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

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

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lofting
    ... LOL! Error. (but interesting in that every time you or others try to describe existentialist aspects through reference to past philosophers you are being
    Message 1 of 36 , Jun 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of jimstuart46
      > Sent: Saturday, 2 June 2007 8:18 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Either/ Or... and Absurdity
      > Trinidad,
      > I always struggle with your posts because I think our backgrounds are
      > quite different. Not only are you American and I am British but our
      > reading and discussions have covered different subject areas for the
      > most part.
      > But, as you say, our criticism of CJ seems to be basically the same,
      > although we express it rather differently.
      > Let me just comment on one aspect of your post: your suggestion that
      > CJ, like many today, is endorsing scientific discourse as the
      > universal discourse that describes everything and gives us an
      > understanding of everything.

      LOL! Error. (but interesting in that every time you or others try to
      describe existentialist aspects through reference to past philosophers you
      are being scientific in that you are focusing on some algorithm/formula of
      values and so using comparisons - as such you shift from the singular to the
      particular/general and focus on history!)

      My IDM material covers what is possible given our neurology where it derives
      and processes all meaning. In the investigation into meaning it has become
      obvious that a lot get meaning out of 'imaginative' perspectives and lead
      lives based on that imagination - how come? Any model of meaning must
      include the imaginative as well as the real but what is what? What the
      neurology shows us is a brain working off probabilities etc and so a brain
      focused on experimentations, trying things out and recording those that are
      consistent, repeatable, falsifiable. In other words our brains are hard
      wired to operate using principles we associate with science - in other words
      each specialisation we create contains properties and methods of science
      without being labelled as Science.

      The IDM material covers all meaning and so all metaphors, such as
      Mathematics or Physics of Molecular Biology or Sociology or Theology or
      Philosophy or specialist philosophies WITHIN Philosophy (e.g.
      Existentialism). It makes no difference what you are dealing with, the
      language used is dependent on the categories of meaning derived from the

      Given this, the most consistent descriptions of the neurology come out of
      scientific research rather than, for example, theological research (or
      existentialist research!). In fact the hierarchy that develops when
      considering the research brings us good coverage of theosophical
      perspectives and so covering the range of natures from hard-core
      fundamentalism to a generic focus on nature and spirituality.

      SO - better research from Science than from Religion to describe the
      properties/methods of both - better to get facts than values (or more so
      show the dynamics across that dichotomy and its usefulness, as well as
      issues - covered in Putnam's "The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy" )
      but that said, the IDM material has covered the theological perspectives and
      philosophical perspectives and occult perspectives as expressions.

      By identifying the range of POSSIBLE meanings given our brains so we
      identify what is possible in reality, real or imagined. TO identify what is
      possible we especially use the properties and methods of Science to cover
      the accumulation of data from the position of the particular/general since
      that area is well covered by formal science.

      Issues then come when dealing with the development of the singular. The
      development of the singular is mappable to the first two years of life and
      bring out what Freud labelled the 'Superego' where consciousness serves as a
      censor of instincts/habits. With that comes the question, why? What are the
      benefits of a life form censoring their instincts/habits? What are the
      benefits of a life form blocking the repeat of history where the benefits of
      such are in fitting into a context and operating 'smoothly' in such through
      being able to pre-empt context - and so when the weather changes we start to
      grow winter coats without consideration; context pushes?

      The implication here is that the avoidance of history or more so the
      re-writing of it LOCALLY, allows for being immediate and so free of history
      and so free of Science (essences focus); as such we have an escape path out
      if instincts/habits and so out of determinism trying to impose itself in
      some local context.

      Our singular nature shares space with our particular/general nature (that
      which Science deals with in identification of types, genetics etc) and so is
      not free of such nature but can regulate it (as presented in scientific
      research on frontal lobe/pre-frontal cortex dynamics as it is on
      considerations of humanities research or even occult research)

      ALL discourse is determined by our neurology - science or otherwise.
      Discussing the universe or the subjective from a perspective of yin/yang
      will give you the SAME categories, different labels, different local
      histories, as if discussing such from a position of asymmetric logic (formal
      logic) or symmetric logic (logic of the masses).

      The focus on Phenomenology and on into Existentialism tries to cover what
      the Institute of Science considers unscientific - the uniqueness of
      individual consciousness and so that which is 'beyond compare' with the
      focus more on values, qualitative experiences.

      BUT given this, what is noticeable from an evolution position is the
      apparent internalisation of the properties/methods of evolution that include
      the 'randomiser' element, expressed in the realm of the subjective in the
      form of unique consciousness. What is evident in the realm of the
      particular/general is the presence of purpose in each particular such that
      within a collective will be sub-collectives, specialists, but as a GROUP.

      What is also noticeable in the dynamics of evolution of the brain is the
      development with the singular the ability to imagine - and so the
      'emergence' of the real/imagined dichotomy (this is sharply noticeable in
      comparisons of monkeys to humans in research on mirror neurons - the monkeys
      can copy but fail to do so when mime is used, but the humans have no problem
      and so reflecting their ability to imagine)

      Thus given determinism's association with purpose, so free-will is
      associated with being purposeless - but the development of free-will appears
      AFTER our species nature and reflects reason and consciousness as being
      agents of blocking instincts/habits and so escaping such; the benefits of
      the singular as such, and so the subjective, is to be immediate and so
      capable of re-writing history, of setting down one's own future history and
      so to be 'free' of history. As such the meaningless is in fact selected by
      context in that it allows for some local, unique, insight that is so
      meaningful as to be a universal (and so the association of psychosis and
      well as innovative creativity with the subjective).

      Despite this subjectivity, despite the ability to block history, the
      neurology still 'guides' the general dynamics of the subjective through the
      focus on the particular/general. (have a look at Markov chains that can
      serve as representatives of the subjective)

      As such, current work in neurosciences etc brings us closer to the border of
      singular/particular and in so doing brings out aspects of the singular the
      awareness of which can aid in working on that subjectivity; the reason being
      on the BOUNDING of the neurology on what is possible and communicatable to
      others (as well as self!).

      If you want to focus on the differences of singular/particular then consider
      Matte-Blanco's study in his book "The Unconscious as infinite sets" as well
      as such science-grounded research in Kircher and David "The SELF in
      Neuroscience and Psychiatry" as well as the latest research on emotions -
      both basic (what we share with our primate cousins) and secondary (what
      develops with our sense of self, and so highly subjective nature where these
      emotions are dependent on self for their expression)

      > We, us human beings, have
      > invented a number of different incommensurable discourses for
      > different aspects of our lives. Wittgenstein calls these
      > discourses "language-games", and I think what he writes about
      > language-games is fundamentally correct.

      No. The issue here is on grounding things in "language-games" where the
      issue is more so on the structure of language itself and THAT is now
      possible given the IDM perspective in that the development of the noun/verb
      dichotomy, a specialist form of differentiate/integrate, applied
      recursively, will give you all possible forms of expression of such and then
      comes local context that customises these universals (serving as a regular
      network) into some 'small world' network and so your singular nature.

      Wittgenstein had no idea about the neurology seeding his thinking. As such
      his focuses lacked depth in understanding and even with good intuitions
      failed to map out what is going on.

      What IDM shows is the relabelling of meanings for different contexts, for
      each specialist perspective that allows for confusions and so how to map out
      what all of the different specialist perspectives can represent, in other
      words the underlying sameness across all of the differences derived from

      > Confusions arise when the same word is used differently in different
      > language-games. "Belief" is a good example. It is one thing, within
      > the scientific language-game, for me to believe that the earth
      > rotates in an ellipse around the sun. It is a completely other thing
      > for me to believe that kindness is better than cruelty.

      This is just an example of fact/value dichotomy. Applied recursively we can
      derive a dimension of the categories covering all of the possible
      fact/values mixes and in so doing map one perspective to an equivalent in
      some other perspective. What the dimension allows is identifying 'variations
      on a theme' perspectives that bring or behaviours associated with beliefs.

      > It is Kierkegaard's greatest achievement, in my view, to point out to
      > us that beliefs in the spheres of ethics and religion are completely
      > different from beliefs in scientific and other objective discourses.

      This is a point not limited to Kierkegaard - it goes back thousands of years
      through the yin/yang dichotomy.

      > In the case of ethics, my beliefs are commitments, and they are
      > manifested by what I do and not what I say.

      Behaviourally there is a focus on validation of belief through neutralising
      the attacks of other on such. This is a competitive perspective, it shares
      space with a cooperative perspective in the form of sharing the belief with
      others in some congregation etc. As such the sharing is unconditional, the
      neutralising conditional.

      Of essential interest is even with the competitive focus, the emphasis is on
      coexistence - even with one's enemy. This is different to the 'other' form
      that focuses on REPLACEMENT with something 'better'. This includes
      eradication of others rather than neutralising them.

      That said, the variation on a theme of neutralising IS present in the more
      'competitive' realms in the form of being prepared to stand up and assert
      one's opinions free of any consideration of consequences. As such this is a
      more personal dynamic to that of the neutralising where the defending is on
      some formal belief as compared to one's personal opinions.

      > Unless the belief is
      > reflected in how I live, I don't have the belief. Further, there
      > doesn't have to be anything "out there" to correspond to my belief.
      > In the case of science, my belief that the earth rotates around the
      > sun does have to match something out there for the belief to be true,
      > but the belief doesn't have to have a practical upshot in my life for
      > it to be true that I do believe it.
      > Finally, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the
      > existentialist opposes the natural human desire for comfort when it
      > manifests itself in the desire for a universal discourse that removes
      > the hard edges of experienced human existence.
      > Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche regard the desire for comfort as
      > an "anti-life" desire. Life it at its best when we are pushing
      > ourselves hard to achieve something worthwhile, and not when we are
      > snoozing in our armchair in front of the television or meandering
      > around the shopping mall. (Having said that, we do have to relax and
      > recharge our batteries sometimes or we burn out prematurely.)

      ;-) The extremes of differentiating/integrating cover the focus on perpetual
      competitiveness to refine/maintain skills and to learn new ones. This
      competitiveness brings out a trait of the subjective - perpetual training,
      forever engaging, mediating - but then any agent of randomness need so do
      that to avoid setting down determinism, getting lazy! ;-)

    • 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.