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

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

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... ... which it can do. Any specialist perspective is the generation of a particular language to be used to describe all there is . This process is
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 6, 2008
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
      > Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 11:25 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing
      > Hb3g: Consider this conundrum which lurked behind the Kantian
      > project. If the universe according to Newton were true, if
      > everything that happens in the universe, inculding scientists
      > doing science, were all mere mechanism, then, this very
      > science would be in a real pickle, for, the one thing that it
      > could never explain would be itself.

      which it can do. Any specialist perspective is the generation of a
      particular language to be used to describe 'all there is'. This process is
      derived from asymmetric means applied to the dealings of context. The
      consequence of such a process is the development of the autological and the
      consequences of THAT is incompleteness/uncertainty simply due to the fact
      that asymmetric representations are never complete since they are acts of
      mediation - IOW the focus is on the 'in-between' of stimulus/response and so
      is not the stimulus more the response. The mediation leads to the
      manufacture or refinement of an instinct/habit and so something that
      operates unconsciously. Thus through language we can 'get close to' the
      point but the point, to become a 'truth' and so a memory/instinct/habit
      becomes unconscious but 'on call' to serve as a response to some stimulus -
      thus what comes out of our mouths is more often not thought out, it 'pops
      out' - ready formed. Consciousness can mediate this but it takes training to
      achieve such regulation.

      > Hb3g:
      > But be careful with the asking of the why question. The whole
      > point to the question has nothing to do with its having an
      > answer. It has everything to do with the fact that it can
      > even be asked. This brings us right back to...well...us! To
      > ask, "Why Being?" is to also ask, "Why metaphysics?"

      Heidegger got close to the issues of why when he raised the 'why the why'
      issue. His answer reflected an answer of someone exposed to the
      philosophy/logic/mathematics of the time with the drive to remove the
      infinite regress; and so lacking consideration of what exactly happens with
      that regress. What my work shows is that language happens in that
      self-referencing will reach a level where the set of categories derived from
      self-referencing will form into a set of symbols usable as a language
      grounded in the use of analogy making (pattern matching). As such the
      infinite regress comes with a braking system in the form of generating an
      autological dynamic through the use of analogy.

      > Hb3g: In Being and Time Heidegger explains that whenever
      > there is thinking there is also always a mood of some kind.
      > The understanding of Being, even if that understanding is
      > pre-conceptual, cannot be separated from the state of mind of
      > the subject, the Dasein, who has that understanding. Where
      > there is understanding, there is also a state of mind, AND,
      > vice versa.

      The first language was that of emotions and it spans the species. The
      encapsulation and symbolisation of such led to specialisations and so local
      context methods in using symbols to elicit emotional states - these include,
      for example, the simple feeling of 'correctness' we find in the processing
      of syntax and so of 'truths' - the roots of this feeling appear to be in
      territorial mapping and so our sense of truth is mapped to our identity.

      At the human level we can map out persona states grounded in, driven by,
      particular emotional biases - and so the generic state of 'anger' can be
      refined to experience of self-respect and single-mindedness.

      > But ther reason WHY this is so, is NOT because there is one
      > thing that underlies two things, but because there are always
      > two things within every one thing when it comes to OUR Being,
      > i.e., Dasein.

      The struggle in thought covering this reflects the duality at the
      neurological levels in the grounding of all meaning in self-referencing of a
      dichotomy (and an asymmetric one at that and so a trichotomy focused on
      mediation). The CONSEQUENCE of this self-referencing and derivation of
      categories of meaning is in the identification of vague purpose, all due to
      the methodology alone.

      Asymmetric thinking elicits language through part/whole considerations and
      so the play across anti-symmetry/symmetry. These languages reflect becoming
      in that identification is not until the mediation is over, the
      sentence/paragraph/chapter/book is complete. The success of mediation also
      serves as a 'buzz' in that if there is nothing to mediate we will create
      something since we get-off on the process of mediation, the social dynamic.

      The 'duality' present is also manifest in the
      nominalisation/de-nominalisation process applicable to the basic asymmetric
      dichotomy - in other words we can turn nouns into verbs and visa versa (and
      we can recurse THAT dichotomy to give us a dimension of classes of meaning
      based on mixing the elements of the dichotomy - and so some nouns that are
      more like verbs, some verbs more like nouns). Thus all meaning can be
      expressed in gerund form, as an 'ing', and this is then broken down into a
      focus on being (A house) or doing (to house).

      > To put it crudely, the substance and the function of thinking
      > Being are so intimately tied together that one cannot be
      > thought, ontologically, without the other. Where there is a
      > noun, a what, there is always a verb, an act, action,
      > activity, function, or process.
      ... or mix - and we can identify the vague set of categories that represent
      such a mix and so set the ground for composite developments. Thus we have:

      Objects (noun-ness)
      wholeness through differentiating
      wholeness through integrating
      partness through differentiating
      partness through integrating

      Relationships (verb-ness)
      static relatedness through differentiating
      static relatedness through integrating
      dynamic relatedness through differentiating
      dynamic relatedness through integrating

      Apply these to each to get finer distinctions and so show hyperbolic
      development of categories of meaning (we move from eight to 64, 64 to 4096,
      4096 to 16+ million etc)

      > Aristotle was the first to say it in this manner. Later on,
      > Kant referred to it when he remarked that there can be no
      > unity, of the manifold of intuition, without unification of
      > that manifold under a transcendental unity of apperception
      > that is, itself, a manifold of ACTS of categorial judgment.

      One can demonstrate this development of intuition from the experiencing and
      categories of such through dichotomous means. IOW self-referencing a
      dichotomy presents a set of categories that, given DEPTH in that
      self-referencing, are found to be all linked together and able to describe
      aspects of each other through use of analogy - and this all built-in as part
      of the neurology and its method of information processing.

      > It is no accident that when the infinitive form, to be, comes
      > up, it is more often than not framed in a question touching
      > upon the most intimate, ownmost, and authentic, POSSIBILITY
      > for the Dasein
      > involved: to be, or not to be. There is your entelecheia,
      > again, right there.

      The question of to be or not to be comes in three flavours:

      anti-symmetric (A/NOT-A - local context)
      symmetric (being is equivalent to not-being - non-local context)
      asymmetric (and so the place to generate a language of being - grounded in
      categories derived from self-referencing to use re implications and the
      focus on necessity/possibility (modal logic etc))

      > The it is of Dasein IS its to be. In other words, the
      > actuality of human Being in a world, IS, the potentiality of
      > that Being in a world.

      This is symmetric thinking (focus on sameness, A/NOT-A equivalence) and so
      covers the undifferentiated. Differentiation utilises the anti-symmetric (we
      move whole into parts-ville) and finer details come out in the form of
      language (asymmetry). The moment you move into the asymmetric and a focus on
      becoming so you move into a focus on purpose where the beginning of a
      mediation and the end of a mediation move meaning from beginning to ending.
      This is repeated at larger scales all due to the influence of the Chaos game
      on derivation of meaning where such will encode 'purpose'. - thus a stimulus
      has a meaning in the response generated, be it an instinct or some new
      format that becomes an instinct.

    • louise
      ... ing ... ing, & ... the ... Collider ... not ... than ... as such ... Spirituality ... out ... sense ... each ... interpretive skills ... science ... given
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 8, 2008
        --- 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-
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > -----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
        > > > > > 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
        > > > > attempt to create their mini black hole?:)
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > ;-) it is a problem isn't it! forgive them ... for they know
        > > 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
        > 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.
        > comes as a property of being a social species and so elements of the
        > parallel when compared to the serial - the organic position brings
        > properties of symmetry and so a sense of 'all is connected'. This
        > serves to integrate be it between members of the species or within
        > 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
        > research - an example of this form of 'mis-guided' interpretation
        given by
        > a Rabbi describing 'angels' when the dynamics covered is more the
        > responding to the push of context on instincts/habits and
        > having no idea what is going on -- see
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html
        > Chris


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

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