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

45115RE: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities : > 1. Philosophy does not progress like science progresses.

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    Sep 1, 2008
      BTW - a point not covered below is that the focus on
      precision/discretisation by science acts to 'freeze' time, to marginalise
      it, to make it mechanical and so considered slowable, stoppable, even
      reversible. Our brains are dominated by sensory experiences in the form of
      frequencies where such set off resonance with our emotions (all of this
      covering sensory harmonics dynamics) - this focus on frequency turns time on
      its head (the relationship is reciprocal). A movement to focusing on time in
      its full blown thermodynamic form is a movement to considering more the
      realm of integrating than differentiating.. which a bit of a problem when
      the focus is on 'is-ness' in that this movement towards relational space
      lacks precision or more so the precision possible when we work in
      differentiating and so object space. (the 'truth' of course being when we
      self-reference object/relationships to bring us to a continuum, and
      entanglement of the elements of the dichotomy)

      This distortion of time comes about in science through symmetrisation in
      that in the realm of the objective there is no direction, or more so
      'preferred' direction, all is ... well ... symmetric and so 'same'. We can
      sense this in, for example, symmetric musical scales as compared to the
      asymmetric form where there IS movement. This then takes us to issues of
      rhythm and the poetic where such can elicit 'sensations' that are hard to
      'grasp' and so categorise - fleeting moments of the unique that at best can
      be memorised (sort of, even that act is one of symmetrisation!).

      All of that said, the overall roots of meaning being in the containment of
      noise eliciting spontaneous order through self-referencing (i.e. the chaos
      game) allows for the interchange of 'process' perspectives with 'form'
      perspectives and so brings out a property of the noun/verb dichotomy (aka
      differentiating/integrating aka object/relationships) and that is
      normalisation/de-normalisation. Thus the ability to map out 'objects' allows
      for the translation of such into relationships and visa versa. The precision
      issue is covered with specialist philosophy lacking the precision of
      explicit objectification but having enough to bring out a relational focus
      open for 'in depth' analysis.

      From a focus on asymmetric dichotomisations, so we can have:


      Self-reference these to 'mix' the elements to form composites - BUT given
      this asymmetry we also find the 'best fit' is:

      transcendental/transformational and so reverse the elements:

      meta-physics/physics - and so philosophy differentiates and is more
      qualitatively precise in that it allows for what current science cannot deal
      with - the realm of the singular and so random/miraculous. (and so
      philosophy/science where such brings out the integrating nature of science
      and its focus on the objective and so 'law' and so symmetry)

      This introduces us to thermodynamic time as 'transforming' and as such the
      roots of 'being' (since it is time that aids in these reflections) being in
      the ever-transforming and so shape-shifting - the pragmatism of the
      science/evolution realm. THEN comes amplifications that also cover
      abstraction (positive feedback amplifies but also discreteness a part into a
      whole; asymmetric outside, symmetric inside) as we move into the 'sense of


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of chris lofting
      > Sent: Monday, 1 September 2008 7:30 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities : > 1.
      > Philosophy does not progress like science progresses.
      > Lets start with 1 on your list - this is required since your
      > list is a vague list with assertions in need of validations:
      > "The experiencing consciousness creates structure in the flow
      > of its experience, and that structure is what conscious
      > cognitive organisms experience as "reality." Since that
      > reali-ty is created almost entirely without the experiencer's
      > awareness of his or her creative activity, it comes to appear
      > as given by an independently "existing" world. Once know-ing
      > is no longer understood as the search for an iconic
      > representation of ontological re-ality but, instead, as a
      > search for fitting ways of behaving and thinking, the
      > traditional problem of epistemology disappears. Knowledge can
      > now be seen as something which the organism builds up in the
      > attempt to order the as such amorphous flow of expe-rience by
      > establishing repeatable experiences and relatively reliable
      > relations between them. The possibilities of constructing
      > such an order are determined and perpetually constrained by
      > the preceding steps in the construction. That means that the
      > "real" world manifests itself exclusively where our
      > constructions break down. Moreover, we can de-scribe and
      > explain these breakdowns only in the very concepts that we
      > have used to build the failing structures."
      > Introduction to Radical Constructivism (Ernst von Glasersfeld - 1981 :
      > http://anti-matters.org/ojs/index.php/antimatters/article/view/88/81 )
      > and ...
      > "Radical constructivism maintains - not unlike Kant in his
      > Critique - that the operations by means of which we assemble
      > our experiential world can be explored, and that an awareness
      > of this operating (which Ceccato in Italian so nicely called
      > consapevolezza ope-rativa) [2] can help us do it differently
      > and, perhaps, better." ibid
      > From the 'net re philosphers 'vs' scientists
      > "1. Scientists should look for testable theories and use
      > measurable data whereas philosophers ask about questions that
      > cannot really be subjected to testing.
      > 2. In theoretical science you may have more philosophy, such
      > as string theory which has been going for many years but is
      > still basically untested, thus, at the moment it is more
      > philosophy. But then science has always operated this way.
      > Consider Edison and Einstein. Edison invented the
      > long-lasting light bulb by trial and error experiments in the
      > physical world; what I would consider very pure science.
      > Einstein "invented" theories almost entirely out of his own
      > head which were untestable and used only logic and
      > imagination, I would consider that philosophy. Once it became
      > testable, proofs were made and it became science ... as is
      > becoming / has become the case with string theory.
      > 3 As an on-going conversation differences between these
      > groups in cultural terms are really determined by what
      > current scientists and current philosophers say they are - -
      > they define their own fields to some extent.
      > Philosophy used to be the love of wisdom and attempted to
      > keep a very practical footing, but now on the top of the
      > mountain we have postmodern philosophers such as Derrida
      > whose work may actually be anti-practical.
      > Students tend to get rewarded for creating unusual and
      > aggressive arguments to dismount the current king of the
      > hill, not for their attempts to seek the truth. Further,
      > scientists often use current observations and logically
      > extrapolate previous or future states based on them and thus
      > come up with global warming or evolution, which should more
      > properly belong in the field of philosophy or meta-physics
      > since they currently have no means of being tested and can
      > only be observed. (Thus I said "meta-physics" for "beyond"
      > physical testing.)
      > In Science the need for research grants may consciously or
      > unconsciously motivate a person to exaggerate the likelihood
      > of positive findings because he or she likes being employed
      > ... not really a truth-generating situation either.
      > 4. In the MOST useful sense I would say the main,
      > non-academic, difference between the two are the
      > personalities. They are very similar persons, one simply
      > likes the world that can be touched and the other prefers the
      > untouchable."
      > From me:
      > Science goes under the original name of "natural philosophy"
      > and as such is a specialist form of philosophy. More so it is
      > that part that focuses attention on concepts and the sense of
      > the repeatable, predictable, reducible-to-essentials (i.e. a
      > law/instinct/habit and so covers sameness).
      > These are all properties of symmetry and as such science is
      > about the search for and analysis of symmetry at a VERY rigid
      > and so formal level with more of a focus on syntax as an
      > exaggerated form of semantics in that the ONLY clear meaning
      > is in one's position in some sequence/hierarchy.
      > This focus on reductionism etc makes a focus on
      > identification of the bedrock (law) upon which all rests and
      > in this doing has led to the emergence of a post-modernist
      > mindset that covers the pragmatism of evolution and so a
      > position that lacks amplifications we use to assert an
      > individual since at the level of the bedrock the individual
      > is meaningless other than as a repetition of a basic form.
      > This brings out our particular nature as members of a
      > neuron-dependent species and as such promotes evolution drive
      > of protection in numbers - the loss of an individual or more
      > is 'meaningless' in that the numbers ensure overall survival
      > of the species.
      > Thus any 'purpose' identified at this position applies to
      > groups not individuals.
      > The problem from a philosophy perspective is that there is
      > little/no recognition of the unique since such a state is
      > considered asymmetric (random/miraculous/vague (beyond
      > compare)) and the realm of the species is a focus on symmetry
      > (development of instincts/habits and the social dynamics of
      > the species)
      > Science is conservative since it has a focus on
      > precision/repeatability etc, whereas the realm of the
      > singular allows for the assertion of a philosophy from a
      > singular mind. Thus philosophy is dynamic in that for each
      > new mind there is scope for asserting a philosophy without
      > reference/dependence to/from any others - IOW there is the
      > ability to derive a philosophy that is free of science
      > requirements (repetition, prediction etc) - this gets into
      > the notion of being 'born again' and so the development of
      > fundamentalist perspectives.
      > As such, philosophy can move faster than science but is also
      > vague ('waving of hands') and so lets loose an aspect -
      > 'natural philosophy' to refine the perspectives, validate the
      > speculations, and in doing so perhaps introduce new data to
      > elicit finer distinctions.
      > An example of the issues with philosophy distancing itself
      > from understanding the output of science is post-modernism
      > where the science paradigm has risen to dominate collective
      > perspectives without real questioning and in doing so reduced
      > all 'meaning' to being nothing more than analogy/metaphor and
      > so distancing itself from the other end of the dimension
      > where the focus is on exaggerations, on transcendences and
      > subjective experience.
      > Delauze has pushed a philosophy of difference (and extended
      > such into science and mathematics) with a focus on a
      > mathematics of difference to re-adjust for the over-emphasis
      > on sameness where mathematics is grounded in symmetry when
      > the universe and the realm of singular mind is more
      > asymmetric and so mereological.
      > Chris.
      > ------------------------------------
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to
      > explaining nothing!
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic