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

45118RE: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities : > 1. Philosophy does not progress like science progresses.

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    Sep 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
      > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2008 7:18 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities : > 1.
      > Philosophy does not progress like science progresses.
      >
      > Chris,
      >
      > I have to say that in my view Wil was perfectly right. This
      > is not the right list for discussion of these ideas. After
      > all, why would you wish to develop such theories in the first
      > place? This is a direct philosophical question. There is
      > nothing either existential or phenomenological here. You are
      > reducing life to abstract system.

      Not at all. The phenomenological aspect alone raises issues in an
      existentialist context since the core elements I focus upon is in the
      FEELINGS derivable, and so experienced, from the neurology and their
      influencing of our models of reality. No neurology, no brain, no brain, no
      mind.

      Just as Being has a context of Time so the experience of such has a context
      of neurology. The experience of time, both consciously and unconsciously,
      determines the percepts of time and in so doing presents variations of
      context within which we consider Being as beings.

      As I have mentioned before, the focus of Science is such that its
      reductionism brings us to the bedrock that is our neurology and in doing so
      brings out an essential property of evolution - pragmatism. This pragmatism
      seeds the notion of Being in that we are dealing with a vagueness, full of
      potentials but not actualised other than in the billions of beings on this
      planet that can contribute to understanding the potentials. Each one of
      those billions is unique and so maximises the bandwidth of the species in
      interpreting local realities and summing such to an overall 'picture' of
      reality in general. What allows for such variation is a pragmatism of
      'anything will do, as long as it works, do it'.

      As such the notion of Being equates with what in Networks theory is a
      'regular network' where all is connected but as potentials - expose of that
      network to random network (being-in-the-world) elicits the formation of
      actualisations summed into what we can call a 'small world' network that
      maps to LOCAL context. Being born into such a network, and ignorant of the
      'big picture' of the regular network forces the interpretation of that small
      world network AS IF regular and so further adaptations to create smallER
      networks from the small network - IOW further, mindless, adaptations to
      context (and so the social instincts/memes influence equatable with
      thrownness and the context of 'the one'.)

      Work in the realm of the development of a sense of SELF brings out the local
      context 'demands' that elicit self-consciousness and so the
      regulating/mediating nature of consciousness and the development of language
      to allow for mediation in a context that favours
      anti-symmetry(aspects)/symmetry(whole) dynamics. The development of a
      singular nature means development of an asymmetric nature and so the ability
      to make and break symmetry through the use of language. The price of this is
      indeterminacy/incompleteness in that the realm of mediating has no 'truth'
      since its role is to mediate 'truths' it is not 'the truth'. As a
      neuron-dependent life form, and so energy conserving in a thermodynamic
      universe, 'truth' or 'fact' is UNCONSCIOUS in the form of an
      instinct/habit/memory where context 'pushes' and elicits immediate responses
      to stimulus. Delay to such is where consciousness is required to
      differentiate finer details and in so doing utilise 'truths' to flesh out
      the information from the noise.

      Since the moment we open our mouths to talk or lift a pen to write we are in
      the realm of the uncertain so any focus on this realm as being reality will
      elicit the properties of mediation - incompleteness. Heidegger was not aware
      of the science behind information processing and so the natural property of
      incompleteness of mediation; he in fact used issues of uncertainties in
      mathematics to bring out a need for 'something else' when the fact is there
      is no need other than for clear understanding of what is being dealt with.
      (e.g. "Mathematics, which is seemingly the most rigorous and most firmly
      constructed of the sciences, has reached a crisis in its 'foundations'. In
      the controversy between the formalists and the intuitionists, the issue is
      one of obtaining and securing the primary way of access to what are
      supposedly the objects of this science" B&T)

      In B&T we see someone grounded in his times and as such, as more work is
      done in the realms of the empirical and cognitive, losing contact with
      properties of beings that aid in defining Being; adding some flesh/muscle to
      the bones but in the form of a basic set of categories used by all
      neuron-dependent life forms to experience reality and in so doing
      differentiate and re-integrate themselves with reality.

      Husserl's development of Phenomenology is grounded in a focus on logic
      ("logical investigations") and basic sense of categories derived from
      distinctions of wholes/parts (and so ontological considerations - recursive
      analysis where such is a NATURAL property of meaning derivation through
      creation and use of languages).

      MY work covers the derivation from the neurology of the sensations of
      'wholeness', 'partness', 'static relatedness', and 'dynamic relatedness' -
      these translated into basic sensations of blending, bounding, bonding, and
      binding. Composite forms are derived as the self-referencing continues to a
      level where the categories derived can be applied to each other to give us a
      generic language based on the use of pattern matching, aka analogy/metaphor
      usage.

      Thus we have identified at the bedrock level of the neurology, and so the
      ground from which all else develops, the seeds of meaning and that includes
      "Being" - the seeds are such that they are sensational/emotional and as such
      seed meaning at the level of the unconscious and on to awareness but at an
      unspoken level, no-verbal communication.

      Being a social species so this level of feelings serves to set down social
      'norms' (through emotional resonance) and so bring out the influence of
      society upon the development of 'dasein' and so development of
      'being-in-the-world' as well the sense of thrownness given in local context
      dynamics. Self-referencing (reflection) can then bring out issues of
      authenticity be they from local context or from internal context in the form
      of genetic nature setting off 'drives' that are incongruent with the
      surroundings and eliciting awareness of being inauthentic. This dynamic
      repeats the dynamic of sensory systems in their development where the
      genetics create a form of potentials and local context differentiates then
      senses and then re-integrates - and all done prior to the development of
      consciousness that has the skill, if trained, to 'adjust' developments
      through feedback.

      I repeat, you cannot do serious philosophy without understanding of the
      neurology research where such brings out the dynamics of information
      processing and so the properties and methods of EXPERIENCING what to some
      are 'paradoxes' when there are none once you appreciate what is going on
      unconsciously.

      From a B&T perspective, the over-emphasis on the B marginalises the
      context/background/horizon of T and in so doing offers a distortion that is
      in need of re-adjustment given the current research etc into the EXPERIENCE
      of time and its influence on the description of Being and the experience of
      beings.

      If you bothered to go through my categories work you would have come across
      the essential mappings of emotions and so the FELT experiences of meaning
      and the isomorphism of the categories of emotion with those of the mindless
      neurology as it differentiates and integrates. That FILTERING system will
      then cover 'all there is' as well as the form of 'all that is imaginable'
      from the perspective of what is felt, what the neurons and hormones deal
      with.

      Chris.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic