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

Primordial Polarities

Expand Messages
  • a_living_breathing_being
    In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida s Deconstruction is focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in literature and language; as extreme
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida's Deconstruction is
      focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in literature and
      language; as extreme opposites expressed conceptually in the
      representation of language. Yet, even if we had no language at all,
      no capacity for speech, still; within the raw sensation of human
      experience, there is a primordial polarity. I'm thinking mainly of
      light & darkness; which eventually are metaphorically identified with
      reason and ignorance. The raw realities of life, even for a
      salamander basking in the sunlight is juxtaposed to dying and being a
      dead piece of meat. All the raw forces of nature, the brute naked
      forces, are there. At the point of human experience; the primordial
      (natural) polarity is real (not simply conceptual); sight & blindness/
      hearing & deafness/ wellness & sickness/ alive & dead/. These
      rudimentary polarities is simply the pair opposites of 'is & is-not'.
      Language is the avenue through which these existential opposites are
      represented and expressed. So Dasein needs to be paired are well; it
      must be paird with Nicht(da)Sein (not being there) or the shortened
      version Nicht+Sein (non-being) Nicht+Da (not there).

      ALBB
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      I would not say that deconstruction a la Derrida is focused on opposites. In fact, he is suspicious of oppositional terms. Deconstruction evokes the general
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I would not say that deconstruction a la Derrida is focused on
        opposites. In fact, he is suspicious of oppositional terms.
        Deconstruction evokes the general economy of terms that both condition
        and efface the flux of meaning. See "Differance" (in Margins, or in
        Speech and Phenomena).

        Wil


        -----Original Message-----
        From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
        Subject: [existlist] Primordial Polarities

























        In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida's Deconstruction is

        focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in literature and

        language; as extreme opposites expressed conceptually in the

        representation of language. Yet, even if we had no language at all,

        no capacity for speech, still; within the raw sensation of human

        experience, there is a primordial polarity. I'm thinking mainly of

        light & darkness; which eventually are metaphorically identified with

        reason and ignorance. The raw realities of life, even for a

        salamander basking in the sunlight is juxtaposed to dying and being a

        dead piece of meat. All the raw forces of nature, the brute naked

        forces, are there. At the point of human experience; the primordial

        (natural) polarity is real (not simply conceptual); sight & blindness/

        hearing & deafness/ wellness & sickness/ alive & dead/. These

        rudimentary polarities is simply the pair opposites of 'is & is-not'.

        Language is the avenue through which these existential opposites are

        represented and expressed. So Dasein needs to be paired are well; it

        must be paird with Nicht(da)Sein (not being there) or the shortened

        version Nicht+Sein (non-being) Nicht+Da (not there).



        ALBB
      • a_living_breathing_being
        Yes, I see your point. Thank you. I will re-explore the reference on Derrida s invention differance (not simply difference). I only use the word focus
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, I see your point. Thank you. I will re-explore the reference on
          Derrida's invention 'differance' (not simply difference). I only use
          the word "focus' loosely; still the fact that Derrida is "suspicous of
          oppositional terms" required him in-fact to 'focus' don't you think?
          As he did in his explanation of binary opposites (re: textual meaning)
          that not only stress 'differance' but the typical way in which the
          carriers of meaning place favor on one of the two conceptual 'pairs';
          one over the other. My main point is that meaning and reality are not
          identitical and that existentialism is concerned more with brute
          realities than with meaning; Heidegger wrote about the "meaning of
          being", but the flux of meaning is still existentially supurfluous;
          the real polarity is not textual or conceptual, but is external to
          'thought processes' altogether and are primordial. In our reactions
          to our experience of the primordial, we may still favor one end of the
          polarity over another, i.e., we have human preferences. And while
          there are gray areas in between, e.g., between light and darkness; the
          extremes nontheless still exist; extremes such as being and non-being,
          between is and is-not; the flux depends upon what occurs between being
          & non-being; how may we possibly understand a 'flux' between something
          and nothing?

          ALBB

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > I would not say that deconstruction a la Derrida is focused on
          > opposites. In fact, he is suspicious of oppositional terms.
          > Deconstruction evokes the general economy of terms that both condition
          > and efface the flux of meaning. See "Differance" (in Margins, or in
          > Speech and Phenomena).
          >
          > Wil
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Primordial Polarities
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida's Deconstruction is
          >
          > focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in literature and
          >
          > language; as extreme opposites expressed conceptually in the
          >
          > representation of language. Yet, even if we had no language at all,
          >
          > no capacity for speech, still; within the raw sensation of human
          >
          > experience, there is a primordial polarity. I'm thinking mainly of
          >
          > light & darkness; which eventually are metaphorically identified with
          >
          > reason and ignorance. The raw realities of life, even for a
          >
          > salamander basking in the sunlight is juxtaposed to dying and being a
          >
          > dead piece of meat. All the raw forces of nature, the brute naked
          >
          > forces, are there. At the point of human experience; the primordial
          >
          > (natural) polarity is real (not simply conceptual); sight & blindness/
          >
          > hearing & deafness/ wellness & sickness/ alive & dead/. These
          >
          > rudimentary polarities is simply the pair opposites of 'is & is-not'.
          >
          > Language is the avenue through which these existential opposites are
          >
          > represented and expressed. So Dasein needs to be paired are well; it
          >
          > must be paird with Nicht(da)Sein (not being there) or the shortened
          >
          > version Nicht+Sein (non-being) Nicht+Da (not there).
          >
          >
          >
          > ALBB
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          ALBB, Of course, Derrida would erase the opposition of meaning and reality, making of both an odd codependency whose references are intra-textual. I am not
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 25, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            ALBB,

            Of course, Derrida would erase the opposition of meaning and reality,
            making of both an odd codependency whose references are intra-textual.
            I am not sure that I go as far as Derrida in these matters, -- in fact,
            I can tell you that I definitely do not. But, if you have D's Margins
            text, there is a great piece attacking Heidegger's notion of authentic
            time that is a refreshing surprise (for me, anyway). I think it is
            called something like "A Note on a Note on Heidegger's Being and Time"
            or something close to that. He almost seems to affirm a notion of
            ordinary time in contradistinction to Heidegger's suspect notion of
            authentic time. If my memory serves me right, this may be a case where
            Derrida almost affirms something as 'concrete'. (My copy of the text is
            in a box somewhere in my mother's house in NY.)

            Wil

            -----Original Message-----
            From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 1:36 pm
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities




            Yes, I see your point. Thank you. I will re-explore the reference on

            Derrida's invention 'differance' (not simply difference). I only use

            the word "focus' loosely; still the fact that Derrida is "suspicous of

            oppositional terms" required him in-fact to 'focus' don't you think?

            As he did in his explanation of binary opposites (re: textual meaning)

            that not only stress 'differance' but the typical way in which the

            carriers of meaning place favor on one of the two conceptual 'pairs';

            one over the other. My main point is that meaning and reality are not

            identitical and that existentialism is concerned more with brute

            realities than with meaning; Heidegger wrote about the "meaning of

            being", but the flux of meaning is still existentially supurfluous;

            the real polarity is not textual or conceptual, but is external to

            'thought processes' altogether and are primordial. In our reactions

            to our experience of the primordial, we may still favor one end of the

            polarity over another, i.e., we have human preferences. And while

            there are gray areas in between, e.g., between light and darkness; the

            extremes nontheless still exist; extremes such as being and non-being,

            between is and is-not; the flux depends upon what occurs between being

            & non-being; how may we possibly understand a 'flux' between something

            and nothing?



            ALBB



            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

            >

            > I would not say that deconstruction a la Derrida is focused on

            > opposites. In fact, he is suspicious of oppositional terms.

            > Deconstruction evokes the general economy of terms that both
            condition

            > and efface the flux of meaning. See "Differance" (in Margins, or in

            > Speech and Phenomena).

            >

            > Wil

            >

            >

            > -----Original Message-----

            > From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>

            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

            > Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:27 pm

            > Subject: [existlist] Primordial Polarities

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida's Deconstruction is

            >

            > focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in literature and

            >

            > language; as extreme opposites expressed conceptually in the

            >

            > representation of language. Yet, even if we had no language at all,

            >

            > no capacity for speech, still; within the raw sensation of human

            >

            > experience, there is a primordial polarity. I'm thinking mainly of

            >

            > light & darkness; which eventually are metaphorically identified with

            >

            > reason and ignorance. The raw realities of life, even for a

            >

            > salamander basking in the sunlight is juxtaposed to dying and being a

            >

            > dead piece of meat. All the raw forces of nature, the brute naked

            >

            > forces, are there. At the point of human experience; the primordial

            >

            > (natural) polarity is real (not simply conceptual); sight & blindness/

            >

            > hearing & deafness/ wellness & sickness/ alive & dead/. These

            >

            > rudimentary polarities is simply the pair opposites of 'is & is-not'.

            >

            > Language is the avenue through which these existential opposites are

            >

            > represented and expressed. So Dasein needs to be paired are well; it

            >

            > must be paird with Nicht(da)Sein (not being there) or the shortened

            >

            > version Nicht+Sein (non-being) Nicht+Da (not there).

            >

            >

            >

            > ALBB

            >
          • chris lofting
            The reflections of most philosophy have been done without consideration of the neurology and how IT seeds all thoughts due to the hard-coding of mediation
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 26, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              The reflections of most philosophy have been done without consideration of
              the neurology and how IT seeds all thoughts due to the hard-coding of
              mediation dynamics through use of oscillation across dichotomies.

              What is of note here is that the basic neural dynamic covers part/whole and
              from this has emerges the middle position of mediation across that
              part/whole dichotomy. This mediation is in the form of self-referencing such
              that we acquire a dimension of categories usable to represent what is being
              experienced. Customisation of the representation is in the form of a label
              that ties unique context to general category.

              If the self-referencing is done deep enough, the categories are found to be
              able to serve as sources of analogy/metaphor where each part is describable
              by analogy to all of the others - IOW we see emerge language.

              Since the neurology reflects adaptation to context, so the patterns
              generated by self-referencing are patterns isomorphic to patterns 'out
              there' - and so the success of our maps.

              However, the asymmetric realm, although it leads to autological systems,
              also leads to paradoxes. This brings out the transcending aspect of language
              and as such the discretisation and amplification of particulars to a level
              where we enter the imaginative - a useful tool for anticipating reality but
              also a tool that can seriously distort experience of such.

              The overall brain dynamic is hard-coded to differentiating/integrating aka
              WHAT/WHERE aka anti-symmetric/symmetric. The elements of these dichotomies
              are associated with basic brain structures and the joining of these elements
              into dichotomies brings out the mediation dynamic. With this mediation comes
              hierarchy that covers the anti-symmetric (rigid A/NOT-A and so a focus on
              syntax and hierarchy that is pyramid or tree-like in form, strong control
              empahasis where such is needed in dealing with differences) and symmetric
              (association with equivalence and so more 'trusting' - the hierarchy form is
              more network or web-like; small world formations etc - focus on flux,
              perturbations)

              The feedback dynamics present bring out a 'far-from-equilibrium' position vs
              an 'equilibrium' position where the latter is 'death' to us since without
              highs and lows all we have is 'sameness' and that means no
              distinction-making, all identity is lost, where identity is an essential
              element of consciousness. From an experiencial position, there is 'nothing'.

              The seeding of our thoughts naturally elicits such dichotomies as
              being/nothing, being/time out of the middle of which comes perpetual
              becoming as long as there are distinctions to make/break.

              Of note here is that the realm of the asymmetric is triadic and pops into
              being when mediation is required. Consideration of the properties of
              anti-symmetry and symmetry bring out:

              Anti-symmetry dominated by XOR/NOT (differences that DO make a difference,
              e.g. the charge difference of positron vs electron)

              Asymmetry dominated by IMP (implies, what is necessary/possible; realm of
              modal logic and on into specialist languages)

              Symmetry dominated by EQV (equivalence operator - differences that DONT make
              a difference - e.g. bosons joining to form a BEC)

              The dynamics of these seed all of our maps and so allow for the
              interchanging of maps - e.g. the mathematical interpretation vs physical
              interpretations etc - and these patterns apply at all levels of existance
              with local context customising things to get a 'best fit',

              The realm of the anti-symmetric covers the unique and so comes with a
              mereological bias, whereas the realm of the symmetric covers no less than a
              pair (required to present the experience of symmetry) and reflects a more
              topological bias (cannot cut the whole, only distort it)

              Thus A/NOT-A at the anti-symmetric position is XOR but A/NOT-A at the
              symmetric position is EQV. We then create languages to flesh out these
              'issues' and so work from the realm of the asymmetric - a realm grounded in
              incompleteness/uncertainty as it mediates the path from difference to
              sameness where the sameness is in laws etc (and so symmetry bias) and so the
              creation of instincts/habits (all very energy conserving, necessary in a
              thermodynamic universe)

              Derrida, or any philosophy/philosopher, without neuroscience lacks precision
              ;-)

              Chris.


              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eupraxis@...
              > Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2008 5:14 AM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
              >
              > ALBB,
              >
              > Of course, Derrida would erase the opposition of meaning and
              > reality, making of both an odd codependency whose references
              > are intra-textual.
              > I am not sure that I go as far as Derrida in these matters,
              > -- in fact, I can tell you that I definitely do not. But, if
              > you have D's Margins text, there is a great piece attacking
              > Heidegger's notion of authentic time that is a refreshing
              > surprise (for me, anyway). I think it is called something
              > like "A Note on a Note on Heidegger's Being and Time"
              > or something close to that. He almost seems to affirm a
              > notion of ordinary time in contradistinction to Heidegger's
              > suspect notion of authentic time. If my memory serves me
              > right, this may be a case where Derrida almost affirms
              > something as 'concrete'. (My copy of the text is in a box
              > somewhere in my mother's house in NY.)
              >
              > Wil
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 1:36 pm
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yes, I see your point. Thank you. I will re-explore the reference on
              >
              > Derrida's invention 'differance' (not simply difference). I only use
              >
              > the word "focus' loosely; still the fact that Derrida is "suspicous of
              >
              > oppositional terms" required him in-fact to 'focus' don't you think?
              >
              > As he did in his explanation of binary opposites (re: textual meaning)
              >
              > that not only stress 'differance' but the typical way in which the
              >
              > carriers of meaning place favor on one of the two conceptual 'pairs';
              >
              > one over the other. My main point is that meaning and reality are not
              >
              > identitical and that existentialism is concerned more with brute
              >
              > realities than with meaning; Heidegger wrote about the "meaning of
              >
              > being", but the flux of meaning is still existentially supurfluous;
              >
              > the real polarity is not textual or conceptual, but is external to
              >
              > 'thought processes' altogether and are primordial. In our reactions
              >
              > to our experience of the primordial, we may still favor one end of the
              >
              > polarity over another, i.e., we have human preferences. And while
              >
              > there are gray areas in between, e.g., between light and darkness; the
              >
              > extremes nontheless still exist; extremes such as being and non-being,
              >
              > between is and is-not; the flux depends upon what occurs between being
              >
              > & non-being; how may we possibly understand a 'flux' between something
              >
              > and nothing?
              >
              >
              >
              > ALBB
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > I would not say that deconstruction a la Derrida is focused on
              >
              > > opposites. In fact, he is suspicious of oppositional terms.
              >
              > > Deconstruction evokes the general economy of terms that both
              > condition
              >
              > > and efface the flux of meaning. See "Differance" (in Margins, or in
              >
              > > Speech and Phenomena).
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Wil
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              >
              > > From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
              >
              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > > Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
              >
              > > Subject: [existlist] Primordial Polarities
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida's Deconstruction is
              >
              > >
              >
              > > focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in
              > literature and
              >
              > >
              >
              > > language; as extreme opposites expressed conceptually in the
              >
              > >
              >
              > > representation of language. Yet, even if we had no language at all,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > no capacity for speech, still; within the raw sensation of human
              >
              > >
              >
              > > experience, there is a primordial polarity. I'm thinking mainly of
              >
              > >
              >
              > > light & darkness; which eventually are metaphorically
              > identified with
              >
              > >
              >
              > > reason and ignorance. The raw realities of life, even for a
              >
              > >
              >
              > > salamander basking in the sunlight is juxtaposed to dying
              > and being a
              >
              > >
              >
              > > dead piece of meat. All the raw forces of nature, the brute naked
              >
              > >
              >
              > > forces, are there. At the point of human experience; the primordial
              >
              > >
              >
              > > (natural) polarity is real (not simply conceptual); sight &
              > blindness/
              >
              > >
              >
              > > hearing & deafness/ wellness & sickness/ alive & dead/. These
              >
              > >
              >
              > > rudimentary polarities is simply the pair opposites of 'is
              > & is-not'.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Language is the avenue through which these existential
              > opposites are
              >
              > >
              >
              > > represented and expressed. So Dasein needs to be paired
              > are well; it
              >
              > >
              >
              > > must be paird with Nicht(da)Sein (not being there) or the shortened
              >
              > >
              >
              > > version Nicht+Sein (non-being) Nicht+Da (not there).
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > ALBB
              >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to
              > explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • chris lofting
              IF we work off the Chaos Game - where we get spontaneous order from self-referencing whenever we CONTAIN noise - we find that the core dichotomy of our
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 26, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                IF we work off the Chaos Game - where we get spontaneous order from
                self-referencing whenever we CONTAIN 'noise' - we find that the core
                'dichotomy' of our neurology (and ITS source 600 million years ago), when
                self-referenced, will elicit categories of 'meaning' that can themselves be
                self-referenced. What THAT does is give us a source of meaning in the form
                of analogies/metaphors. Of note here is that these categories cover all
                expressions and that includes 'begin' and 'end'. In other words each
                category, if fleshed-out deep enough through analogy to all of the other
                categorises 'contains' the basics of purpose - but at a GROUP level (as we
                do at a genetic level) - thus as particulars of a species we have a 'role'
                to play but as conscious beings, and so unique, we also 'contain' an agent
                of randomness, our consciousness that allows for some unique perspective to
                'change the world' overnight. - IOW we also have a role to play as symmetry
                BREAKERS, not just makers. - Thus Darwin's mutation has been internalised in
                the form of consciousness and so we are evolving psychically, mindfully,
                proactively, 24/7 rather than only somatically, mindlessly, reactively, over
                generations.

                Chris.
              • a_living_breathing_being
                Chris, wow . . . that was a mouth full. I will begin by admiting that the language of philosophy has been marginalized to the superior rigors of natural
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 26, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Chris, wow . . . that was a mouth full. I will begin by admiting
                  that the language of philosophy has been marginalized to the superior
                  rigors of natural science; there is no doubt in my mind about that.
                  I do not pursue these cultural relics as if the have the status of a
                  science; I pursue philosophy for it's personal and cultural value and
                  for its humanity; much like one pursues adventure, movies, football,
                  a good rock concert, sex, poetry, the arts, literature, and other
                  things that help us identify with the simple realism of the-lived-
                  life.

                  You said "Derrida, or any philosophy/philosopher, without
                  neuroscience lacks precision". I agree with that, but in my mind it
                  has more precision than the mass mindedness of the thoughtless horde
                  of people that do not examine their lives.

                  I've sought to understand what it can mean to be a human being;
                  knowing full well that this does not provide me with everything I
                  might need to know; and this is a general problem when there is no
                  lateral thinking across the interdisciplinary spectrum; a blend of
                  natural science, social science and not excluding the humanities;
                  well - all the many branches of knowledge that have so much to offer,
                  and for one to consider

                  Philosophy is less precise than the social sciences, which in turn is
                  less precise than the natural sciences; yet I still find the
                  imprecision of philosophical rationality efficacious and tremendously
                  more enriching to my life-experience than mere blind mechanism and
                  laws; yet even the impassionate empiricist may be awe-inspired from
                  time to time over the rigorous details of their science; to be
                  emotionally moved.

                  Heidegger said "Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology,
                  beginning with a hermeneutic of Da-sein". Sartre
                  wrote "Phenomenological Essays on Ontology". These men gave their
                  best, and compared to the rigors of natural science; pale in
                  comparison. Philosophy cannot be scientific, because of the limits
                  of language and thought. I have said nothing here to refute your
                  points, and I do not sense a postmordern conclusion to your post; so
                  I guess you must be fairly optimistic about the progress of science.
                  And as a foot note; most of what you said went over my head.

                  ALBB




                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The reflections of most philosophy have been done without
                  consideration of
                  > the neurology and how IT seeds all thoughts due to the hard-coding
                  of
                  > mediation dynamics through use of oscillation across dichotomies.
                  >
                  > What is of note here is that the basic neural dynamic covers
                  part/whole and
                  > from this has emerges the middle position of mediation across that
                  > part/whole dichotomy. This mediation is in the form of self-
                  referencing such
                  > that we acquire a dimension of categories usable to represent what
                  is being
                  > experienced. Customisation of the representation is in the form of
                  a label
                  > that ties unique context to general category.
                  >
                  > If the self-referencing is done deep enough, the categories are
                  found to be
                  > able to serve as sources of analogy/metaphor where each part is
                  describable
                  > by analogy to all of the others - IOW we see emerge language.
                  >
                  > Since the neurology reflects adaptation to context, so the patterns
                  > generated by self-referencing are patterns isomorphic to
                  patterns 'out
                  > there' - and so the success of our maps.
                  >
                  > However, the asymmetric realm, although it leads to autological
                  systems,
                  > also leads to paradoxes. This brings out the transcending aspect of
                  language
                  > and as such the discretisation and amplification of particulars to
                  a level
                  > where we enter the imaginative - a useful tool for anticipating
                  reality but
                  > also a tool that can seriously distort experience of such.
                  >
                  > The overall brain dynamic is hard-coded to
                  differentiating/integrating aka
                  > WHAT/WHERE aka anti-symmetric/symmetric. The elements of these
                  dichotomies
                  > are associated with basic brain structures and the joining of these
                  elements
                  > into dichotomies brings out the mediation dynamic. With this
                  mediation comes
                  > hierarchy that covers the anti-symmetric (rigid A/NOT-A and so a
                  focus on
                  > syntax and hierarchy that is pyramid or tree-like in form, strong
                  control
                  > empahasis where such is needed in dealing with differences) and
                  symmetric
                  > (association with equivalence and so more 'trusting' - the
                  hierarchy form is
                  > more network or web-like; small world formations etc - focus on
                  flux,
                  > perturbations)
                  >
                  > The feedback dynamics present bring out a 'far-from-equilibrium'
                  position vs
                  > an 'equilibrium' position where the latter is 'death' to us since
                  without
                  > highs and lows all we have is 'sameness' and that means no
                  > distinction-making, all identity is lost, where identity is an
                  essential
                  > element of consciousness. From an experiencial position, there
                  is 'nothing'.
                  >
                  > The seeding of our thoughts naturally elicits such dichotomies as
                  > being/nothing, being/time out of the middle of which comes perpetual
                  > becoming as long as there are distinctions to make/break.
                  >
                  > Of note here is that the realm of the asymmetric is triadic and
                  pops into
                  > being when mediation is required. Consideration of the properties of
                  > anti-symmetry and symmetry bring out:
                  >
                  > Anti-symmetry dominated by XOR/NOT (differences that DO make a
                  difference,
                  > e.g. the charge difference of positron vs electron)
                  >
                  > Asymmetry dominated by IMP (implies, what is necessary/possible;
                  realm of
                  > modal logic and on into specialist languages)
                  >
                  > Symmetry dominated by EQV (equivalence operator - differences that
                  DONT make
                  > a difference - e.g. bosons joining to form a BEC)
                  >
                  > The dynamics of these seed all of our maps and so allow for the
                  > interchanging of maps - e.g. the mathematical interpretation vs
                  physical
                  > interpretations etc - and these patterns apply at all levels of
                  existance
                  > with local context customising things to get a 'best fit',
                  >
                  > The realm of the anti-symmetric covers the unique and so comes with
                  a
                  > mereological bias, whereas the realm of the symmetric covers no
                  less than a
                  > pair (required to present the experience of symmetry) and reflects
                  a more
                  > topological bias (cannot cut the whole, only distort it)
                  >
                  > Thus A/NOT-A at the anti-symmetric position is XOR but A/NOT-A at
                  the
                  > symmetric position is EQV. We then create languages to flesh out
                  these
                  > 'issues' and so work from the realm of the asymmetric - a realm
                  grounded in
                  > incompleteness/uncertainty as it mediates the path from difference
                  to
                  > sameness where the sameness is in laws etc (and so symmetry bias)
                  and so the
                  > creation of instincts/habits (all very energy conserving, necessary
                  in a
                  > thermodynamic universe)
                  >
                  > Derrida, or any philosophy/philosopher, without neuroscience lacks
                  precision
                  > ;-)
                  >
                  > Chris.
                  >
                  >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eupraxis@...
                  > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2008 5:14 AM
                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
                  > >
                  > > ALBB,
                  > >
                  > > Of course, Derrida would erase the opposition of meaning and
                  > > reality, making of both an odd codependency whose references
                  > > are intra-textual.
                  > > I am not sure that I go as far as Derrida in these matters,
                  > > -- in fact, I can tell you that I definitely do not. But, if
                  > > you have D's Margins text, there is a great piece attacking
                  > > Heidegger's notion of authentic time that is a refreshing
                  > > surprise (for me, anyway). I think it is called something
                  > > like "A Note on a Note on Heidegger's Being and Time"
                  > > or something close to that. He almost seems to affirm a
                  > > notion of ordinary time in contradistinction to Heidegger's
                  > > suspect notion of authentic time. If my memory serves me
                  > > right, this may be a case where Derrida almost affirms
                  > > something as 'concrete'. (My copy of the text is in a box
                  > > somewhere in my mother's house in NY.)
                  > >
                  > > Wil
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 1:36 pm
                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yes, I see your point. Thank you. I will re-explore the
                  reference on
                  > >
                  > > Derrida's invention 'differance' (not simply difference). I only
                  use
                  > >
                  > > the word "focus' loosely; still the fact that Derrida
                  is "suspicous of
                  > >
                  > > oppositional terms" required him in-fact to 'focus' don't you
                  think?
                  > >
                  > > As he did in his explanation of binary opposites (re: textual
                  meaning)
                  > >
                  > > that not only stress 'differance' but the typical way in which the
                  > >
                  > > carriers of meaning place favor on one of the two
                  conceptual 'pairs';
                  > >
                  > > one over the other. My main point is that meaning and reality are
                  not
                  > >
                  > > identitical and that existentialism is concerned more with brute
                  > >
                  > > realities than with meaning; Heidegger wrote about the "meaning of
                  > >
                  > > being", but the flux of meaning is still existentially
                  supurfluous;
                  > >
                  > > the real polarity is not textual or conceptual, but is external to
                  > >
                  > > 'thought processes' altogether and are primordial. In our
                  reactions
                  > >
                  > > to our experience of the primordial, we may still favor one end
                  of the
                  > >
                  > > polarity over another, i.e., we have human preferences. And while
                  > >
                  > > there are gray areas in between, e.g., between light and
                  darkness; the
                  > >
                  > > extremes nontheless still exist; extremes such as being and non-
                  being,
                  > >
                  > > between is and is-not; the flux depends upon what occurs between
                  being
                  > >
                  > > & non-being; how may we possibly understand a 'flux' between
                  something
                  > >
                  > > and nothing?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ALBB
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > I would not say that deconstruction a la Derrida is focused on
                  > >
                  > > > opposites. In fact, he is suspicious of oppositional terms.
                  > >
                  > > > Deconstruction evokes the general economy of terms that both
                  > > condition
                  > >
                  > > > and efface the flux of meaning. See "Differance" (in Margins,
                  or in
                  > >
                  > > > Speech and Phenomena).
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Wil
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                  > >
                  > > > From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@>
                  > >
                  > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > > > Sent: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
                  > >
                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Primordial Polarities
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > In the evaluation of binary opposites, Derrida's Deconstruction
                  is
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > focused upon the paired-opposites that are expressed in
                  > > literature and
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > language; as extreme opposites expressed conceptually in the
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > representation of language. Yet, even if we had no language at
                  all,
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > no capacity for speech, still; within the raw sensation of human
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > experience, there is a primordial polarity. I'm thinking
                  mainly of
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > light & darkness; which eventually are metaphorically
                  > > identified with
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > reason and ignorance. The raw realities of life, even for a
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > salamander basking in the sunlight is juxtaposed to dying
                  > > and being a
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > dead piece of meat. All the raw forces of nature, the brute
                  naked
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > forces, are there. At the point of human experience; the
                  primordial
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > (natural) polarity is real (not simply conceptual); sight &
                  > > blindness/
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > hearing & deafness/ wellness & sickness/ alive & dead/. These
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > rudimentary polarities is simply the pair opposites of 'is
                  > > & is-not'.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > Language is the avenue through which these existential
                  > > opposites are
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > represented and expressed. So Dasein needs to be paired
                  > > are well; it
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > must be paird with Nicht(da)Sein (not being there) or the
                  shortened
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > version Nicht+Sein (non-being) Nicht+Da (not there).
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > > ALBB
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to
                  > > explaining nothing!
                  > >
                  > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • chris lofting
                  ... umm... I wouldnt say that - my point was more in the use of neuroscience as an aide. Philosophy is essential in its focus on morals/ethics in that the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 26, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                    > a_living_breathing_being
                    > Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 11:28 AM
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
                    >
                    > Chris, wow . . . that was a mouth full. I will begin by
                    > admiting that the language of philosophy has been
                    > marginalized to the superior rigors of natural science; there
                    > is no doubt in my mind about that.

                    umm... I wouldnt say that - my point was more in the use of neuroscience as
                    an aide. Philosophy is essential in its focus on morals/ethics in that the
                    development of consciousness brings out the influence of the unique and so a
                    competitive dynamic that needs 'regulation' in the context of a social
                    species. Thus there is the coverage of the "Science of Freedom" - Ethics.

                    Neuroscience then offers feedback re considerations re philosophy of
                    language and so covers all disciplines where each is a specialist language.

                    What science has problems with is the unique, and so the unpredicatable,
                    unrepeatable - in this sense consciousness shares space with notions of the
                    random and the miraculous.

                    > I do not pursue these cultural relics as if the have the
                    > status of a science; I pursue philosophy for it's personal
                    > and cultural value and for its humanity; much like one
                    > pursues adventure, movies, football, a good rock concert,
                    > sex, poetry, the arts, literature, and other things that help
                    > us identify with the simple realism of the-lived- life.
                    >
                    > You said "Derrida, or any philosophy/philosopher, without
                    > neuroscience lacks precision". I agree with that, but in my
                    > mind it has more precision than the mass mindedness of the
                    > thoughtless horde of people that do not examine their lives.
                    >

                    ah - you mean the symmetric thinkers? ;-) Being a social species, and often
                    with limited education, so the majority lack differentiating skills since a
                    social life is more stimulus/response (symmetry) and so driven by
                    instincts/habits with little or no consideration of consequences of action.

                    Reflections elicit languages to try and describe 'all there is' and so a
                    movement to asymmetric thinking; the price being that this realm offers high
                    precision but also incompleteness simply due to it being a mediating realm,
                    the space in-between stimulus and response.

                    > I've sought to understand what it can mean to be a human
                    > being; knowing full well that this does not provide me with
                    > everything I might need to know;

                    The neurology indicates that we process differences to extract the
                    essentials that can become instincts/habits (sameness); as such we dont need
                    all of the information. We are also born with a set of categories usable in
                    mapping reality (these categories derived from the dynamics of the
                    neurology). Consciousness will create labels for these categories where the
                    labels allow us to differentiate the ONE set of categories applied to
                    different contexts.
                    In other words we have a filtering system at the unconscious level that
                    determines meanings in general. By understanding that filter in general so
                    we can quickly map out any context to give us the 'best fit' of being and
                    context. With this general mapping comes a foundation within which
                    consciousness can flesh out details unique to that context (this gives us
                    what is called a 'small world' network)

                    > and this is a general
                    > problem when there is no lateral thinking across the
                    > interdisciplinary spectrum; a blend of natural science,
                    > social science and not excluding the humanities; well - all
                    > the many branches of knowledge that have so much to offer,
                    > and for one to consider
                    >

                    The interdisciplinary spectrum is grounded in the filtering system I
                    identified; the ONE set of categories are applied to ALL contexts. Labels
                    allow for specialisation and as such all disciplines are specialist
                    metaphors for what the neurology deals with. What this brings out is the use
                    of analogy/metaphor in the derivation of 'precise' meanings, as it also
                    brings out the interchangability of all specialisations and so the
                    post-modernist perspective of 'any metaphor will do' - I find issue with
                    this as the development of algorithms and formulas reflects determinism and
                    so the symmetric but reality is more asymmetric (each of us as unique
                    conscious beings brings that out)

                    > Philosophy is less precise than the social sciences, which in
                    > turn is less precise than the natural sciences; yet I still
                    > find the imprecision of philosophical rationality efficacious
                    > and tremendously more enriching to my life-experience than
                    > mere blind mechanism and laws;

                    ... you like room to move ... and so 'freedom' ... a product of a well
                    differentiated consciousness...

                    A product of serial processing is the development of parallel processing in
                    the form of intuition. What this brings out is the use of the mechanical to
                    aid in the blossoming of the organic, holistic. As such, mindless Exclusive
                    OR processing can elicit, given time, a rich associative memory system where
                    all of the dots have been connected and one is aware 'intuitively' - one
                    just 'knows' ;-)

                    The issue is in not knowing the nature of the dots - WITH knowing such one
                    can place oneself in a context to push one's buttons and so, with the
                    refining skills of consciousness, fill in the dots quickly. The current
                    format is more filling in the dots ad-hoc and so creating a very small
                    small-world network!

                    > yet even the impassionate
                    > empiricist may be awe-inspired from time to time over the
                    > rigorous details of their science; to be emotionally moved.
                    >

                    ..with experience, yes, otherwise the emotion is in the form of being
                    ovewhelmed.

                    > Heidegger said "Philosophy is universal phenomenological
                    > ontology, beginning with a hermeneutic of Da-sein".

                    A fundamental dichotomy for Heidegger was dasein/mitzein (and he use a lot
                    of others as well in his attempt to map out being etc)

                    The neurology brings out the use of ONE method to derive all meaning and
                    that is through self-referencing and the ties of labels to context. As such
                    "Being and Time" could have been a lot shorter (and the whole project
                    complete) had he access to neuroscience research.

                    > Sartre
                    > wrote "Phenomenological Essays on Ontology". These men gave
                    > their best, and compared to the rigors of natural science;
                    > pale in comparison.

                    they gave their best for their time, and so are tied to a context that is
                    currently being refined/transcended. All of their reasonings and assertions
                    were made within the bounds of their neurology but ignorant of such bounds.
                    An examined life covers 'know thyself' and that covers what is 'in here',
                    the methodology used to derive meaning. Past philosophers have done well in
                    their speculations about being but we can do better through the use of
                    neuroscience research as an aide.

                    > Philosophy cannot be scientific, because
                    > of the limits of language and thought.

                    you make no sense here - you imply science is outside of language/thought!?
                    Science IS language, Mathematics IS language. It is the isomorphism across
                    specialisations that allow for mathematics to represent specialist
                    perspectives. All experimental design comes out of our filtering system, is
                    determined by such, and so knowledge of the filtering system allows for
                    better understandings.

                    Chris.
                  • a_living_breathing_being
                    ALBB: Philosophy cannot be scientific, because of the limits of language and thought. ... Chris: you make no sense here - you imply science is outside of
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 27, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ALBB: Philosophy cannot be scientific, because of the limits of
                      language and thought.
                      >
                      Chris: > you make no sense here - you imply science is outside of
                      language/thought!? Science IS language, Mathematics IS language. It is
                      the isomorphism across specialisations that allow for mathematics to
                      represent specialist perspectives. All experimental design comes out
                      of our filtering system, is determined by such, and so knowledge of
                      the filtering system allows for better understandings.

                      ALBB: Yes, thanks for the clarification. I was only refering to
                      Philosophy as a science. I am not saying that the language of science
                      is limited in the same way that the language of philosophy is limited.
                      I suppose language moves from the idle chatter of street
                      conversation, towards analytical and abstract modes of reasoning (for
                      those trying to remember 'being'), on toward the highly specialized /
                      technical language of science; anchored to empirical proceedures and
                      uniquely that the language of philosophy, while striving to be precise
                      in what it has to state; lacks the superior empirically grounded
                      techincal language. But for science, it is neither a language
                      standing all by itself, nor wraped up in language as the primary
                      medium of discovery: Science is (rather uses) language in the service
                      of experimentation and observation; so language is slave not master.
                      Chris - thanks for your insights.
                    • louise
                      ... Does not science claim to be, or at least include, a set of methods from which it proves possible to discover new forms of knowledge? Has not philosophy,
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 27, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "a_living_breathing_being"
                        <a_living_breathing_being@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > ALBB: Philosophy cannot be scientific, because of the limits of
                        > language and thought.
                        > >
                        > Chris: > you make no sense here - you imply science is outside of
                        > language/thought!? Science IS language, Mathematics IS language. It is
                        > the isomorphism across specialisations that allow for mathematics to
                        > represent specialist perspectives. All experimental design comes out
                        > of our filtering system, is determined by such, and so knowledge of
                        > the filtering system allows for better understandings.
                        >
                        > ALBB: Yes, thanks for the clarification. I was only refering to
                        > Philosophy as a science. I am not saying that the language of science
                        > is limited in the same way that the language of philosophy is limited.
                        > I suppose language moves from the idle chatter of street
                        > conversation, towards analytical and abstract modes of reasoning (for
                        > those trying to remember 'being'), on toward the highly specialized /
                        > technical language of science; anchored to empirical proceedures and
                        > uniquely that the language of philosophy, while striving to be precise
                        > in what it has to state; lacks the superior empirically grounded
                        > techincal language. But for science, it is neither a language
                        > standing all by itself, nor wraped up in language as the primary
                        > medium of discovery: Science is (rather uses) language in the service
                        > of experimentation and observation; so language is slave not master.
                        > Chris - thanks for your insights.
                        >

                        Does not science claim to be, or at least include, a set of methods
                        from which it proves possible to discover new forms of knowledge? Has
                        not philosophy, for two and a half millennia, involved itself in
                        making enquiry about the legitimacy or otherwise, of methodologies, or
                        in other words, questions about goodness and justice are raised? The
                        use of language as slave, the brutality of this metaphor, chills me to
                        the bone. And how would you feel if someone decided to experiment on
                        you*? Such things have been known.

                        Louise
                      • Herman B. Triplegood
                        ... superior empirically grounded technical language ...? Why should a philosopher even give a damn about what a scientist thinks or says about philosophy?
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 29, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ..."superior empirically grounded technical language"...?

                          Why should a philosopher even give a damn about what a scientist
                          thinks or says about philosophy?

                          Hb3g

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "a_living_breathing_being"
                          > <a_living_breathing_being@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > ALBB: Philosophy cannot be scientific, because of the limits of
                          > > language and thought.
                          > > >
                          > > Chris: > you make no sense here - you imply science is outside of
                          > > language/thought!? Science IS language, Mathematics IS language.
                          It is
                          > > the isomorphism across specialisations that allow for mathematics
                          to
                          > > represent specialist perspectives. All experimental design comes
                          out
                          > > of our filtering system, is determined by such, and so knowledge
                          of
                          > > the filtering system allows for better understandings.
                          > >
                          > > ALBB: Yes, thanks for the clarification. I was only refering to
                          > > Philosophy as a science. I am not saying that the language of
                          science
                          > > is limited in the same way that the language of philosophy is
                          limited.
                          > > I suppose language moves from the idle chatter of street
                          > > conversation, towards analytical and abstract modes of reasoning
                          (for
                          > > those trying to remember 'being'), on toward the highly
                          specialized /
                          > > technical language of science; anchored to empirical proceedures
                          and
                          > > uniquely that the language of philosophy, while striving to be
                          precise
                          > > in what it has to state; lacks the superior empirically grounded
                          > > techincal language. But for science, it is neither a language
                          > > standing all by itself, nor wraped up in language as the primary
                          > > medium of discovery: Science is (rather uses) language in the
                          service
                          > > of experimentation and observation; so language is slave not
                          master.
                          > > Chris - thanks for your insights.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Does not science claim to be, or at least include, a set of methods
                          > from which it proves possible to discover new forms of knowledge?
                          Has
                          > not philosophy, for two and a half millennia, involved itself in
                          > making enquiry about the legitimacy or otherwise, of methodologies,
                          or
                          > in other words, questions about goodness and justice are raised?
                          The
                          > use of language as slave, the brutality of this metaphor, chills me
                          to
                          > the bone. And how would you feel if someone decided to experiment
                          on
                          > you*? Such things have been known.
                          >
                          > Louise
                          >
                        • chris lofting
                          ... ....because the science brings out what is seeding the conscious state of the philosopher; all languages, and that covers emotion as it does logic,
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 29, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
                            > Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 5:26 AM
                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
                            >
                            > ..."superior empirically grounded technical language"...?
                            >
                            > Why should a philosopher even give a damn about what a
                            > scientist thinks or says about philosophy?
                            >
                            <snip>

                            ....because the science brings out what is seeding the conscious state of
                            the philosopher; all languages, and that covers emotion as it does logic,
                            mathematics and any other perspective that shares space with these, have
                            structure and method determined by the neurology and its dealings with
                            sensory data and its own feedback loops.

                            The reflections of a philosopher are determined by a vague set of categories
                            derived from the range of possible expressions of the neurology. The
                            reflections work through the use of recursion (e.g. consideration of the
                            phenomenology of phenomenology (M-Ponty)) and that method comes with
                            properties that contribute to the filtering of reality - real or imagined.

                            For example, the specialist perspective, language, we call 'quantum
                            mechanics' is demonstratable to be metaphor for what the properties of
                            self-referencing do in filtering reality - the musing of philosophers, and
                            physicists, upon QM reflects the musing of those who have no idea as to the
                            contributions of the filtering system in that 'wave-particle' duality is not
                            something limited to the microcosm, it is in fact what you get when you
                            self-reference a dichotomy in the presence of indeterminacy - you can get
                            the patterns using pen and paper. When the experiment design is in the form
                            of self-referencing dichotomies (left-slit/right-slit, 0/90 degree
                            polarisers, etc etc) you are guaranteed 'wave interference' patterns, there
                            is nothing 'strange/special' about this if you know the properties and
                            methods of self-referencing dichotomies!

                            The lack of understanding the properties and methods of the neurology allows
                            for the creation of, and perpetuation of, perspectives that are delusion. In
                            the past this lack of understanding has been due to having no access to data
                            on the properties and methods, that is now changing and as such has a direct
                            affect on the value of philosophical output where such sets the ground for
                            belief systems to live by (such as 'existentialism' etc)

                            The characteristics of the set of vague categories sourced in the neurology
                            cover a wide spectrum and as such are reflected in, for example, the
                            noun/verb dichotomy of linguistics where the self-referencing of that
                            dichotomy give a rich set of categories usable for labelling and formation
                            of local languages we are familiar with as conscious beings. The
                            self-referencing moves towards a continuum and so the integration of the
                            elements of the dichotomy (this applies to all self-referencing, e.g. the
                            self-referencing of subject/object etc etc)

                            The contributions of the findings of empirical/cognitive research to
                            philosophy refine such areas as 'philosophy of language' but more so
                            stimulate such areas as morality/ethics in that these areas cover the
                            dynamics of unique states (singular beings) operating in a social context in
                            that such dynamics covers the identification and consideration of new
                            concepts or old concepts in need of re-consideration given the research.

                            As I wrote before, the reductionism of science to 'base level facts' shows
                            all perspectives expressed in/as language brings out the metaphoric nature
                            of such and so these perspectives are all social constructs. The consequence
                            of a science perspective is a post-modernist mindset where any metaphor will
                            do in the interpretation of reality - this attitude in fact reflects the
                            mindless attitude of evolution in the form of pragmatism where the bedrock
                            of the neurology serves as support to adapt to any context through
                            customising the categories of the neurology through labels etc.

                            Issues with this direction of focus of science are in the mutation we call
                            consciousness where such operates as a singular entity across all members of
                            the species and where the drive of consciousness is in personal
                            transcendence and the contribution of such to others of the species. The
                            focus here is on intense expression of self without consideration of context
                            or more so the only context is what one makes from one's reflections (e.g.
                            Buddhism brings out this focus on intense internal examination as compared
                            to the more social forms of monadic faiths where the suffering has been done
                            by someone else rather than by oneself)

                            Chris.
                          • Herman B. Triplegood
                            Chris: Okay, let me put this passage by Heidegger from his 1927-1928 lectures on Kant s Critique of Pure Reason in the mix. Maybe this will help to sharpen the
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 31, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Chris:

                              Okay, let me put this passage by Heidegger from his 1927-1928
                              lectures on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the mix. Maybe this
                              will help to sharpen the distinction that I have in mind. Science an
                              philosophy are not unrelated to each other. However, I think it is
                              important not to conflate them. Philosophy is radical in a sense that
                              science can never be, nor should be. Take this passage from the first
                              page of the preliminary considerations into account. Take it into
                              account as a whole, paying especially close attention to the
                              underlying mood of the statement, and the kind of understanding that
                              the mood conveys. In other words, don't pivck it apart and analyze it
                              to death, and distort it into something completely different from
                              what it intends to say. Heidegger mentions this in relation to Kant.
                              The whole reason why we go into the nitty gritty of what Kant said is
                              for the purpose of coming to grips with what he meant. That means two
                              things. First of all, don't lose sight of the big picture, and
                              secondly, engage with the text in the spirit of a conversation and a
                              mutual inquiry, rather than treat it as if it were some kind of
                              artifact.

                              Here you go:

                              "Philosophy belongs to the most original of human endeavors...It is
                              precisely these original human endeavors that have their constancy in
                              never losing their questionable character and in thus returning to
                              the same point and finding there their sole source of energy. The
                              constancy of these endeavors does not consist in the continued
                              regularity of advancing, in the sense of a so-called progress.
                              Progress exists only in the realm of what is ultimately unimportant
                              for human existence. Philosophy does not evolve in the sense of
                              progress. Rather, philosophy is an attempt at developing and
                              clarifying the same few problems; philosophy is the independent,
                              free, and thoroughgoing struggle of human existence with the darkness
                              that can break out at any time in that existence. And every
                              clarification opens new abysses. Thus the stagnation nd decline of
                              philosophy do not mean not-going-forward-anymore; rather they point
                              to having forgotten the center. Therefore every philosophical renewal
                              is an awakening in returning to the same point."

                              Here are a few of the highlights as I read this passage.

                              1. Philosophy does not progress like science progresses.
                              2. Philosophy always goes back to the center, what is primordial.
                              3. Philosophy is never not questionable.
                              4. Philosophical moves out of the darkness and into the light.
                              5. But, philosophical clarification never eliminates the darkness.
                              6. The more light there is, the deeper, profounder, are the shadows.
                              7. Philosophy is independent.
                              8. Philosophy is free.
                              9. Philosophy is an existential struggle.
                              10. The decline of philosophy is forgetfulness.

                              What do you think about Heidegger's take on what philosophy is? Do
                              you see how strikingly different it is from what we take to be
                              positive science? Is this approach, necessarily, not rigorous?

                              Hb3g

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > -----Original Message-----
                              > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B.
                              Triplegood
                              > > Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 5:26 AM
                              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities
                              > >
                              > > ..."superior empirically grounded technical language"...?
                              > >
                              > > Why should a philosopher even give a damn about what a
                              > > scientist thinks or says about philosophy?
                              > >
                              > <snip>
                              >
                              > ....because the science brings out what is seeding the conscious
                              state of
                              > the philosopher; all languages, and that covers emotion as it does
                              logic,
                              > mathematics and any other perspective that shares space with these,
                              have
                              > structure and method determined by the neurology and its dealings
                              with
                              > sensory data and its own feedback loops.
                              >
                              > The reflections of a philosopher are determined by a vague set of
                              categories
                              > derived from the range of possible expressions of the neurology. The
                              > reflections work through the use of recursion (e.g. consideration
                              of the
                              > phenomenology of phenomenology (M-Ponty)) and that method comes with
                              > properties that contribute to the filtering of reality - real or
                              imagined.
                              >
                              > For example, the specialist perspective, language, we call 'quantum
                              > mechanics' is demonstratable to be metaphor for what the properties
                              of
                              > self-referencing do in filtering reality - the musing of
                              philosophers, and
                              > physicists, upon QM reflects the musing of those who have no idea
                              as to the
                              > contributions of the filtering system in that 'wave-particle'
                              duality is not
                              > something limited to the microcosm, it is in fact what you get when
                              you
                              > self-reference a dichotomy in the presence of indeterminacy - you
                              can get
                              > the patterns using pen and paper. When the experiment design is in
                              the form
                              > of self-referencing dichotomies (left-slit/right-slit, 0/90 degree
                              > polarisers, etc etc) you are guaranteed 'wave interference'
                              patterns, there
                              > is nothing 'strange/special' about this if you know the properties
                              and
                              > methods of self-referencing dichotomies!
                              >
                              > The lack of understanding the properties and methods of the
                              neurology allows
                              > for the creation of, and perpetuation of, perspectives that are
                              delusion. In
                              > the past this lack of understanding has been due to having no
                              access to data
                              > on the properties and methods, that is now changing and as such has
                              a direct
                              > affect on the value of philosophical output where such sets the
                              ground for
                              > belief systems to live by (such as 'existentialism' etc)
                              >
                              > The characteristics of the set of vague categories sourced in the
                              neurology
                              > cover a wide spectrum and as such are reflected in, for example, the
                              > noun/verb dichotomy of linguistics where the self-referencing of
                              that
                              > dichotomy give a rich set of categories usable for labelling and
                              formation
                              > of local languages we are familiar with as conscious beings. The
                              > self-referencing moves towards a continuum and so the integration
                              of the
                              > elements of the dichotomy (this applies to all self-referencing,
                              e.g. the
                              > self-referencing of subject/object etc etc)
                              >
                              > The contributions of the findings of empirical/cognitive research to
                              > philosophy refine such areas as 'philosophy of language' but more so
                              > stimulate such areas as morality/ethics in that these areas cover
                              the
                              > dynamics of unique states (singular beings) operating in a social
                              context in
                              > that such dynamics covers the identification and consideration of
                              new
                              > concepts or old concepts in need of re-consideration given the
                              research.
                              >
                              > As I wrote before, the reductionism of science to 'base level
                              facts' shows
                              > all perspectives expressed in/as language brings out the metaphoric
                              nature
                              > of such and so these perspectives are all social constructs. The
                              consequence
                              > of a science perspective is a post-modernist mindset where any
                              metaphor will
                              > do in the interpretation of reality - this attitude in fact
                              reflects the
                              > mindless attitude of evolution in the form of pragmatism where the
                              bedrock
                              > of the neurology serves as support to adapt to any context through
                              > customising the categories of the neurology through labels etc.
                              >
                              > Issues with this direction of focus of science are in the mutation
                              we call
                              > consciousness where such operates as a singular entity across all
                              members of
                              > the species and where the drive of consciousness is in personal
                              > transcendence and the contribution of such to others of the
                              species. The
                              > focus here is on intense expression of self without consideration
                              of context
                              > or more so the only context is what one makes from one's
                              reflections (e.g.
                              > Buddhism brings out this focus on intense internal examination as
                              compared
                              > to the more social forms of monadic faiths where the suffering has
                              been done
                              > by someone else rather than by oneself)
                              >
                              > Chris.
                              >
                            • chris lofting
                              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
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 1, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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.
                              • chris lofting
                                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
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 1, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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:

                                  Science/Philosophy
                                  differentiating/integrating
                                  physical/meta-physical
                                  facts/values
                                  objects/relationships

                                  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
                                  being'.

                                  Chris.


                                  > -----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
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • louise
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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.
                                    This kind of positivism is probably encouraged by widespread
                                    ignorance of the political and economic realities which shape human
                                    experience. As I have stated before, my own political position is
                                    liberal, that is, I value individual freedom (which is a spiritual
                                    reality), exercised responsibly in relation to society. Scientific
                                    abuses that would seek to dragoon populations or control the
                                    direction of social evolution are totalising in nature, heirs to the
                                    political scourges of the twentieth century, like National Socialism
                                    or Bolshevism. I am not suggesting that you personally have a
                                    political motive in giving reductive descriptions of scientific
                                    research about the brain. Rather I have the impression that your own
                                    unexamined feelings leave you in ignorance of the implications of
                                    your beliefs. Existentialism is not a cosy option. It is not
                                    compulsory, of course, but those of us who are existentialists will
                                    defend our turf, each in his own way. As I am using that possessive
                                    pronoun in the traditional manner, with generic reference to human
                                    beings, I am obliged also to acknowledge the physical differences
                                    between male and female humans, including in their brain chemistry.
                                    There is nothing illegitimate about applying philosophical
                                    distinctions to the results of scientific research, in fact it ought
                                    to be a natural part of free enquiry. That is the point, and at
                                    least according to my readings, perfectly in keeping with the
                                    insights of Heidegger, who took care to delineate the relationship
                                    between philosophy on the one hand and the natural sciences on the
                                    other.

                                    Louise

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > 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:
                                    >
                                    > Science/Philosophy
                                    > differentiating/integrating
                                    > physical/meta-physical
                                    > facts/values
                                    > objects/relationships
                                    >
                                    > 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
                                    > being'.
                                    >
                                    > Chris.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > -----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
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                    ... a legitimate question/negotiation for this list might be the evolving, possible, and probable relationships between philosophy and the natural sciences.
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > in keeping with the insights of Heidegger, who took care to delineate the relationship
                                      > between philosophy on the one hand and the natural sciences on the
                                      > other.
                                      > Louise

                                      a legitimate question/negotiation for this list might be the evolving,
                                      possible, and probable relationships between philosophy and the natural
                                      sciences. (my folklore background would add that there is also popular
                                      philosophy and practical arts & technology directly involved with
                                      everyday life practice, in addition to formal philosophy developed by
                                      intellectuals.)

                                      however, an effective discussion may require those who are strong in
                                      their knowledge of both types of languages, perhaps moreso than a
                                      consensus as to particular political orientation or set of values, or a
                                      split along typical brain-sex lines.

                                      one of the strengths of good science is recognition of its limits, as
                                      well as accumulative evidence that is always open to, and is in fact
                                      being tested, resulting in a robust system. while good science is based
                                      on testable evidence, i don't see that it necessarily denies what is
                                      outside its testable competence, such as the value of experience, which
                                      also alternatively accumulates collectively to be useful as "wisdom."

                                      aija,
                                      who agrees with 1) the core value "individual freedom (which is a
                                      spiritual reality), exercised responsibly in relation to society," and
                                      2) has a gut/ personal experience reaction against "totalising [...]
                                      political scourges of the twentieth century" such as National Socialism
                                      or Soviet Socialism, but doesn't happen to experience Chris's
                                      explanations as threatening to such value or experience (and has taken
                                      formal tests that showed reasonable competence across "primordial
                                      polarities")
                                    • chris lofting
                                      ... 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,
                                      Message 18 of 19 , 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.
                                      • louise
                                        ... and ... Socialism ... taken ... Yes, I should perhaps make clear that I do not find Chris s explanations as threatening, either, only a rather unwelcome
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > aija,
                                          > who agrees with 1) the core value "individual freedom (which is a
                                          > spiritual reality), exercised responsibly in relation to society,"
                                          and
                                          > 2) has a gut/ personal experience reaction against "totalising [...]
                                          > political scourges of the twentieth century" such as National
                                          Socialism
                                          > or Soviet Socialism, but doesn't happen to experience Chris's
                                          > explanations as threatening to such value or experience (and has
                                          taken
                                          > formal tests that showed reasonable competence across "primordial
                                          > polarities")
                                          >

                                          Yes, I should perhaps make clear that I do not find Chris's
                                          explanations as threatening, either, only a rather unwelcome
                                          distraction from what from my own perspective would be our more
                                          philosophically-based discussions on the realities of everyday life,
                                          the pertinence of existential literature, and so on. Louise
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.