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

RE: [existlist] Re: metonymy? ibidem

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lofting
    ... Yes, that can happen with symmetric thinkers - their need for sameness limits their exposure to difference and so any difference is adaptive; innovation is
    Message 1 of 9 , May 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Trinidad Cruz
      > Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:16 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: metonymy? ibidem
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
      > wrote:
      > "You need to read more dude - outside of your limited box. To aid your
      > development:" C J Lofting
      > Aw geez CSW. I'm gonna pop.
      > You know C J, of late my Doctor, who is a very nice man, a genuinely
      > compassionate man; has advised me against reading things that insult
      > my intelligence as I become too agitated.

      Yes, that can happen with symmetric thinkers - their need for sameness
      limits their exposure to difference and so any difference is adaptive;
      innovation is excluded since it is truly asymmetric.

      The price of being innovative is the difference upsets people. They want
      'likemindedness' and when faced with a 'difference' issues can develop. As
      such they want the difference to be described in THEIR language but their
      language does not cover the differences, does not contain such.

      > Unfortunately I don't
      > consider him, though reasonably scientific, to be much more to me than
      > a nuisance.

      Vanity does that.

      > I opted for self-diagnosis years ago, and personally think
      > I am an exception to the rule, and will continue to live that way as
      > my behavior and its consequences are my responsibility.

      More vanity - you're a hopeless case ;-)

      > One could say
      > I was dying,

      We all are - from the moment we are born. The issues are with those who want
      to avoid it and/or consider it all 'unfair' - "how can this happen to ME!?"
      Etc - more vanity (and so seeds the narcissism collectives - all showbiz,
      plastic surgery, genetic engineering and an overall focus on making the
      world Disneyland and so play cops n robbers or cowboys and Indians with real

      > but it would be an utterly irrelevant statement since I
      > began that process along with living the day I was born. At least thus
      > far he has been sharp enough not to advise me against sexual activity,
      > though that may have something to do with me dating his daughter,
      > though I suffer constant warning about smoking at her hands which I
      > generally ignore. At least she's sharp enough not to admonish me about
      > drinking. I remember the story of Jack going out to the beach on Fire
      > Island, and approaching a young bikini clad woman with "Hi I'm Jack
      > Kerouac." She looked at the pestering old bum and squealed "No way you
      > weirdo. You're not Jack Kerouac." or some such proclamation. Society
      > in general pretty much tells us we are not who we think we are, and
      > those of us who are lazy or stupid or diffident tend to turn to
      > expertise for some definition. I admit myself to having drifted toward
      > that comfort a few times along the way. Unfortunately my experiences
      > with such "expertise" have resulted in substantial relationship losses
      > along the way, generally about the time the teeth gnashing started.
      > Why is it these days so many "academics" never actually become
      > academic?

      Vanity - poisoned by the collective outlook of the 'me' generation. The
      focus on universities being self-funded leads to opportunities for
      exploitation and the capitalism-sourced theme of produce or die (publish or
      perish). As such it all becomes superficial and show biz takes over, all is
      superficial, there is no depth since depth requires history to develop but
      the socioeconomic focus on re-invention means little time for such history
      to develop! As such history becomes a detectable path of re-invention (e.g.
      Madonna comes to mind!) - adapt or die. No time to 'settle', to 'mature' as
      such - but then when one is seeking eternal youth who wants to 'mature'!

      However, despite all of the papers produced there are 'gems' if you bother
      to look for them, or if you have the time to do so. Thus the notion of
      'quality references' is still present at a time when plagiarism abounds due
      to pressures to perform (or to play the opportunist is post-modern society
      where the emphasis is on 'any metaphor will do' and so attempts to 'borrow'
      a metaphor amongst the plethora of such and hope no one picks up on it)

      > In the answer to that question is my accusation. These times
      > in academia are generally insipid and faddist I admit, but a general
      > assumption that a human textual appraisal of the universe can contain
      > the workings of the human mind is hilarious. Right about the time you
      > think you are constructing yourself you're going to find out that
      > nobody else notices, in fact often don't even want to notice, and
      > furthermore that you have simply invented only another closed and
      > useless discourse on a par with nursery rhymes. Therein is the texture
      > you are drawn in and to - comfort and a good night's sleep. I want
      > comfort and a good night's sleep myself, I just don't ever want to
      > believe that they matter to anything about me other than my living or
      > dying which are already clearly not good enough for me or anyone who
      > actually cares about me.

      Despair. It turns you inwards and so a focus on existence, on being, on now.
      Reject history, make it NOW, every moment is a new history! LOL! You have
      adapted to the times by rejecting 'out there' by internalising it! Thus "the
      truth is out there" is reversed to "the truth is in here". This is an act of
      symmetric thinking, dominated by emotion etc - when you see yourself as
      metaphor then you become interchangeable with all others and so open to the
      loss of self any minute. As such you live on a border and so let loose what
      lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics. (if you covered Science you
      would understand the experience, if not then you are stuck to live in

      > I've seen the butterfly effect, on the windshield of a Mack. It's the
      > same thing that makes it so hard to get up off the couch at the end of
      > the day - gravity. John Cage used to do a piece called "Moths" I think
      > he called it. I saw him do it back in the 60's once when it surprised
      > even him. He tossed a platter full of moths in the air expecting the
      > sound of fluttering wings, and not a single moth flew, but rather fell
      > to the stage in series of sickly plops. He smiled though. It was dark
      > in the auditorium. I was feeling up my girlfriend and only noticed
      > because I felt her giggle. I was not thinking about living or dying,
      > or the effect of anything, neither the plops nor the flutters. Cage
      > was right. It was music, but he wasn't performing it, I was. I write
      > my own song C J, `cause the one the universe writes is just not
      > beautiful enough for me, and what you haven't understood is that I can
      > actually hear that universal song, and obviously more clearly than
      > you, because my intent will always be to re-write it in my terms - not
      > a God's, not a scientist's, not a mathematician's, not a preacher's,
      > not an artist's, not a poet's, not a musician's, not even a
      > philosopher's - nope, just whatever the hell my human terms are for me.
      > Oh crap. Honey help me. Too late.
      > To me you're on par with a "Moonie". You think the I Ching is genetic
      > code?

      With this statement you show you superficiality by not reading my material
      which his not about expression but about what is behind it.

      The I Ching is a metaphor, and so a source of representation, created from
      The genetic code is a metaphor, and so a source of representation, created
      from self-referencing. (the self-referencing is the purine/pyramidine
      dichotomy where it elicits the RNA/DNA codons etc)

      This diagram covers the sameness:


      The isomorphism is the methodology - self-referencing. Without understanding
      that people make all sorts of associations since they mostly deal with
      expression rather than essence - just like you do.

      The originators of the IC had no idea what they were dealing with - their
      own brain. Thus they tried to describe their feelings stemming from their
      perceptions by links to local context - history, legends, myths.

      The use of the material would bring out patterns related to self-referencing
      and so elicit value, the source of which could not be identified so things
      took on mystical themes etc but the endurance of the IC indicates there is
      'something' there that works in the elicitation of meaning - and my work
      brings out what that it - the dynamics of our brains where the processing of
      noise elicits order through self-referencing.

      > was kinda wondering what kind of instrumentation they had in
      > 2000BC?

      Their brain and its seeding of meaning from basic neurology processing
      senses and categorising into generic 'feelings' of wholes, parts, static
      relationships, dynamic relationships - but they had no idea what was going
      on 'in here' other than their consciousness.

      Of interest is the method they used for 'divining' - the use of randomness
      (what they consider the miraculous etc)

      The relationship in the divining perspective is identical to that of our
      singular consciousness to species nature (our genetics and so determinism)
      where consciousness is 'like' coin tossing. This is in fact hard-coded into
      our brains! - consider this abstract:

      Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
      C 2001 Oxford University Press

      New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus
      Probabilistic Reasoning
      Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
      University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
      1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

      Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of
      Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and
      Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
      Arlington, VA 22230, USA.

      Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the
      functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present
      study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission
      tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological 'set',
      deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical
      stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily
      solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left
      brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated
      areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal
      lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala,
      but not spatial-visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction
      task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas.
      Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in
      inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and
      superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are
      implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge,
      operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that
      deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with
      psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also
      suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely
      independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are

      ALSO SEE:

      Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human
      reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

      (published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

      "In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences
      people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the
      rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large
      and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be
      irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this
      interpretation" (p349)

      > Was there some long lost X-ray crystallography machine or gene
      > sequencer in the FRICKIN' STONE AGE? Are you saying they got the info
      > from space aliens? Are you a secret Sitchenette? You think the
      > corporate world is gonna naturally evolve a conscience? Jesus are you
      > brain dead?

      All I see in the above prose is ignorance and fear. You are like the ancient
      chinese - no idea what you are dealing with and intent on expressions to aid
      you in understanding when all they do is re-invent past expressions - same
      essences, different contexts in both space and time.

      Your struggling dude - do you like that? Is there a need for that?
      Understand yourself requires knowledge of 'in here' and so how you, as a
      species member, do what you do. THEN comes expression and the dynamics of
      the singular, of consciousness, as the random seed to allow for diversity in
      expressions and so ability to exploit situations, re-invent self etc etc etc
      but behind ALL of this is your species nature and so your brain.

      Read more dude - especially neurosciences (and IDM ;-)) Think. Take the risk
      to go deep.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.