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

RE: [existlist] Re: Either/ Or... and Absurdity

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lofting
    ... ... It is - you just have the elements in the wrong places of the dichotomy. Subjective experience is LOCAL, DISCRETE, PARTICULAR such that the
    Message 1 of 36 , Jun 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of jimstuart46
      > Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 5:40 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Either/ Or... and Absurdity
      >
      <snip>

      > But if I see overly-objective thinking as a fault in myself, you
      > don't even seem to recognise the objective/subjective dichotomy.
      > Strange for someone who is so keen on dichotomies. (Hint: It's not
      > the same as the particular/general dichotomy.)
      >

      It is - you just have the elements in the wrong places of the dichotomy.
      Subjective experience is LOCAL, DISCRETE, PARTICULAR such that the
      isomorphism is covered when the elements correspond:

      Subjective/objective
      Particular/general
      AS interpreted reality / AS IS reality (sensory dynamics)
      Asymmetric / Symmetric

      There is then hierarchy where the elements can swap positions depending on
      level - and so what is particular for one level becomes the general for the
      next etc.

      You miss the nature of dichotomies - symmetric and asymmetric and their
      self-referencing brings out anti-symmetric (hierarchy). THIS is what you
      miss and so is the cause of your failures to date to understand what is
      going on in your head.

      Your references to dead philosophers brings out the limit of your
      perspective - support for past speculations on being without any knowledge
      of neuroscience data. ANY philosophy that does not reference that data is
      'dead' and to continue to develop is in need of re-configuration.

      What you don't get is all of the differences in philosophical perspectives
      are mapped to the range of POSSIBLE meanings derived from what our brain
      does. As such there is no universally 'right' form, there are many forms all
      reflecting 'best fit' options for different contexts and so ease in
      adaptability.

      It is consciousness that can select the 'best fit' for some context, and
      that is often the 'best fit' for the particular/general nature as well in
      that pure subjectivity shares space with the notion of the random and so no
      history.

      As such the purpose of consciousness is to have no purpose but to be
      immediate in decision making and prepared to re-write history at some point.
      In other words consciousness has no purpose other than to have no purpose,
      no history, and so be able to come up with some "difference that can make a
      difference" across the species. This use of the random benefited the
      development of the soma and goes on in the psyche. It is balanced to varying
      degrees by the still present history of the particular/general nature, that
      of our species, our genetics.

      As such, your ongoing subjective nature is meaningless to the species, if
      you get hit by a bus the species will not care since from the
      particular/general position, you don't exist other than as 'just another of
      the species.' BUT as an agent of mediation/randomness you DO have purpose,
      to be purposeless and so allow for escape from history - to be 'free'.

      A common theme in Western thinking is on universals, on BEING a universal as
      in 'same' in all contexts. This is arrogance, reflecting the assertion of
      one's own context regardless of whether it fits or not to the local context.

      Our uniqueness allows for this as does our science in the form of universals
      from aggregations of particulars to bring out context insensitive sameness.

      Evolution on the other hand favours shape shifting where the universal is in
      the form of the methodology of shape shifting and all else is local context.
      Western cultures don't like this, they prefer consistency, the eternal and
      so a biased perspective taken from the set of possible perspectives and
      presented as if a universal.

      This gets into the issues of history - the genetics give us determinism and
      so the roots of that preference for consistency but the development of
      consciousness gets us into being able to re-write history or even be 'born
      again' given some context.

      The focus on formalising existentialism is a focus on establishing a history
      but in doing so distorts the 'best fit' purpose of the subjective - to be
      purposeless; unique, unbridled by history and so POSSIBLY contributing
      through some unique perspective that can 'change the world' ;-) - we have
      internalised the core dynamic of evolution - mutation and so change.

      Chris.
    • Exist List Moderator
      ... The Diamond Lake area is giving way to two expanded freeways. This is progress, of course. As with so many cities, Minneapolis once had more than 500 miles
      Message 36 of 36 , Jun 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jun 05, 2007, at 8:57, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

        > I used to live in Minneapolis back in the 50's. I don't remember the
        > street but a couple of blocks from a little pond called Diamond Lake,
        > and a Nicolet Ave.

        The Diamond Lake area is giving way to two expanded freeways. This is
        progress, of course. As with so many cities, Minneapolis once had
        more than 500 miles of streetcar lines, all privately operated. The
        local government took over the lines -- and killed them in 1954 to
        replace the system with buses.

        I wish I could have seen the old system. I take the light rail, most
        of the 20 miles, from our apartment to the Metrodome on my way to
        campus. The new house will cut my time to campus in half or better.

        I'm not much for cities, anymore. I think cities are interesting when
        you are young and care for all the activity. Now, I just want to sit
        by the Mississippi or one of the lakes and relax. The nice thing
        about Minneapolis is that even with so many people, there are lots of
        little areas that seem like the country.


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