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

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

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... no. They are specialisations and as such share the same general space with science emerging from natural philosophy to take on an apparent discrete form
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 7 10:34 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
      > Sent: Monday, 8 September 2008 3:15 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing
      >
      > Chris:
      >
      > A conversation is a give and take between you and I, between
      > you and all the rest of us on this list.
      >
      > So, WHAT is the give and take here?
      >
      > Is it science versus philosophy?
      >

      no. They are specialisations and as such share the same general space with
      science emerging from 'natural philosophy' to take on an apparent discrete
      form where in fact it is more a cooperative form in the context of mapping
      out realities - real or imagined.

      > Is it that science is superior?
      >

      in what way? your being too general.


      > That science has AUTHORITY?
      >

      E=MC^2 seems to work well, as do medicines and basic principles of hygiene
      etc - and then of course there is THIS feature we are using right now to
      discuss issues - i.e. computers and the internet. Issues come out in dealing
      with freedom in that science has problems with the unique - and so the
      contributions of morality/ethics as covered in philosophy. The authority as
      such is in guidance in developments in exploitations and protections, and so
      this being a pragmatic perspective. Thus the rigor imposed aids in ensuring
      medicines etc come with some degree of trust - as do weapon systems ;-) -
      the issues then are in those who use the product of science for their more
      'reptilian' perspectives in that THAT area is the area of morality/ethics
      and so an area more of interest to philosophy in dealing with the singular
      consciousness... although recent work in neurosciences brings out 'ethical'
      concerns in the brain. (e.g. such texts as "The Ethical Brain")

      > Is that it?
      >
      > As you can see, a lot of us are resistant to going there with you.
      > Don't you wonder why? Is it just because we are all being contrary?
      > Or, could it be that we are seeing things from different
      > perspectives, from perspectives that, just maybe, you do not yet see?
      >

      But I DO see - that is the issue I suppose in that I see enough to identify
      your perspective as a specialist one, a metaphor developed out of past
      thinking not up-to-date with the science covering 'in here' and so open to
      speculations that can touch on being fantasies and so more as novels of
      fiction - this occurring if the specialisation does not up-date itself with
      ongoing research. If it does NOT do that then it becomes more like a
      religion where the old books (or for religion, the one book) set the
      foundations and so become marginalised. Fragmentation occurs but in local
      context interpretations of the 'book', rather than changes to 'book' as we
      find in science (e.g. the extension of classical mechanics to quantum
      mechanics and relativity and so being context sensitive and so 'fluid' ;-))

      > Authoritarianism, ESPECIALLY the very idea of an authority of
      > science, is bound to "fall flat" on an existentialism list,
      > and rightly so, because existentialism understands that the
      > spirit of philosophy, at the very heart and soul of its
      > Being, is anti- authoritarian.
      >

      .. and this is a specialist perspective and so has its place - the role of
      questioning is vital in ensuring development that does not become
      ritual/dogma and so a path into decadence/corruption. However, the products
      of thought come with properties of the methodology of thinking and one must
      be up-to-date with such properties to avoid getting confused between map and
      territory where such confusion can lead one into la-la land ;-)

      > The reason WHY the idea of an authority of science is a
      > non-starter, here, is because we all know that it isn't
      > science that is in charge, it is WE who are in charge.

      Your confused between science versus the institution of science where such
      contains all of the power trips of a social species. In the institution the
      distribution of 'science types' is strong but still dominated by the more
      political types - strong science types have a persona that is strongly
      isolationist and so discretised, hidden behind walls but at the same time
      willing to help those who ask - and THEY are usually those interested in
      exploiting the science for their gain (weapon systems, new algorithms for
      trading systems, medicines to sell etc etc etc.

      > That
      > does NOT mean just one of us, as if somebody has been
      > appointed to be in charge. NOR does it mean all of US,
      > collectively and blindly, as a MOB. It means, each and every
      > one of us, individually, and, in interaction with, all the
      > rest, as a community of individuals, each and every one of
      > which, MUST BE, an authority unto himself or herself, in
      > cooperation with, AND, in recognition of, all of the OTHERS.
      >

      As expression of a singular consciousness that may be fine but it is
      idealist in form in that it shows a clear lack of understanding regarding
      the intellectual capabilities of the species - it is the speciesness that
      has to be dealt with carefully in that it is that level that has instincts
      to find a 'better weapon' to blow away any competition. That dealing has to
      be in the education of frontal lobe/pre-frontal cortex areas that serve to
      regulate our instincts and so introduce delays in responses.

      the issue then is that there are those not as smart as some and so they
      cannot achieve equality in thought where that thought is idealist. Thus
      there is the need for identifying alternative methods to achieve the
      development of mental states that raise one from a species-member and so
      reactive and dominated by unrefined instincts/habits.

      As singular beings we are NOT 'equal' - this is of benefit overall in that
      it allows for diversity in views for dealing with reality but it can also
      come with a cost in the form of trying to impose 'equality' through dumbing
      down.

      In the NATURAL development of humans there is a spectrum of 'types' and this
      covers the competitive to the cooperative. This level is genetic and rooted
      in self-referencing such that within the cooperative we find the
      competitive, and within the competitive we find the cooperative. This RANGE
      of 'types' presents the full spectrum of POSSIBLE types where it is context
      that favours one over the others. This SAME dynamic applies to groups and so
      abstract categories such as 'existentialism' etc etc etc

      What is implied here is that the 'science type' is in fact encoded into each
      of us but with a bias favouring their 'preferred' expression. This brings
      out the influence of context on selecting expressions within expressions
      (the structure of personality is in each of us and so covers all possible
      'types' but local context plus some genetics will skew such to a particular
      bias)

      WITHIN this species-nature is the development of our singular nature within
      the first few years of life, and the education of such over the following
      decades. With this singular being comes secondary emotions including guilt
      etc etc and so the influence of such on day-to-day dynamics, especially if
      not examined ;-)

      The basics of science (as compared to the assertion of the institution of
      science) is focused towards symmetry in the form of a focus on
      repeatability, reflectability, predictability, falsifiability (no
      infallibility in science, as compared to such being common in religion).

      This being the case, the 'authority of science' is more so the authority of
      symmetry in the form of the establishment and maintenance of
      trust-in-others.

      The roots of science (not the institution) is dealing with fears derived
      from 'bad' sensations and so the need to identify where the source of such
      sensations are (we make maps to allow avoidance of such). This is REACTIVE.
      With the development of maps so there is an increase in confidence such
      that the maps are then used to identify positives and so the exploitation of
      such - this is PROACTIVE. If you extend this process you will wander into
      the realm of sensation seeking and so a realm that includes hubris and so
      the false authenticity of science (or any other discipline for that matter,
      including existentialism)

      > So, I go right back to my question from a few days ago. Tell
      > me now, succinctly, just exactly WHY a philosopher should
      > "give a damn" about what a scientist wants to say...about the
      > Being of every thing there is?
      >

      ...because the identification of the methodology used to describe reality is
      an essential pre-requisite for precision in philosophy in that it aids in
      clearly determining map and territory. Since it is your BRAIN that
      determines mind and all outputs, so understanding brain is essential given
      that we now have access to how 'in here' works. Otherwise all philosophy
      becomes nothing but 'wind' and gets marginalised at a time when it is
      necessary for dealing with issues on the 'science of freedom' - ethics etc.

      > Is THAT the nature of the work you have mentioned?
      >
      > Here are my concerns:
      >
      > 1. The tendency to conflate everything else into science.
      > 2. The tacit assumption that science has AUTHORITY over us.
      > 3. The INCOMMENSURABILITY of authority and philosophy.
      >
      > That number 3, right there, should be the clue to where I am
      > coming from. This isn't a question of which discipline has
      > the authority.
      > Philosophy REPUDIATES authority, in its very essence, as a
      > basis for any kind of discourse in the first place, and NOT
      > ONLY discourse, but the very ACTIVITY of living a life.
      >

      I see your problem, you are limiting yourself to a singular being and so
      marginalising, even expunging, your species-being where authority is 'hard
      coded' into the genetics of alpha males/females etc and so the development
      of 'charismatic' types from genetics alone. Such marginalisation/exclusion
      from thought may be fun but it lacks practicality since our genetics ensures
      elements of authority will always be present - unless you subscribe to
      genetic engineering 'removing' those sorts of genes? LOL! that would be
      interesting! - I think the focus should be more on education of
      consciousness to manage these dynamics - something we don't do these days
      with the focus on 'freedom' etc and so generating a lot of 'smart apes'
      rather than human beings.

      This is not easy to do since we have to cover the whole species and so the
      range of abilities in comprehending singular needs within a context of
      particular/general needs... or is your goal to in some way break free of
      your body!? - to be a 'free spirit'?

      > What I am getting at, as I "beat up" on authority here, is a
      > deeply ingrained tendency that we all have, and that we all
      > struggle to be free of, and that is the tendency to look
      > anywhere, EVERYWHERE, for the basis of the veracity of our
      > ownmost existence, for our self- authority, EXCEPT, where we
      > really ought to be looking for it, and that is, purely and
      > simply, within ourselves.
      >

      Again your focus on your singular nature and so ignore your species nature.
      This is delusion and smacks of idealist perspectives totally out of touch
      with reality 'as is'.

      > All else is secondary. All else is purely external, and it is
      > rife with a contingency that befuddles and confuses us rather
      > than clarifies the meaning of our Being.
      >

      IN THE CONTEXT of your singular being I can understand that, but your rigid,
      intense, specialist focus appears to have created a 'small world' network
      you imagine is the universe - it isn't. Our species-nature is dominatingly
      unconscious and covers a LOT of our behaviours. It is necessary to
      understand that activity before you wander off into speculations covering
      development of the singular.

      > Modern "scientism" and the idea of the authority of science
      > that goes along with it, as something that can supplant the
      > originary self- authority, the self-authorization, that is
      > the heart and soul of philosophy, IS the befuddlement and
      > confusion of our so-called modernity.
      >

      LOL! such passion but also such a waste of passion. You are marginalising
      your WHOLE being by taking a PART (your consciousness) and treating it as if
      a whole. This IS an autological position and it DOES allow you to mediate
      but it is also the realm of paradox due to the confusion of part/whole
      dynamics - as such one can get stuck in metonymy when trying to create a
      well-defined metaphor. This 'stuck-ness' brings out an XOR mindset
      (philosophy XOR science) and so creates borders that let loose what lives on
      borders, complexity/chaos dynamics and, if not understood, elicits
      'befuddlement and confusion'.

      > Take a look at the etymology of the word authority. It is,
      > author- ity. Authorization is author-ization.
      > Self-authorization is self- author-ization. The true concept
      > of authority has nothing to do with anything EXTERNAL to
      > one's self. It is all about one's self, and how one IS, at
      > the core of one's own Being, the author of that Being in a
      > profound sense.
      >

      Again you marginalise your species-nature where authority is HARD CODED in
      the form of social 'leadership' as alpha males/females. It is consciousness
      that allows us to 'transcend' such states GIVEN a local context that enables
      such transcendence. The hierarchy present plays with the genetics to elicit
      classes of collectives well covered in such texts as:

      Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and
      Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House
      Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social
      Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81

      > When the Oracle said, to Socrates, "gnoti sauton" know
      > thyself, the Oracle meant, be the AUTHOR of your Being. THAT,
      > right there, is your TRUE authority, and it undercuts, and
      > grounds, the external authority of nature, science, religion,
      > ideology, and the misconstrued authority of philosophy, the
      > self-author-ization that the philosophical really IS.
      >
      > What I am saying, Chris, is that I think you are enthralled
      > with the authority of science, and, being so enthralled, you
      > are, in my opinion, barking up one of many wrong trees there,
      > trees that confuse and conceal what is really at stake
      > philosophically, existentially, AND ontologically.
      >

      All I see in the above is someone stuck in their head and not actually
      putting themselves in a context to experience the types of authority and so
      model it well and understand the pro and con of such where the genetic
      contributions mixed with consciousness favour, in the long run, the
      development of an Anarchist position (and I mean that in its political,
      self-determining form, not 'anarchy' as commonly used to cover no order).

      The Anarchist position (Kropotkin et al) is the 'best fit' for singular
      consciousness, but it has to 'compete' with the genetics of the species and
      so our particular nature as social beings.

      It is the genetic position of our social species that brings out the issues
      of 'thrown-ness' and 'being-in-the-world' combined with the seeding of
      social norms to 'guide' development in the early years and so the lack of
      'self-determination' (or in some the over-emphasis on such to a degree where
      discretisation dominates but at a large scale and so unstable, premature,
      trying to over-ride genetics too early in development - with discretisation
      comes competitive behaviours and the encouragement of such has a price in
      the context of 'us vs them' thinking in that it can become the 'preferred
      choice' in behaviour and so habituated and so 'conflict' is made a universal
      rather than context-sensitive.)

      > Step back for a moment and ask yourself why we are all here
      > on this list? It is because, for each and every one of us,
      > what we conceive philosophy to be, whether we call that
      > conception existentialism or transcendentalism, or
      > fundamental ontology, MATTERS. It matters, to each and every
      > one of us, and each and every one of us brings a unique and
      > irreducible perspective to it that can NEVER be leveled off
      > into an orthodoxy, a doctrine, or a method.
      >

      Philosophy as an on-going, on-developing discipline that needs to keep in
      touch with reality to ensure its retention as a useful specialisation in
      concept making and contributing to the general and the particular. Otherwise
      it takes on the form of religion that remains a constant in general but
      fragments in particular but still goes nowhere.

      ><snip>
      >
      > It isn't about the sacrifice.
      >

      It IS about suffering in that there is a 'going against the grain' to break
      symmetry as it is to make new symmetry. The problem with science is the
      sameness focus but that is a fundamental in science in that it allows for
      prediction etc etc. A philosophy of difference brings out issues of the
      unique and as such 'unscientific' given the current focus on symmetry.

      > It is about the STANDING FIRM, the REFUSAL to GIVE IN, which
      > is an ultimate SELF-AFFIRMATION, an ACT of self-authorization
      > that is the actualization of our ultimate possibility.
      >
      > THAT is philosophy.
      >

      your limiting yourself unnecessarily - PRIOR to neuroscience work the focus
      was acceptable since there was only SELF-referencing that was possible. WITH
      neuroscience work the details of being and Being becomes fleshed-out more
      and the incorporation of such material aids in the development of philosophy
      and it keeping in touch with reality to a degree it can present itself as a
      source of focus on issues not well covered in science and 'frozen' in
      religion - i.e. morality/ethics.

      > If you ask me, if we can no longer comprehend the humanity of
      > Socrates as we read those three Socratic dialogues, that
      > makes US, not philosophy itself, what is pathetic AND hypocritical.
      >
      > Are we HUMAN or are we just THINGS?
      >

      The words HUMAN and THINGS are interchangeable at this general level of
      presentation. Perhaps try to ground it a bit more, such as:

      AM I HUMAN OR AM I A THING?

      Note the lack of the use of "A" before human - such a lack brings out the
      relational dynamics of human and so covers being and doing; object AND
      relationship (and even extended into object EQV relationship)

      > That is NOT a question to be scientifically answered. It is a
      > CHOICE, a PHILOSOPHICAL choice, in the FORM of an existential
      > question, that lies AT THE VERY CORE of our Being, and THAT,
      > right there, is enough of a clue, I think, that, for us, it
      > is, par excellence, the ONTOLOGICAL issue.
      >

      All I see here is rhetoric and an almost religious fervour lacking any
      grounding in reality other than as a part treated as if a whole. WITHIN the
      context of singular being it can all 'work' but to consider all that is
      possible for us we have to focus on the full spectrum and so cover our
      unconscious and so the workings of the species-nature and its 'seeding' of
      philosophical perspectives.

      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.
    • 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
      • 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.