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

RE: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... The ontological position is one of self-referencing (recursion) to acquire understanding of the properties of being, thus dasein practices ontology. This
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > a_living_breathing_being
      > Sent: Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:27 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
      >
      > I suppose Chris could write Neurological Essays On Ontology,
      > is that possible?

      The ontological position is one of self-referencing (recursion) to acquire
      understanding of the properties of being, thus 'dasein' practices ontology.

      This happens to be what our brains do in acquiring information, especially
      the new/complex, where the self-referencing will elicit a 'parts list' in
      the form of a spectrum (power law) of possible meanings to link to some
      experience where such includes the sense of 'being'.

      The response of the brain to a new/complex experience is to self-reference
      to flesh out what is POSSIBLE. This process is applied to the PART/WHOLE
      dichotomy where such is 'hard coded' into our brains in the more generic
      form of differentiating (thingness, the point)/integrating(relatedness, the
      field). The structure of the dichotomy is asymmetric and its
      self-referencing will (a) elicit categories but also (b) develop such into
      basic language through the use of analogy/metaphor (this works to put a
      brake on the infinite regress that is possible due to our high precision
      skills - other life forms lack the precision, the universal resolution
      power, and so hit a continuum quickly. We can self-reference to a sensory
      level continuum (we are unable to detect any more differences) but can go
      further through use of imagination)

      The initial categories cover wholeness, partness, static relatedness
      (sharing of space), dynamic relatedness (sharing of time). The validity of
      such is demonstrated when we consider the types of numbers we use in
      mathematics:

      wholes - whole numbers
      parts - rational numbers
      static relationships (sharing space) - irrational numbers
      dynamic relationship (sharing time) - imaginary numbers

      Composites then form higher types:

      whole + part + static = real numbers
      real + imaginary = complex numbers (representative of morphic/cyclic change)

      pair of complex = quarternions (higher physics, QM, although vector
      processing is more common)
      pair of quaternion = octonions (String theory)

      The source of these quantitative representations is in the qualitative in
      the simple distinction of positive/negative, good/bad etc this initial act
      of distinction forms a difference that is then processed using properties of
      symmetry (sameness) - e.g. repetition (1,2,3), rotation (+1/-1 sqrt(-1)
      etc), reflection (Cartesian coordinates, polar coordinates etc)

      Thus we have the qualitative (feelings derived from experiences of sensory
      harmonics) and the quantitative (finer differentiation of feelings to a
      level of all meaning in syntax position in relation to others in some
      sequence/hierarchy) derived from basic self-referencing of a dichotomy where
      such is hard coded into our brains. Note that the same generic categories of
      wholeness, partness etc seed the development emotions from self-referencing
      the fight/flight dichotomy.

      In a LOCAL context, the same generic categories seed the development of
      categories using the yin/yang dichotomy - IOW we are mapping a universal
      that seeds all meanings across the species but at the unconscious level.
      LOCAL context then customises to form complex languages. Note that within
      the serial development of languages through self-referencing there develops
      a parallel, intuitive, format where each category formed becomes
      describable, in fine detail, through the use of analogy/metaphor to each of
      the other categories.

      Where does the initial distinction come from? The chaos game. Here we find
      that the containment of noise will spontaneously create order through
      self-referencing. Hierarchy is also present reflected in the containment of
      containments.

      The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the neurology define
      all that is possible. Anything outside of these categories will be
      interpreted from inside the categories and present as paradox (oscillations
      that cannot stop -
      http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)

      For references in neuroscience that reflect the above see my draft
      "Categories of Mediation" -
      http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/categoriesTheory.pdf

      if we move to the realm of general psychology we find the SAME categories at
      work but with different labels - Jung used three dichotomies to map out
      persona 'types' and these were extended into four dichotomies in the MBTI
      (Myers Briggs Type Indicator). What these map out are SPECIES-related
      behaviours, specialist collectives within the species. We can call these our
      particular nature. Exposure post birth to some local context will mix
      genetics with nurture to elicit our precise, unique, singular conscious
      being. At this point we reflect the ontic, there is no more to be said, we
      are who we are; if we try to keep digging we will use the one set of
      categories to do so and eventually hit a continuum, imagined or real; beyond
      THAT is fragmentation.

      ANY reflection on experience, real or imagined, will instinctively use
      dichotomisation and self-referencing to derive meaning. In the past this has
      been local context and ad-hoc; what this does is create an explicit 'small
      world network' from the implicit set of all possible categories. Hierarchy
      then allows for levels of categories where more primitive contexts cannot
      support refined categorisations. As such, we move from the general to the
      particular and the use of self-referencing and mediation allows for
      transcendences through the use of languages. At the singular position, this
      allows for an individual to come up with a perspective that is innovative
      and can change the world overnight - but this position needs 'refinement' in
      the form of a well developed consciousness. The 'difference sensitive'
      realms of science and philosophy are sources of distinction making that
      allows for, enables, such development. (symmetric thinking equates with, for
      example, religion and so an immediate focus on sameness. Thus any particular
      faith does not evolve due to the sameness - competition is limited to
      stereotyping of those NOT of the faith; in science and philosophy there is
      more openness to internal competitions etc but at the same time science
      heads towards symmetry whereas philosophy can focus on the issues with the
      unique and so issues of ethics where the unique (discrete, competitive)
      operates in a context of a social species (relational, cooperative)

      The transcendence of species-ness, the movement from particular to singular,
      requires education that aids in differentiating and putting demands on
      frontal lobes/pre-frontal cortex to develop. Without that education all we
      have is 'smart apes'; but at the same time, too early education brings out
      an unstable, easily distractible form (ADD/ADHD become 'noticeable') - the
      analogy here is to the high differentiating of thought reflects high sample
      rates and so high energy utilisation akin to 'blue light' and that sort of
      light is easily scattered - and so the sky is blue ;-)

      In the context of the identified categories and 'dasein' - self-referencing
      will encode all parts in each part, or more so the whole in all parts. It is
      this that allows for a language to develop through the use of analogies
      across the set of parts where such is possible due to the method of
      self-referencing. Thus an 'examined' life covers all of the possibles since
      one is contained in each; local context biases, adaptations to local social
      dynamics, can elicit a mindset that appears as if 'whole' but is in fact an
      exaggeration of one aspect of the total. Exposure to a different context can
      elicit behaviours that astound consciousness, all due to lack of awareness
      of the full spectrum of being in all of us. Given the awareness, through
      consideration of all of the possibles presented in self-referencing, allows
      for selection of a context to get it to 'push' our instinctive buttons and
      in doing so get a wider appreciation of our unique being, and being overall.

      Chris.
    • louise
      ... acquire ... ontology. ... especially ... list in ... self-reference ... point)/integrating(relatedness, the ... such into ... sensory ... can go ...
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > > a_living_breathing_being
        > > Sent: Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:27 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
        > >
        > > I suppose Chris could write Neurological Essays On Ontology,
        > > is that possible?
        >
        > The ontological position is one of self-referencing (recursion) to
        acquire
        > understanding of the properties of being, thus 'dasein' practices
        ontology.
        >
        > This happens to be what our brains do in acquiring information,
        especially
        > the new/complex, where the self-referencing will elicit a 'parts
        list' in
        > the form of a spectrum (power law) of possible meanings to link to some
        > experience where such includes the sense of 'being'.
        >
        > The response of the brain to a new/complex experience is to
        self-reference
        > to flesh out what is POSSIBLE. This process is applied to the PART/WHOLE
        > dichotomy where such is 'hard coded' into our brains in the more generic
        > form of differentiating (thingness, the
        point)/integrating(relatedness, the
        > field). The structure of the dichotomy is asymmetric and its
        > self-referencing will (a) elicit categories but also (b) develop
        such into
        > basic language through the use of analogy/metaphor (this works to put a
        > brake on the infinite regress that is possible due to our high precision
        > skills - other life forms lack the precision, the universal resolution
        > power, and so hit a continuum quickly. We can self-reference to a
        sensory
        > level continuum (we are unable to detect any more differences) but
        can go
        > further through use of imagination)
        >
        > The initial categories cover wholeness, partness, static relatedness
        > (sharing of space), dynamic relatedness (sharing of time). The
        validity of
        > such is demonstrated when we consider the types of numbers we use in
        > mathematics:
        >
        > wholes - whole numbers
        > parts - rational numbers
        > static relationships (sharing space) - irrational numbers
        > dynamic relationship (sharing time) - imaginary numbers
        >
        > Composites then form higher types:
        >
        > whole + part + static = real numbers
        > real + imaginary = complex numbers (representative of morphic/cyclic
        change)
        >
        > pair of complex = quarternions (higher physics, QM, although vector
        > processing is more common)
        > pair of quaternion = octonions (String theory)
        >
        > The source of these quantitative representations is in the
        qualitative in
        > the simple distinction of positive/negative, good/bad etc this
        initial act
        > of distinction forms a difference that is then processed using
        properties of
        > symmetry (sameness) - e.g. repetition (1,2,3), rotation (+1/-1 sqrt(-1)
        > etc), reflection (Cartesian coordinates, polar coordinates etc)
        >
        > Thus we have the qualitative (feelings derived from experiences of
        sensory
        > harmonics) and the quantitative (finer differentiation of feelings to a
        > level of all meaning in syntax position in relation to others in some
        > sequence/hierarchy) derived from basic self-referencing of a
        dichotomy where
        > such is hard coded into our brains. Note that the same generic
        categories of
        > wholeness, partness etc seed the development emotions from
        self-referencing
        > the fight/flight dichotomy.
        >
        > In a LOCAL context, the same generic categories seed the development of
        > categories using the yin/yang dichotomy - IOW we are mapping a universal
        > that seeds all meanings across the species but at the unconscious level.
        > LOCAL context then customises to form complex languages. Note that
        within
        > the serial development of languages through self-referencing there
        develops
        > a parallel, intuitive, format where each category formed becomes
        > describable, in fine detail, through the use of analogy/metaphor to
        each of
        > the other categories.
        >
        > Where does the initial distinction come from? The chaos game. Here
        we find
        > that the containment of noise will spontaneously create order through
        > self-referencing. Hierarchy is also present reflected in the
        containment of
        > containments.
        >
        > The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the neurology
        define
        > all that is possible.

        This presentation is worded with care, even with elegance. Does
        no-one else find, though, that the basic premise here is an unexamined
        theism? The putative scientific ontologist as God, mortal, carnal,
        and priest of his own dogma? Philosophy brought into captivity, her
        categories subordinated for the purposes of social control or
        reinforcement? What a closed system, that lays down a definition of
        "all that is possible". Or am I reading uncritically here? Do these
        arguments constitute only one interpretation of the discipline of
        neuroscience? L.

        Anything outside of these categories will be
        > interpreted from inside the categories and present as paradox
        (oscillations
        > that cannot stop -
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)
        >
        > For references in neuroscience that reflect the above see my draft
        > "Categories of Mediation" -
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/categoriesTheory.pdf
        >
        > if we move to the realm of general psychology we find the SAME
        categories at
        > work but with different labels - Jung used three dichotomies to map out
        > persona 'types' and these were extended into four dichotomies in the
        MBTI
        > (Myers Briggs Type Indicator). What these map out are SPECIES-related
        > behaviours, specialist collectives within the species. We can call
        these our
        > particular nature. Exposure post birth to some local context will mix
        > genetics with nurture to elicit our precise, unique, singular conscious
        > being. At this point we reflect the ontic, there is no more to be
        said, we
        > are who we are; if we try to keep digging we will use the one set of
        > categories to do so and eventually hit a continuum, imagined or
        real; beyond
        > THAT is fragmentation.
        >
        > ANY reflection on experience, real or imagined, will instinctively use
        > dichotomisation and self-referencing to derive meaning. In the past
        this has
        > been local context and ad-hoc; what this does is create an explicit
        'small
        > world network' from the implicit set of all possible categories.
        Hierarchy
        > then allows for levels of categories where more primitive contexts
        cannot
        > support refined categorisations. As such, we move from the general
        to the
        > particular and the use of self-referencing and mediation allows for
        > transcendences through the use of languages. At the singular
        position, this
        > allows for an individual to come up with a perspective that is
        innovative
        > and can change the world overnight - but this position needs
        'refinement' in
        > the form of a well developed consciousness. The 'difference sensitive'
        > realms of science and philosophy are sources of distinction making that
        > allows for, enables, such development. (symmetric thinking equates
        with, for
        > example, religion and so an immediate focus on sameness. Thus any
        particular
        > faith does not evolve due to the sameness - competition is limited to
        > stereotyping of those NOT of the faith; in science and philosophy
        there is
        > more openness to internal competitions etc but at the same time science
        > heads towards symmetry whereas philosophy can focus on the issues
        with the
        > unique and so issues of ethics where the unique (discrete, competitive)
        > operates in a context of a social species (relational, cooperative)
        >
        > The transcendence of species-ness, the movement from particular to
        singular,
        > requires education that aids in differentiating and putting demands on
        > frontal lobes/pre-frontal cortex to develop. Without that education
        all we
        > have is 'smart apes'; but at the same time, too early education
        brings out
        > an unstable, easily distractible form (ADD/ADHD become 'noticeable')
        - the
        > analogy here is to the high differentiating of thought reflects high
        sample
        > rates and so high energy utilisation akin to 'blue light' and that
        sort of
        > light is easily scattered - and so the sky is blue ;-)
        >
        > In the context of the identified categories and 'dasein' -
        self-referencing
        > will encode all parts in each part, or more so the whole in all
        parts. It is
        > this that allows for a language to develop through the use of analogies
        > across the set of parts where such is possible due to the method of
        > self-referencing. Thus an 'examined' life covers all of the
        possibles since
        > one is contained in each; local context biases, adaptations to local
        social
        > dynamics, can elicit a mindset that appears as if 'whole' but is in
        fact an
        > exaggeration of one aspect of the total. Exposure to a different
        context can
        > elicit behaviours that astound consciousness, all due to lack of
        awareness
        > of the full spectrum of being in all of us. Given the awareness, through
        > consideration of all of the possibles presented in self-referencing,
        allows
        > for selection of a context to get it to 'push' our instinctive
        buttons and
        > in doing so get a wider appreciation of our unique being, and being
        overall.
        >
        > Chris.
        >
      • chris lofting
        Hi Louise, ... ... If we carefully examine the results of the empirical research in neuroscience we find that the repeated identification of
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Louise,

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
          > Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 10:14 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
          >
          <snip>
          > > The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the neurology
          > define
          > > all that is possible.
          >
          > This presentation is worded with care, even with elegance.
          > Does no-one else find, though, that the basic premise here is
          > an unexamined theism? The putative scientific ontologist as
          > God, mortal, carnal, and priest of his own dogma? Philosophy
          > brought into captivity, her categories subordinated for the
          > purposes of social control or reinforcement? What a closed
          > system, that lays down a definition of "all that is
          > possible". Or am I reading uncritically here? Do these
          > arguments constitute only one interpretation of the
          > discipline of neuroscience? L.
          >

          If we carefully examine the results of the empirical research in
          neuroscience we find that the repeated identification of self-referencing
          indicates such as the ground from which all else follows.

          Further examination of self-referencing brings out a property where the
          categories derived at, say, level 3, are repeated at level 6 in the form of
          being aspects of each category - as such the whole is encoded in each part;
          thus initial conditions with the minutist of difference set a path within
          which are utilised all of the other possible differences to describe a
          particular difference.

          Further examination of these processes bring out the fact that all
          particular meaning, if examined deep enough, will reveal the presence of all
          other meaning, including the opposite of what is being examined. Differences
          are as such in degree such that the specialist, particular, meanings of
          Existentialism 'contain' all others as potentials (or minute, marginalised
          actuals); thus we have 'Christian' existentialism, fascist existentialism,
          socialist existentialism, Islamic existentialist, Buddhist existentialism
          and so on.

          Further examination leads us to a perspective where any differences in
          perspective are due to the labels that tie universal categories to local
          contexts; in other word the labels are the difference and all perspectives
          have beneath them an overall sameness hard-coded in the form of the
          neurology.

          Consideration of these findings brings out the fact that all perspectives,
          as we know them as specialist, are metaphors and as such all of the sets of
          labels identified are interchangeable when applied to interpreting reality -
          thus validating the development of post-modernist perspectives of 'any
          metaphor will do' since they are all social constructs.

          More examination brings out the history of the development of post-modernist
          mindsets from the workings of the institution of Science and its focus on
          mapping 'all there was/is/will-be' and so identifying algorithms and
          formulas and so the mapping of 'laws' and so 'determinism'.

          Consideration of this mapping process and the results of, bring out a
          movement from the complex/chaotic/asymmetric/difference to the
          simple/same/symmetric/ordered. A social consequence of this, where people
          are born into a high technology, 'safe', culture, is the dumbing down of
          information for the sake of communicating things 'simply', but in doing so
          making the deeds of the past impossible to re-create in the present/future.
          (the dumbing down of education systems is severe, as is the amplification of
          simple skills into over-labelled, over-sold, characteristics - we see (a)
          the complexification of the simple and (b) the simplification of the
          complex! The underlying problem being that the original simple stuff is
          still simple and the original complex stuff is being dumbed down and losing
          skills in the process)

          Examination of self-referencing brings out the fact beneath all of the
          post-modernist 'its all social constructs' lies the hardware of the
          neurology and the categories IT produces as fundamentals in communicating
          meaning. As such, as a neuron-dependent primate species, any certainty is
          unconscious but present as certainty in the form of instincts and habits
          where local context repeatedly pushes those buttons outside of conscious
          control.

          (Given Libet's work, and that of others, I suggest a perusal of such texts
          as:

          Pockett, S., Bamks, W., & Gallagher (eds)(2006)"Does Consciousness Cause
          Behaviour?" MITP )

          Further consideration of the properties and methods of information
          processing bring out the 'drive' of all neuron-dependent life forms to
          conserve energy in a thermodynamic universe through the derivation of
          sameness (instincts/habits) to aid in dealing with differences. This pattern
          maps to the identification of generic dynamics of anti-symmetry/symmetry and
          the oscillations across that asymmetric dichotomy where such elicit language
          (and with THAT the fact that this realm of mediation is always incomplete
          since the final completion is at the level of the unconscious in the form of
          an instinct/habit/memory that remains unconscious until context pushes and
          elicits a response that, if not 'best fit', instigates the use of
          consciousness to mediate.)

          Thus the more exposure to differences so the more algorithms/formulas are
          identified so the more symmetric the collective become (and so the more we
          see the 'spiritualisation' of science).

          If we remove all of the 'isms' and so all of their labels, what is left is
          what they fundamentally represent, patterns in the neurology of
          differentiating/integrating aka objects/relationships, aka what/where, aka
          parts/wholes aka anti-symmetric/symmetric aka dasein/mitzein aka
          analytical/dialectical etc etc - these are all asymmetric dichotomies and so
          cover their self-referencing and derivation of finer levels of meaning as
          universals that are then applicable to any local context. The customisation
          of local contexts will generate languages that will include specialisations
          to a degree where some universals are amplified, some damped, some even
          expunged.

          The problem with symmetrisation IS in development of a closed system and so
          the seeking out and emphasis of conservation laws and the overall dumbing
          down of the culture through this focus on sameness for the sake of 'ease in
          communication' where the fact is some don't have, or want, the ability to
          deal with differences (and so the ease with which symmetric collectives
          develop stereotyping).

          However, further examination of the dynamics of information flow and its use
          by humans brings out the development of unique consciousness where with
          education develops a unique sense of identity that is not repeatable no
          matter how much the focus is on determinism (the social focus on 'best
          practice' brings out a drive of difference in appearance but sameness in
          thinking - thus the price of competitiveness is a potential 'phase
          transition' in thought a as the competition 'demands' best-practice for one
          to maintain one's position (or make a quick gain before the agents of
          balance turn up!)).

          This development of unique consciousness brings out the development of the
          charismatic and the formation of fundamentalist groups around such charisma.
          This focus on, the social push on, 'free will' and so being competitive but
          WITHIN the confines of being social and cooperative, elicit fragmentation of
          the society overall and so aids in maintaining a doorway between total close
          off of a symmetric life form and the realm of uniqueness/difference at the
          universal level, not just the lip service paid to differences.

          The development of consciousness thus brings out the poles of
          mindful/mindless in that science has dug down to the level of the mindless
          and come up with 'its all metaphor' outside of the neurology. What this does
          is bring out a property of mindless evolution - pragmatism. The pragmatics
          of evolution is where learning different metaphors allows for the fitting
          in to unique context, when necessary. As such, one is never an
          existentialist other than when the context favours such a perspective. This
          pragmatic approach brings out a focus on 'shape shifting', transforming
          exteriors to fit in to some context but retain core sense of self. This is
          'opposite' to the dynamics of consciousness in the development of language
          and the ability to transcend any context and assert unique identity
          regardless of the context.

          As I have emphasised before, you cannot do philosophy without neuroscience
          data BUT you cannot (should not?) replace philosophy with
          science-as-it-develops since science is increasingly becoming 'symmetric'
          (or attracted to symmetry) and so turning its back on potential differences
          that can make a difference.

          Science to date has had this developing attraction to symmetry (although
          those of us in information processing contexts recognise the value of the
          asymmetric!) and this has hidden until recent times the fact that the
          universe is not symmetric - what is perceived is what comes out of our
          experiments/equipment all of which is designed by our symmetric natures -
          thus what we sense is a reflection of our symmetry; only in recent times has
          it become 'obvious' that there is a problem with such in that what is
          perceived is in fact a very small percentage of what is apparently 'out
          there' (see anything on dark energy/matter)

          Consideration of all of the above will have an effect in that the input of
          neuroscience discoveries affects reflection and so the considerations of
          existentialist perspectives.

          Chris.
        • louise
          ... neurology ... referencing ... Chris, You are making no attempt at all to answer any of my questions, but seem instead to be using my message in order to
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Louise,
            >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
            > > Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 10:14 AM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
            > >
            > <snip>
            > > > The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the
            neurology
            > > define
            > > > all that is possible.
            > >
            > > This presentation is worded with care, even with elegance.
            > > Does no-one else find, though, that the basic premise here is
            > > an unexamined theism? The putative scientific ontologist as
            > > God, mortal, carnal, and priest of his own dogma? Philosophy
            > > brought into captivity, her categories subordinated for the
            > > purposes of social control or reinforcement? What a closed
            > > system, that lays down a definition of "all that is
            > > possible". Or am I reading uncritically here? Do these
            > > arguments constitute only one interpretation of the
            > > discipline of neuroscience? L.
            > >
            >
            > If we carefully examine the results of the empirical research in
            > neuroscience we find that the repeated identification of self-
            referencing
            > indicates such as the ground from which all else follows.

            Chris,
            You are making no attempt at all to answer any of my questions, but
            seem instead to be using my message in order to further your own
            dogmatic position. Others may indeed be interested in your ideas,
            which personally I find fanciful. Still, some of scientific
            endeavour is like that, and can do immense harm.
            Louise
          • chris lofting
            ... yes I have - the generality of my response covers the particulars you raised. Your focus on unexamined theism and the scientific ontologist as God etc
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
              > Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 3:04 AM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hi Louise,
              > >
              > > > -----Original Message-----
              > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
              > > > Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 10:14 AM
              > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
              > > >
              > > <snip>
              > > > > The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the
              > neurology
              > > > define
              > > > > all that is possible.
              > > >
              > > > This presentation is worded with care, even with elegance.
              > > > Does no-one else find, though, that the basic premise here is an
              > > > unexamined theism? The putative scientific ontologist as God,
              > > > mortal, carnal, and priest of his own dogma? Philosophy brought
              > > > into captivity, her categories subordinated for the purposes of
              > > > social control or reinforcement? What a closed system, that lays
              > > > down a definition of "all that is possible". Or am I reading
              > > > uncritically here? Do these arguments constitute only one
              > > > interpretation of the discipline of neuroscience? L.
              > > >
              > >
              > > If we carefully examine the results of the empirical research in
              > > neuroscience we find that the repeated identification of self-
              > referencing
              > > indicates such as the ground from which all else follows.
              >
              > Chris,
              > You are making no attempt at all to answer any of my
              > questions,

              yes I have - the generality of my response covers the particulars you
              raised. Your focus on 'unexamined theism' and the 'scientific ontologist as
              God etc etc are all covered in what I wrote about the consequences of
              self-referencing in that all perspectives are reflected, in some way, in
              each perspective.

              Any customised, local, 'philosophical categories' will always have their
              forms determined by the set of vague, unconscious categories derived from
              the neurology. The vagueness covers the core categories of wholeness,
              partness, static relatedness (sharing of space), dynamic relatedness
              (sharing of time) and their composites. It is the labelling to map these
              universals to local contexts that elicits difference and specialisations and
              so 'small world networks' where universals are amplified, damped, or even
              expunged. (and being born into one of these 'small worlds' can create the
              false impression that this 'small world' is THE world and so elicit 'smaller
              world' networks and so an increase in specialisation and perception of
              social fragmentation.)

              ANY information that comes to us that is outside the realm of our
              sensory/cognitive systems will be interpreted from within that system and so
              manifest as paradox in the form of oscillations where such reflects the
              mediation dynamics of the neurology. 'True' paradox as such is where the
              oscillation never stops no matter how many concepts we derive to try and pin
              down what we are detecting and it is from this realm of mediation that
              consciousness appears to have developed. (I gave sensory examples of the
              oscillation in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

              The overall dynamic is thus coverage of the anti-symmetric/symmetric through
              mediations across this asymmetric dichotomy. The qualities of the dichotomy
              are grounded in a closed system (symmetry) but the input comes from the
              asymmetry of mediation. All of this dynamic is grounded in what the
              neurology is capable of as it manages sensory data and internal feedback
              dynamics (positive and negative and so another asymmetric, NOT symmetric,
              dichotomy)

              As a genetically, instincts/habits dependent species there is a focus on
              refining the elements of closed system of 'wholeness'. The openness is in
              the form of mediation as consciousness that allows for refinements as we
              process difference/sameness in real time rather than over generations of
              genetic mutations.

              The seeming 'constraints' on thought indicated by the neurology categories
              is of no real concern re limiting one's considerations! - the scope possible
              is beyond the capabilities of a single consciousness and the set of possible
              contexts to tie those categories to with labels is 'infinite'. What the
              categories do is set some solid foundations from which to work and that
              includes the recognition of the notions of 'uncertainty' and 'indeterminacy'
              as being products of methodology (asymmetric dynamics, mediation etc) and
              not necessarily expressing reality 'as is' but more reality 'as
              interpreted'. - we also identify the benefit of the 'infinite regress' in
              that the dynamic elicits languages and so the regress is not some 'error' of
              nature, it IS nature, a nature developed from the 'mindless' and so a realm
              not too focused on 'intelligent design' but more on billions of years of
              mindless evolution and so 'best fit', pragmatic, dynamics. (this also gets
              into the nature of the concept of 'infinity' in that it takes high
              resolution consciousness to come up with that concept through use of
              self-referencing beyond the limits of sensory resolution power - our
              imagination can go past that continuum to present the 'infinite')

              Chris.
            • tyga
              ... So are you saying, all perceptions are inherently flawed due to the inescapable fact that all perceptions are thoughts and thoughts do not represent the
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 30, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                chris lofting wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >> -----Original Message-----
                >> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                >> Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 3:04 AM
                >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >> Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
                >>
                >> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                >>
                >>> Hi Louise,
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>> -----Original Message-----
                >>>> From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >>>> [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                >>>> Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 10:14 AM
                >>>> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >>>> Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>> <snip>
                >>>
                >>>>> The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the
                >>>>>
                >> neurology
                >>
                >>>> define
                >>>>
                >>>>> all that is possible.
                >>>>>
                >>>> This presentation is worded with care, even with elegance.
                >>>> Does no-one else find, though, that the basic premise here is an
                >>>> unexamined theism? The putative scientific ontologist as God,
                >>>> mortal, carnal, and priest of his own dogma? Philosophy brought
                >>>> into captivity, her categories subordinated for the purposes of
                >>>> social control or reinforcement? What a closed system, that lays
                >>>> down a definition of "all that is possible". Or am I reading
                >>>> uncritically here? Do these arguments constitute only one
                >>>> interpretation of the discipline of neuroscience? L.
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >>> If we carefully examine the results of the empirical research in
                >>> neuroscience we find that the repeated identification of self-
                >>>
                >> referencing
                >>
                >>> indicates such as the ground from which all else follows.
                >>>
                >> Chris,
                >> You are making no attempt at all to answer any of my
                >> questions,
                >>
                >
                > yes I have - the generality of my response covers the particulars you
                > raised. Your focus on 'unexamined theism' and the 'scientific ontologist as
                > God etc etc are all covered in what I wrote about the consequences of
                > self-referencing in that all perspectives are reflected, in some way, in
                > each perspective.
                >
                > Any customised, local, 'philosophical categories' will always have their
                > forms determined by the set of vague, unconscious categories derived from
                > the neurology. The vagueness covers the core categories of wholeness,
                > partness, static relatedness (sharing of space), dynamic relatedness
                > (sharing of time) and their composites. It is the labelling to map these
                > universals to local contexts that elicits difference and specialisations and
                > so 'small world networks' where universals are amplified, damped, or even
                > expunged. (and being born into one of these 'small worlds' can create the
                > false impression that this 'small world' is THE world and so elicit 'smaller
                > world' networks and so an increase in specialisation and perception of
                > social fragmentation.)
                >
                > ANY information that comes to us that is outside the realm of our
                > sensory/cognitive systems will be interpreted from within that system and so
                > manifest as paradox in the form of oscillations where such reflects the
                > mediation dynamics of the neurology. 'True' paradox as such is where the
                > oscillation never stops no matter how many concepts we derive to try and pin
                > down what we are detecting and it is from this realm of mediation that
                > consciousness appears to have developed. (I gave sensory examples of the
                > oscillation in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
                >
                > The overall dynamic is thus coverage of the anti-symmetric/symmetric through
                > mediations across this asymmetric dichotomy. The qualities of the dichotomy
                > are grounded in a closed system (symmetry) but the input comes from the
                > asymmetry of mediation. All of this dynamic is grounded in what the
                > neurology is capable of as it manages sensory data and internal feedback
                > dynamics (positive and negative and so another asymmetric, NOT symmetric,
                > dichotomy)
                >
                > As a genetically, instincts/habits dependent species there is a focus on
                > refining the elements of closed system of 'wholeness'. The openness is in
                > the form of mediation as consciousness that allows for refinements as we
                > process difference/sameness in real time rather than over generations of
                > genetic mutations.
                >
                > The seeming 'constraints' on thought indicated by the neurology categories
                > is of no real concern re limiting one's considerations! - the scope possible
                > is beyond the capabilities of a single consciousness and the set of possible
                > contexts to tie those categories to with labels is 'infinite'. What the
                > categories do is set some solid foundations from which to work and that
                > includes the recognition of the notions of 'uncertainty' and 'indeterminacy'
                > as being products of methodology (asymmetric dynamics, mediation etc) and
                > not necessarily expressing reality 'as is' but more reality 'as
                > interpreted'. - we also identify the benefit of the 'infinite regress' in
                > that the dynamic elicits languages and so the regress is not some 'error' of
                > nature, it IS nature, a nature developed from the 'mindless' and so a realm
                > not too focused on 'intelligent design' but more on billions of years of
                > mindless evolution and so 'best fit', pragmatic, dynamics. (this also gets
                > into the nature of the concept of 'infinity' in that it takes high
                > resolution consciousness to come up with that concept through use of
                > self-referencing beyond the limits of sensory resolution power - our
                > imagination can go past that continuum to present the 'infinite')
                >
                > Chris.
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                >
                So are you saying, all perceptions are inherently flawed due to the
                inescapable fact that all perceptions are thoughts and thoughts do not
                represent the real world (the world that exists for the senses to detect
                and the mind to interpret)?

                tyga
              • louise
                ... an ... God, ... brought ... of ... lays ... in ... you ... ontologist as ... of ... way, in ... It is simply the case, from my reading of your text, that
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 30, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                  > > Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 3:04 AM
                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@>
                  wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi Louise,
                  > > >
                  > > > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                  > > > > Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 10:14 AM
                  > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
                  > > > >
                  > > > <snip>
                  > > > > > The basic categories derived from self-referencing of the
                  > > neurology
                  > > > > define
                  > > > > > all that is possible.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > This presentation is worded with care, even with elegance.
                  > > > > Does no-one else find, though, that the basic premise here is
                  an
                  > > > > unexamined theism? The putative scientific ontologist as
                  God,
                  > > > > mortal, carnal, and priest of his own dogma? Philosophy
                  brought
                  > > > > into captivity, her categories subordinated for the purposes
                  of
                  > > > > social control or reinforcement? What a closed system, that
                  lays
                  > > > > down a definition of "all that is possible". Or am I reading
                  > > > > uncritically here? Do these arguments constitute only one
                  > > > > interpretation of the discipline of neuroscience? L.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > If we carefully examine the results of the empirical research
                  in
                  > > > neuroscience we find that the repeated identification of self-
                  > > referencing
                  > > > indicates such as the ground from which all else follows.
                  > >
                  > > Chris,
                  > > You are making no attempt at all to answer any of my
                  > > questions,
                  >
                  > yes I have - the generality of my response covers the particulars
                  you
                  > raised. Your focus on 'unexamined theism' and the 'scientific
                  ontologist as
                  > God etc etc are all covered in what I wrote about the consequences
                  of
                  > self-referencing in that all perspectives are reflected, in some
                  way, in
                  > each perspective.

                  It is simply the case, from my reading of your text, that you write
                  of consciousness objectively, as it were from a privileged position
                  that does not require of itself a philosophical examination. I
                  believe that this falsifies the reality of what a mental perspective
                  is. There is something godlike, about the judgments involved, which
                  are applied to the perspectives formed by other human brains,
                  judgments which in a wider context may involve the attempt at control
                  or suppression of 'undesirable' perspectives. Unfortunately, I
                  suspect that we actually have nothing fruitful to discuss, our
                  starting-points are so different. L.

                  >
                  > Any customised, local, 'philosophical categories' will always have
                  their
                  > forms determined by the set of vague, unconscious categories
                  derived from
                  > the neurology. The vagueness covers the core categories of
                  wholeness,
                  > partness, static relatedness (sharing of space), dynamic relatedness
                  > (sharing of time) and their composites. It is the labelling to map
                  these
                  > universals to local contexts that elicits difference and
                  specialisations and
                  > so 'small world networks' where universals are amplified, damped,
                  or even
                  > expunged. (and being born into one of these 'small worlds' can
                  create the
                  > false impression that this 'small world' is THE world and so
                  elicit 'smaller
                  > world' networks and so an increase in specialisation and perception
                  of
                  > social fragmentation.)
                  >
                  > ANY information that comes to us that is outside the realm of our
                  > sensory/cognitive systems will be interpreted from within that
                  system and so
                  > manifest as paradox in the form of oscillations where such reflects
                  the
                  > mediation dynamics of the neurology. 'True' paradox as such is
                  where the
                  > oscillation never stops no matter how many concepts we derive to
                  try and pin
                  > down what we are detecting and it is from this realm of mediation
                  that
                  > consciousness appears to have developed. (I gave sensory examples
                  of the
                  > oscillation in
                  http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
                  >
                  > The overall dynamic is thus coverage of the anti-
                  symmetric/symmetric through
                  > mediations across this asymmetric dichotomy. The qualities of the
                  dichotomy
                  > are grounded in a closed system (symmetry) but the input comes from
                  the
                  > asymmetry of mediation. All of this dynamic is grounded in what the
                  > neurology is capable of as it manages sensory data and internal
                  feedback
                  > dynamics (positive and negative and so another asymmetric, NOT
                  symmetric,
                  > dichotomy)
                  >
                  > As a genetically, instincts/habits dependent species there is a
                  focus on
                  > refining the elements of closed system of 'wholeness'. The openness
                  is in
                  > the form of mediation as consciousness that allows for refinements
                  as we
                  > process difference/sameness in real time rather than over
                  generations of
                  > genetic mutations.
                  >
                  > The seeming 'constraints' on thought indicated by the neurology
                  categories
                  > is of no real concern re limiting one's considerations! - the scope
                  possible
                  > is beyond the capabilities of a single consciousness and the set of
                  possible
                  > contexts to tie those categories to with labels is 'infinite'. What
                  the
                  > categories do is set some solid foundations from which to work and
                  that
                  > includes the recognition of the notions of 'uncertainty'
                  and 'indeterminacy'
                  > as being products of methodology (asymmetric dynamics, mediation
                  etc) and
                  > not necessarily expressing reality 'as is' but more reality 'as
                  > interpreted'. - we also identify the benefit of the 'infinite
                  regress' in
                  > that the dynamic elicits languages and so the regress is not
                  some 'error' of
                  > nature, it IS nature, a nature developed from the 'mindless' and so
                  a realm
                  > not too focused on 'intelligent design' but more on billions of
                  years of
                  > mindless evolution and so 'best fit', pragmatic, dynamics. (this
                  also gets
                  > into the nature of the concept of 'infinity' in that it takes high
                  > resolution consciousness to come up with that concept through use of
                  > self-referencing beyond the limits of sensory resolution power - our
                  > imagination can go past that continuum to present the 'infinite')
                  >
                  > Chris.
                  >
                • chris lofting
                  ... ... We cover here all conscious perceptions in that unconscious perceptions are in the form of instincts/habits. To become aware of something is
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 30, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tyga
                    > Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2008 11:38 PM
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Unsocial perspectives
                    >
                    <snip>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > So are you saying, all perceptions are inherently flawed due
                    > to the inescapable fact that all perceptions are thoughts and
                    > thoughts do not represent the real world (the world that
                    > exists for the senses to detect and the mind to interpret)?
                    >

                    We cover here all conscious perceptions in that unconscious 'perceptions'
                    are in the form of instincts/habits. To become aware of something is usually
                    due to an issue that requires mediation by consciousness and so the serial
                    is used to flesh out some issue with the parallel; we use delay as we try to
                    resolve some issue. Libet's work (and more recent work of others) shows us a
                    delay of about .5 of a second (or more)is present when we are learning
                    something and once learnt, once habituated, the delay disappears - that
                    delay is associated with the presence of awareness mediating the learning.
                    Thus we are over-sensitive to difference, habituate to sameness (and so the
                    latter focus on symmetry - instincts/habits reflect the extraction of
                    essentials to form a pattern that 'reflects' reality and so usable in
                    recognition and 'correct' response to stimulus)

                    As a neuron-dependent species we have properties and methods to cover the
                    learning of instincts/habits that allow us to work 'smoothly' in a
                    thermodynamic universe - i.e. where conservation of energy is vital. The
                    instincts/habits allow us to operate 'immediately' when local context pushes
                    some button. (Martial arts skill development bring out this translation of
                    serial to parallel, delay to immediate response - don't think, do)

                    As a GENERAL PURPOSE life form, genetics contributes to presenting an
                    undifferentiated whole to a context that then differentiates and then
                    re-integrates, and so customises, the life form to fit in to that context.
                    We see this especially in the development of sensory systems and so pick up
                    on the novelties that come out of this customisation in the form of
                    synaesthesia where senses get 'mixed' (and that includes genetic variations
                    and so the hard wiring of mixed sensations such that perceptions are not
                    necessarily like 'everyone else' - for example, auditory harmonics (chords
                    etc) can be experienced by some as visual harmonics (colours)).

                    What allows for living a 'normal' life under these conditions is the
                    language of the neuron - frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes - where such
                    allows for sharing of sensory data and so translation of one sense data into
                    some other sense data. As such it is all 'harmonics' and these elicit the
                    universal response to sensory harmonics - emotions.

                    This differentiation process includes education where children are taught
                    differentiation through customisation of language - thus a child is
                    corrected if he/she says "this toy tastes red!" (this can cause issues of
                    course in that due to novel wiring the sensory harmonics could be confused
                    such that the child is responding correctly to their experience!)

                    When first born the lack of sensory differentiation means an infant will
                    turn their whole being to any sensation - they need to 'look to hear' etc
                    (and this can continue into adult life such as those who need to look to
                    hear whilst driving a car and so keep taking their eyes off the road to talk
                    to their passenger!). As the re-integration process goes on so the infant
                    learns to differentiate a sense such that an auditory stimulus can be met
                    with an auditory response without any other sense getting involved (or more
                    so other senses are doing something else)

                    This customisation of sensory data brings out the general-to-particular
                    dynamic of mediation as we become more precise in dealing with reality
                    (negative feedback at work and so error correcting, 'getting closer to',
                    integrating, combined with positive feedback in the form of discretisation
                    and amplification; differentiating)

                    Following on from sensory differentiation/re-integration is the development
                    of language that aids in further refinements. However, the use of the serial
                    to dominate the parallel and so marginalise the parallel (the re-integration
                    process that allows us to work 'immediately') introduces a realm of
                    perpetual uncertainty since mediation is not about stimulus or response, not
                    about certainty, but about mediating and so attempts to resolve situations
                    into the 'certain' where such is in the form of an instinct/habit and so
                    unconscious and immediate rather than conscious and so delayed.

                    Thought is internal language and as such reflects mediation activity, be it
                    focused on the real or the imagined. Being a mediating activity it occupies
                    the realm of the asymmetric, and so the autological (self-describing) but
                    also the paradoxical (part/whole confusions). A core property of this
                    mediating realm is uncertainty/incompleteness in that completion is a
                    property of the anti-symmetric/symmetric in the form of an instinct/habit.

                    What my work on meaning brings out is this refinement of the parallel
                    through the use of the serial. If the social focus is on the serial overall
                    (the pleasure of language, of exchange etc, the emotional high possible from
                    such exchange and so we can get high through language to a point of
                    'needing' to talk, we get addicted!) then there is a lack of trust in
                    surrendering to instincts/habits and mediation dominates AS IF it is
                    'complete' - the issues with this are brought out when we focus on
                    meta-language (the language about language) where we discover the
                    incompleteness aspect and interpret such as a manifestation of reality
                    rather than as an aspect of methodology in interpreting reality. (and so
                    Gödel's meta-mathematics focus on mathematics 'discovers' incompleteness, as
                    does Heisenberg's reflections on quantum mechanics (and so a meta-state)
                    leads to the conclusions of indeterminacy.)

                    All perceptions must go through the nervous system to be processed.
                    Instincts/habits get encoded near/in the input areas and so allow context to
                    push. Delay is in the form of recruitments (increase bandwidth to process
                    something) and synchronisation combined with emotional highs/lows.

                    In the context of reflecting reality, the development of the neuron is
                    traceable back to sponge life circa 600 million years ago. The success of
                    such reflects a successful adaptation to the environment to such a degree
                    that little/no change has been required at that level of information
                    processing - thus the neuron reflects definite aspects of reality mirrored,
                    internalised, in neuron-dependent life forms.

                    The basics of the neuron cover wave inputs to 'dendrite' areas (like AM
                    radio, amplitude modulation) and the conversion of such into outputs as
                    pulses (like FM radio, but as spatial frequency modulation). Thus we have
                    integrating at one end, differentiating at the other. In the integrating
                    area we find encoded instincts/habits/memories and so a realm of filters
                    (this covers a single neuron to distribution over a network of neurons). We
                    also find in the 'middle' a synchronisation ability as well as an ability to
                    recruit other neurons to deal with complex information and so increase
                    bandwidth. Combined with all of this is hormonal dynamics in the form of
                    densities of neurotransmitters/neuromodulators that can influence emotional
                    states - not forgetting the essentials of feedback where such is necessary
                    to implement high precision through memory use etc (this also covers
                    self-referencing to elicit categories etc)

                    These patterns are repeated all the way 'up' to our neocortex and 'out' into
                    the properties/methods of the species and all collectives within such.

                    So - what Science has given us is a detailed mapping of our nature as a
                    neuron-dependent life form and that covers the reduction of all
                    communication to neural dynamics - there is no thought 'free' of neural
                    activity and as such all thought is grounded in patterns of
                    differentiating/integrating and the mediation of such. BUT the issue here is
                    that a consequence of such a scientific perspective dominating world
                    perspective is in the emergence of a post-modernist mindset where all
                    specialist languages are seen as dynamics around analogy/metaphors and as
                    such interchangeable and as such social constructs and so 'any metaphor will
                    do' in the interpreting of reality (and so in living a life - you can be an
                    Astrologer or Mathematician or an Historian or a Biologist, there is no
                    definite 'advantage' as such in any to elicit a 'good living')

                    What this brings out is that science has reduced things to the point of
                    mapping mindless evolution as being pragmatic in its adaptations, mixing
                    metaphors is allowed, is demanded, for successful evolution and this is at
                    odds with the other end of the scale where we have singular being and so
                    high level specialisation, strong focus on precision, where it is considered
                    that there are 'advantages' in asserting one's own context rather than
                    adapting to any context. This brings out the transcending nature of the
                    singular as compared to the transforming, 'shape shifting' nature of our
                    particular species nature.

                    From a philosophical position there are issues with the realm of the
                    singular in that its high level, positive feedback, focus creates borders
                    and so lets loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics. This
                    also covers an increasingly competitive nature and so issue re personal
                    freedoms in a social species. This demand for mediation has to be monitored
                    in that if it gets out of hand so it allows mediation to dominate (and
                    self-reference as we focus on the mediation of mediation etc) and so create
                    a perpetual sense of uncertainty to be taken as if universal reality rather
                    than local reality - and with THAT comes high energy expenditure locally to,
                    possibly, conserve energy over the long run (we discover a 'new', more
                    efficient instinct/habit)

                    The focus on identification of 'laws' and the 'objective', combined with
                    high level competition, brings out security seeking and so an
                    over-protective nature where positive feedback over-amplifies some 'little',
                    low probability, state into something essential, vital. This elicits a loop
                    where exploitation is met by protection and THAT is met with exploitation of
                    the protection! As such the 'flaw' due to mediation dynamics means a realm
                    that is exploitable for profit (short term, local gains - capitalism will
                    exploit any 'uncertainty' and as such is the basic economic system for a
                    mediation-dominated, and so local, fast moving, culture)

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