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

Re: [existlist] Re: Primordial Polarities

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
      > 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 2 of 19 , Sep 2, 2008
        > -----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 3 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
          > 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.