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

RE: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... IMHO an error. Analysis of self-referencing shows there IS purpose but rooted at the species level, not the individual level where our singular natures,
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > a_living_breathing_being
      > Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 3:04 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing
      >
      > Herman wrote: Yes, the what that is there in the question of
      > Being, is all about the who that asks that very question, the
      > who that cares, intimately about the question.
      >
      > ALBB: Heidegger wrote about 'care'.
      >
      > Herman wrote: This is unscientific. It is radically, and
      > existentially, a teleological standpoint.
      >
      > ALBB: It seems to be contrasted against a naturalism that
      > portrays concrete existence (nature) as having no inherent
      > purpose or final cause to it.

      IMHO an error. Analysis of self-referencing shows there IS purpose but
      rooted at the species level, not the individual level where our singular
      natures, being unique, share space with the notions of the random/miraculous
      since there is no 'history' prior to the beginning of the life of a 'self'.

      species history is brought out in that basic self-referencing will elicit a
      dimension of 'all that is possible' and this will include categories
      describing 'begin' and 'end'. The self-referencing will encode these
      categories in EACH category and as such set down a sense of 'purpose' but
      vague in form since the coverage is collectives within the species
      (specialist groups such as 'warriors' or 'drones' etc etc - as such, as a
      social species, we have within us specialist skills brought out in such
      species-focused typologies as the MBTI or HBDI etc etc etc Our consciousness
      works within these categories and can elicit a degree of transcending such,
      although contexts will still push our species buttons and so the focus on
      being-in-the-world and issues of thrown-ness, authenticity etc etc etc

      The existentialist perspective covers mindsets that are out of date from a
      scientific perspective. This becomes a problem over time in that refusal to
      adapt to new data forces any 'central' perspective to become marginalised.

      As species members we have 'purpose' within the species. As conscious beings
      we also have an agent of transcendence in the form of our mediation
      abilities that allow for introducing of novel perspectives that can make a
      difference when one is needed from 'outside of the box'. As such we reflect
      the internalisation of Darwin's mutation - now operating at the psyche level
      24/7 rather than over generations.

      So how does entelecheia relate
      > to the prevailing conservative science that leaves us with
      > the impression that the universe has no ultimate purpose
      > within itself? The natural elements seem to be in the
      > process of 'becoming' or is actualizing itself as it
      > progresses along. I mean, everything that has sprang out of
      > the big bang; the enourmous complexity, seems very much like
      > an 'intrisically specifying organizing force'; even though 14
      > billion years has passed, somehow reality (as slowly as it
      > moves) has determined itself and is co-ordinated with such
      > detail; I'm thinking about the complexity of a single human
      > cell, our DNA. I am wondering how we explain the fact of
      > complexity and especially complex order; since this keeps me
      > thinking that there-is an inherent purpose or final cause for
      > all things that exist.
      >

      DNA and RNA codons are derived from self-referencing, and the development of
      the perceivable universe is represented in such through the dynamics of the
      Chaos game where any containment of noise will elicit spontaneous order
      through self-referencing. Given that, we can identify the possible
      categories derivable from self-referencing and in doing so identify vague
      purpose as a consequence of methodology and no more (and so there is no need
      for the 'spiritual' perspective re origins but there IS 'purpose'.)

      > Herman wrote: It is the Entelecheia that Being always IS, and
      > its orientation is the future.
      >
      > ALBB: Right. And why is there a future at all; why not
      > nothing? Why not an existential wasteland without space or
      > time? a pure suspended state of nothing. Time is a
      > 'something'. The future is always arriving, being what it
      > is, and is incomprehensible. I am left in a state of
      > mystification. Perhaps we should not ask 'why', mayby that
      > is the problem.
      >

      yes - 'why' elicits value judgements and so better a focus on guiding such
      through use of what/who/which (differentiating) and where/when/how
      (integrating) - aka what an examined, scientific, focus presents. THEN ask
      'why?' ;-) The dynamic of meaning moves from the oracular to the explanatory
      to understanding. Science covers the explanatory since it has issues with
      the unique level of understanding as a singular consciousness.

      > Herman wrote" > To gar auto noein estin te kai einai.
      >
      > ALBB: I am wondering too if 'thinking' is not the only thing
      > we do; [dasein / there-is] feel-ing, eat-ing, sleep-ing,
      > have-ing, fart-ing, drink-ing and a myriad of other
      > variations of do-ing that could be thought of as 'the same'
      > as 'be-ing'; is there a need to prefer the cogitos over any
      > other aspect of human behavior?
      >
      >

      This is a post-modernist, symmetric perspective (all is 'same' and so
      interchangeable, there is no 'best' perspective). Strip all of this metaphor
      away leaves neurology and the bedrock where IT presents certainties in the
      form of instincts/habits and LOCAL context is adapted-to through pragmatism.
      In the past, local adaptations have been through as-hoc means since there
      has been no idea as to what is going on 'in here'. This leads to a 'small
      world network' format where the diversity of differences across small worlds
      brings out the pragmatism of development of the neurology/species. Attempts
      to understand that dynamic, without understanding the methodologies of 'in
      here' leads to all sorts of fantasies taken as if fact - for example,
      consider the interpretations of a Rabbi in responding to a neural dynamic
      that elicits sensations of being magically 'guided' -
      http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html

      The rabbi's being gives an insight into a core element of Being - a drive to
      interpret reality. From a scientific perspective, based on analysis of the
      neurology, we can identify AS-INTERPRETED and AS-IS, the former tied to the
      creation of narratives and so development of a language to interpret where
      such 'grabs' surrounding history/legend/myth to 'understand' immediately.
      This is strongly parts focused, use of probabilities thinking, risk taking,
      and is overall anti-symmetric that can also create 'local symmetries' i.e.
      small world networks that as closed systems conserve all content and so
      reflect metonymy as compared to metaphor. This brings out a mapping of being
      to Being where being to Being is as metonymy is to metaphor, as-interpreted
      to as-is etc

      Chris.
    • louise
      ... ing ... ing, & ... the ... Collider ... not ... than ... as such ... Spirituality ... out ... sense ... each ... interpretive skills ... science ... given
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 8, 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: Tuesday, 9 September 2008 5:10 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-
        ing
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@>
        wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aija Veldre
        > > Beldavs
        > > > > Sent: Monday, 8 September 2008 8:35 PM
        > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-
        ing, &
        > > > > Tim-ing
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > The ontological dynamic is recursive and as such reflects
        > > > > the dynamics
        > > > > > of the chaos game. That reflection demands consideration of
        the
        > > > > > methodology and its properties and methods that can be
        > > > > confused with what is under analysis.
        > > > > > Chris.
        > > > >
        > > > > uh, as one of the science guys on the list, Chris, would
        > > you care to
        > > > > comment on the end of the world possibility this Wed.
        > > > > Sept. 10th when the mad scientists of the Large Hedron
        Collider
        > > > > attempt to create their mini black hole?:)
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > ;-) it is a problem isn't it! forgive them ... for they know
        not
        > > what they
        > > > do...?
        > >
        > > Chris,
        > >
        > > It was already obvious from your earlier remarks that you do
        > > not understand the essence of the Christian religion, nor in
        > > this instance do you see the shallowness of the disrespect
        > > revealed by your throwaway comment. Jesus understood what he
        > > meant by saying, they know not what they do, and if he was
        > > merely mortal the point is lost. As far as human frailty
        > > goes, quite often wrongdoers are perfectly aware of what they
        > > are doing, but fail to understand its significance. Of
        > > course. They are not usually philosophers, in the Greek
        > > sense of the term, interested with subjective passion in
        > > their thought. This rather solemn statement is needful,
        > > because it concerns disagreements at the list concerning
        > > Kierkegaard's view of the Christian faith, and is hardly a
        > > trifling matter.
        > >
        >
        > ;-) you should have realised by now that I lean more to Nietzsche
        than
        > Kierkegaard. I find any religious perspective as de-humanising and
        as such
        > agree with Marx re 'opiate of the masses' .. or was it 'people'? ;-)
        >
        > There is a sharp distinction between spirituality vs religion.
        Spirituality
        > comes as a property of being a social species and so elements of the
        > parallel when compared to the serial - the organic position brings
        out
        > properties of symmetry and so a sense of 'all is connected'. This
        sense
        > serves to integrate be it between members of the species or within
        each
        > member as singular beings. Not understanding these basics allows for
        > mis-interpretations of what is going on to a degree our
        interpretive skills
        > get out of control when not grounded in reality through use of
        science
        > research - an example of this form of 'mis-guided' interpretation
        given by
        > a Rabbi describing 'angels' when the dynamics covered is more the
        neurology
        > responding to the push of context on instincts/habits and
        consciousness
        > having no idea what is going on -- see
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html
        >
        > Chris
        >

        Chris,

        It is you who have no idea what is going on. You are a newbie.
        Please try to show a little humility.

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