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

Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing

Expand Messages
  • Herman B. Triplegood
    Chris: Where does all of that logic you use actually come from? I mean this as a philosophical question. It is a question about the foundation of logic. It is
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 7 11:11 AM

      Where does all of that logic you use actually come from?

      I mean this as a philosophical question.

      It is a question about the foundation of logic.

      It is a question about the legitimacy of logic as a tool for
      scientific inquiry.

      Where does logic, ITSELF, come from?



      Who has EVER actually shown us this origin?

      Don't you find it kind of ODD that logic is so taken for granted that
      the question of the origin of logic almost never comes up?

      I can only think of two philosophers, right now, off the top of my
      head, who even TRIED to touch upon this question.

      Husserl and Heidegger.

      What about the mathematical model of logic? Is computation all there
      really is to logic? Is logic really just so much calculation?

      I find it hard to go where you are going in your web pages without
      having any answers to these questions about the origin and status of
      logic, PER SE.

      It seems to me that the AUTHORITY OF LOGIC is the one thing that most
      needs to be CALLED INTO QUESTION in an investigation of the
      derivation of meaning.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...>
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
      > > Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2008 6:33 AM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-
      > >
      > > > The existentialist perspective covers mindsets that are out of
      > > > from a scientific perspective. This becomes a problem over time
      > > > that refusal to adapt to new data forces any 'central'
      > > perspective to
      > > > become marginalised.
      > >
      > > chris,
      > >
      > > i simply cannot bear to read any more of this self-indulgent
      > > drivel without a further intervention. you arrive here at an
      > > existential list and shortly announce to us all that "from a
      > > scientific perspective" the long-evolved applications of
      > > philosophical thought to everyday life represent "mindsets
      > > that are out of date". you are trampling all over territory
      > > for which you have neither understanding nor respect.
      > >
      > wrong. ;-)
      > > my own capacity to make plain to unprejudiced readers why i
      > > respond so trenchantly, and after apparently agreeing to
      > > disagree with you in this matter, is seriously impaired at
      > > present by the condition of disordered thought from which i
      > > am suffering.
      > ... so I have to take what you write with a grain of salt? OK. ;-)
      > > like sartre and camus, i have felt with an
      > > intense passion the intellectual conflicts which centre
      > > around political and economic realities.
      > ... so you only consider the three of you as having these feelings?
      I doubt
      > that.
      > > my own life has
      > > been so directly threatened in this process that i was
      > > obliged to adopt strategies of literary disguise, in hopes of
      > > communicating with those who would understand.
      > you will need to flesh this out to make any sense.
      > > the power of
      > > the fist, the calculated deception, and the gun, frequently
      > > win out in this world against natural fear and naivety.
      > Our species is naturally competitive (genocide is not something
      limited to
      > *our* species - we are just, unfortunately, more efficient where
      such is
      > rooted in positive feedback dynamics - discretisation and
      > With the lack of training frontal lobes etc all we end up with
      are 'smart
      > apes' - the price of undisciplined 'freedom'. A property of those
      who live
      > in fear is that of asserting their identity (and so conforming to a
      need to
      > do so) THROUGH the context - as such they hide, disappear, into that
      > context. This dynamic can cover the exploitation of the context to
      hide as
      > well as the natural tendency for social life forms to seek
      > through numbers. Emotionally this is of interest in that the
      > reactive emotions of grief and fear can be refined into proactive
      > of discernment and devotion-to-another/others.
      > A lot of religion exploits this area with the focus on suffering
      leading to
      > 'transcendence'; this especially covers grief ( a loss of love) and
      > that suffering into quality control (discernment) - e.g. Buddhism
      > (self-suffering) and Christianity (someone suffers on your behalf).
      > > what
      > > have you got to offer us, by way of demonstrating a serious
      > > engagement with life in the home, on the street, in the
      > > workplace, or on the battlefield, instead of in the
      > > theoretical laboratory of your own mind?
      > >
      > The IDM material (Integration, Differentiation, and Meaning)
      identifies how
      > 'in here' derives and processes meaning covering (a) the primary
      > focus on looking out for No 1 and (b) the secondary emotions
      developed in
      > tandem with the developing sense of self and covering socially-
      > behaviours that repress instincts/habits for the benefit of social
      > (e.g. use of guilt etc)
      > Currently this material is applied to home, street, workplace, and
      > battlefield through some counsellors and such 'software for the
      masses' as
      > the "Emotional I Ching" that covers a deceptively simple surface
      > dynamic that allows for identification of 'repressed' feelings -
      all done
      > through analysis of the way our brains work in processing
      information and
      > masking out the 'uncomfortable'. The issues with the precision of
      > consciousness compared to the approximations of basic emotions in
      > a situation allow for identifications of uncomfortable feelings
      that are
      > unjustified as well as those that are justified but repressed by
      our social
      > consciousness. There is no 'magic' in this material - it is all
      > etc but structured in a particular way where such reflects how 'in
      > derives meaning. (more so it is not the explicit terms of the
      questions that
      > derive the meaning, it is the hierarchic ordering of the type of
      > that derives the generic meaning and consciousness mediating with
      the local
      > context that gives the details and the sense of 'thats right' etc)
      > The IDM material as such is applicable to all disciplines since it
      > identifies the general properties and methods operating
      unconsciously as our
      > brains process information. This is especially so in fleshing out
      > details of meanings where such have not been realised as possible
      due to
      > lack of understanding of self-referencing properties.
      > So -- the current focus is on refining the "Categories of Mediation"
      > material both theory and practice - the current drafts being :
      > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/categoriesTheory.pdf
      > and
      > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/categoriesPractice.pdf
      > (fight/flight dichotomy is fleshed out, and then yin/yang, and then
      > combination with the IDM categories to give us the practical tool
      of the
      > "Emotional I Ching")
      > The insights of such introduce a need to re-assess past
      perspectives limited
      > by lack of knowledge re HOW we do things. Through neuroscience
      research that
      > is all being revealed ;-) - the general background is in IDM -
      > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
      > From an existentialist perspective we now have access to what
      is 'seeding'
      > the expressions of existentialist thinking and the limitations
      imposed on
      > such through making some false assumptions in the context of what
      one can
      > get out of self-referencing (the 'traditional' view has been on
      > the infinite regress as some sort of anomaly in need of removal! -
      and so
      > the introduction of complex numbers etc - my work shows that the
      regress is
      > NATURAL
      > and only with some DEPTH in the regress comes the roots of
      languages and
      > finer details in the context of ontology creations. Thus, for
      example, when
      > Heidegger comments on issues of the "Why the Why" he is heading in
      the right
      > direction for deriving a language of the 'why':
      > "The question of "Why the Why?" looks externally and at first like a
      > frivolous repetition of the same interrogative, which can go on
      forever; it
      > looks like an eccentric and empty rumination about insubstantial
      meanings of
      > words. Certainly that is how it looks. The only question is whether
      we are
      > willing to fall victim to this cheap look at things and thus take
      the whole
      > matter as settled, or whether we are capable of experiencing a
      > happening in this recoil of the why-question back upon itself.
      > But if we do not let ourselves be deceived by the look of things it
      > become clear that this why-question, as a question about beings as
      such and
      > as a whole, immediately leads us away from mere toying with words,
      > that we still possess enough force of spirit it make the question
      > recoil into its own Why; for the recoil does not, after all,
      produce itself
      > on its own. Then we discover that this distinctive why-question has
      > ground in a leap by which human beings leap away from all of the
      > safety of their Dasein, be it genuine or presumed." Heidegger, IM.
      > Heidegger did not have access to neuroscience research that brings
      all of
      > this self-referencing out - as I commented before, he got close ;-)
      > The IDM work on self-referencing and categories formation brings
      out the
      > fact that the emergence of a language does require some depth in
      > self-referencing that can be considered as a 'leap' in that the
      > between the original distinction level and the language level does
      exist in
      > that the language level is 'suddenly' present after a lot of
      > iterations. It is these initial iterations that lead most to
      dismiss the
      > infinite regress as offering anything 'useful'.
      > SO - the IDM material covers all meaning generation, be it in
      theory or
      > practice; the laboratory as such is producing good work that is
      > not just theoretical - but there is still a lot to do both in
      quality and
      > quantity - and all applicable to analysis of existentialism
      as 'philosophy
      > to live by'
      > Chris.
    • louise
      ... ing ... ing, & ... the ... Collider ... not ... than ... as such ... Spirituality ... out ... sense ... each ... interpretive skills ... science ... given
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 8 4:19 PM
        --- 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.