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

RE: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities : > 1. Philosophy does not progress like science progresses.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.