have created?
              >
              >Love & Massive Hugs
              >Elaine

              Hi Elaine,

              First off, I would like to make mention that I think there are even
              significant scientific/technological success stories humans can
              claim... in part or in whole...

              But as to your above interpretation: Close... but because I believe
              that it would not really help us get to the heart of the matter,
              i.e., possibly altering the situation... I think I would not
              necessarily use the appellation "inferior," at least in broad or
              sweeping generalizations... Along with the possibility of self
              destruction resulting from such activity (science/technology run
              amok), critiquing this dilemma, calls into question relationships;
              like our ability to not be determined by a "pastness..." & the
              like... I guess I see these "powers" as you say, as being not
              sufficiently & appropriately understood... & our "own processes of
              logic" would be deficient... in, say, attentiveness... vision...
              spirit... humility...

              One hesitates, in such an abbreviated context, to use the word
              freedom... because of the largely unquestioned abuse this term has
              been historically brought towards... (a kind of entrapment, I might
              call this abuse) but non the less... think there is no escaping the
              importance of... this concept... i.e. what makes it possible for
              humans to distinguish ourselves from our surroundings????? Is this
              not a rather basic "existential" question... of sorts?

              It may be... that the same or similar thought/mind processes/powers
              which can & have & do lead to the afore mentioned "fracturing" (or
              getting off track, separations, alienation & so forth) when
              transformed or made self aware thought/action developments may be
              transformed, somehow, empowered to produce change... productive of
              more than a science that is so called for science sake... & or just
              monetary 'success,' & or merely subservient to the powers that be...
              but the will to transform, & needed resource must then be mustered...
              forth... somehow... understanding there are no guaranteed out
              comes... in experiment... by definition.

              In other words, relationships productive of relationship/s with
              nature & others that may be more actively & experientially
              considerate (ergo, engaged) with the processes of nature...
              Producing relevant novelty (not the hee-hee kind, like say a whoopee
              cushion, etc.). Knowing that we do not know... seems also important
              to be able to appropriately recognize along with knowing that we
              do... & also seems to me; to need a kind of confidence which comes
              not from any exterior discovery anyone could make... (say;
              humility... creativity).

              & then, devise ways to work with these processes... & who is to say
              that a part of the consideration/s couldn't be the mutually forward
              thinking accommodation of the needs for everyone? & it may just be
              that the "everyone" is an essential aspect for the possibility of
              forwarding of "success" of any living human project... I realize
              that there are alternatives... I say, we may as well check out the
              ones that seem to be good choice for ones self & then be best for the
              mostest... & go for it... if possible & or timely (but this is
              another matter).

              This seems to me... to call for a science which is integral to
              imperatives of human need... attentive to natures ways... & around &
              around (spider spiral like).

              I received the below forwarded article on a environmental activist
              discussion list in which I participate... it may illustrate
              somewhat, further difficulties some of the condition which we find
              our selves in... & the need for appropriate transcendence. Please
              excuse me if some on this list feel/think it to be not on topic... I
              mean it as a further illustration of the NEED for resolution of some
              of the above & the problems highlighted in the below forwarded
              article...

              Best Regards,
              Henry

              p.s. what does "lol" mean?

              ----------> forward------>>>

              Star Tribune
              Mpls., MN

              Opinion

              BARTON REPPERT: Politics in the lab
              The Christian Science Monitor
              http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/1108538p-7734418c.html

              Published January 6, 2004

              GAITHERSBURG, Md. (CSM) - In theory, science is supposed to be cold,
              analytical, dispassionate - and studiously apolitical. But in the real
              world of competing demands for federal research dollars, savvy scientists
              of all disciplines - from cognitive psychologists running rats through
              mazes to nuclear physicists operating massive particle accelerators -
              recognize that a certain amount of political meddling in their
              research by
              policymakers in the executive branch and Congress is to be expected.
              However, there are limits - limits the Bush administration has frequently
              disregarded by imposing stringent political controls on a broad
              variety of
              federal scientific programs and activities. This has raised acute concern
              in the American scientific community that the administration's drive to
              stamp its conservative values on science isn't just affecting policy
              decisions, but undermining the integrity of the U.S. research
              infrastructure itself.
              Playing politics with science is nothing new in Washington, of course.
              President Nixon shut down his White House science office
              because he didn't
              like the advice he was getting on arms control and the supersonic
              transport. Nevertheless, several science-policy experts argue that no
              presidency has been more calculating and ideological than the Bush
              administration in setting political parameters for science. President
              Bush's blunt rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and his
              decision restricting stem-cell research are only the most obvious and
              widely publicized examples of what has become a broader pattern
              across the
              administration.
              At the same time, the president's chief science adviser, atomic physicist
              John Marburger, who is largely well-regarded in the scientific community,
              reportedly has very little substantive access to Bush and his senior
              aides, and his office has been moved out of the White House complex.
              Some examples of the Bush administration's interference with science
              include:

              - The removal from a National Cancer Institute Web site of a scientific
              analysis concluding that abortions do not increase a woman's risk of
              breast cancer. That move, in November 2002, contradicted the
              broad medical
              consensus, and members of Congress protested the change. In response, the
              NCI updated its Web site to include the conclusion of a panel of experts
              that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer
              risk.

              - Dropping a leading addiction expert from the University of New Mexico,
              Dr. William Miller, from consideration for membership on the National
              Advisory Council on Drug Abuse after an administration aide quizzed him
              about whether he opposed abortion ("no") and had voted for Bush ("no").

              - The elimination of the section on global warming in a comprehensive
              Environmental Protection Agency report on the environment last June. EPA
              officials decided to eliminate the section on climate change after an
              earlier draft prompted the White House to demand major revisions.

              The politicization of U.S. science has drawn close attention from leading
              scientific journals. Bush administration interference with federal
              scientific advisory committees as well as peer-review panels for research
              grants is an "epidemic of politics," editorialized Science, the
              influential weekly journal of the American Association for the
              Advancement
              of Science. "What is unusual about the current epidemic is not that the
              Bush administration examines candidates for compatibility with its
              'values.' It's how deep the practice cuts, in particular, the way it now
              invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation," wrote editor in
              chief Donald Kennedy.
              Prominent Democrats in Congress have expressed frustration over
              the mixing
              of politics with science.
              "I think what they've done is unprecedented," says Rep. Henry Waxman (D)
              of California, ranking minority member of the House Government Reform
              Committee. "Even prominent Republicans who served under
              Presidents Reagan,
              Ford, and Nixon are alarmed.... Leading scientists both inside
              and outside
              the administration have said politics is getting into
              previously protected
              areas."
              Mr. Waxman's committee issued a report in August concluding that the
              administration's political interference with science has led to
              "misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses
              to Congress,
              altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international
              communications, and the gagging of scientists."
              The report - which can be seen at
              http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience - alleges abuses in 21
              areas ranging from abstinence-only sex education to breast cancer,
              drinking water, food safety, global warming, prescription-drug
              advertising, stem-cell research, and workplace safety.
              White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the report as
              "riddled with distortions, inaccuracies and omissions." And, he said,
              "This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available
              science based on what's right for the American people. The only
              one who is
              playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman."
              Several senior-science policy specialists say that while the
              Waxman report
              has a partisan tone, most of its major points are well taken. Neal Lane,
              who served as director of the National Science Foundation and then as
              presidential science adviser during the Clinton administration, observed:
              "It's always the case in the White House ... that science is one of a
              number of sets of issues that a president, a political
              policymaker, has to
              consider when they're making decisions. Sometimes the decision goes in a
              way that the science would not suggest. But there's such a long list of
              egregious actions taken by this administration that I think it
              essentially
              gives a false impression of what the science really is and strongly
              suggests the administration simply doesn't care to find out."
              Professor Lewis Branscomb, a science policy expert at Harvard and former
              director of the National Bureau of Standards under Nixon, notes that on
              the question of stacking federal scientific advisory committees, "I'm not
              aware that (Nixon) ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory
              committees, or dismissed from advisory committees very well-qualified
              people if he didn't like their views.... What's going on now is in many
              ways more insidious. It happens behind the curtain. I don't think we've
              had this kind of cynicism with respect to objective scientific advice
              since I've been watching government, which is quite a long time."
              Perhaps the corrosive issue of political interference with science won't
              be crucial to Bush's re-election chances, but by undercutting the
              integrity of the scientific community, it may be crucial to the long-term
              quality of life not just in the U.S., but also in other countries around
              the world.

              Barton Reppert, a former Associated Press reporter and editor in
              Washington, New York and Moscow, is a freelance science and technology
              writer.

              © Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

              NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
              distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
              receiving this information for research and educational purposes.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.