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

RE: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... A common theme for some time is the increase in dumbing down information for ease in communication and so a general shift from the precision of asymmetric
    Message 1 of 28 , Sep 22 5:59 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aija Veldre Beldavs
      > Sent: Monday, 22 September 2008 11:40 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
      >
      > chris:
      >
      > > A fundamental of social dynamics is the sense of whole, and so a
      > > closed system and so a focus of symmetry, in social
      > collectives. The
      > > life of collectives as such is a topological life where one cannot
      > > break the whole (equilibrium), only distort it
      > (far-from-equilibrium).
      > > In general, this limits creativity to adaptations of
      > existing forms,
      > > to variations on a theme rather than the innovation of some
      > new theme
      > > where THAT can be symmetry-breaking (as it can be new
      > symmetry-making). Chris.
      >
      > do you consider evolution of life-forms as "stuck in
      > symmetry," and if so, do you have an alternative mechanism of
      > change & continuity? what about Escher-like morphings? while
      > the initial change may not do much more than distort the
      > existing state, given more timespace something easily
      > identified as in some way different does emerge in an open system.
      >

      A common theme for some time is the increase in dumbing down information for
      ease in communication and so a general shift from the precision of
      asymmetric thinking to symmetric thinking; any areas of precision
      (mathematics, physics etc) take on a specialist aire to the extreme. This is
      a step backwards and it encourages a focus on algorithms and formulas to
      dominate the collective rather than be support elements for the collective.

      With symmetric thinking comes stereo-typing and a post-modernist perspective
      of 'any metaphor will do' in interpreting reality. From a 'mindless
      evolution' path, the plethora of metaphors currently available to interpret
      reality brings out the pragmatism of evolution as it does the consistent
      bedrock of the neurology and so a closed system as a species.

      As a genetically-determined life form we are symmetric beings and becoming
      increasingly so psychically where the attraction of symmetry, its aesthetic
      element of 'perfection' etc is deceptive for a life form living in a
      dominatingly asymmetric universe - our hubris was strong until we had to
      face the facts that there was more going on than we could perceive - and so
      the recognition of dark energy/matter making up 94% of the universe. What
      THAT indicates is what we perceive are the products of symmetry as an
      exception, not the rule.

      Evolution brings this out in the aggregation of data into RNA/DNA coding etc
      and so the formation of symmetry from asymmetry over considerable time
      spans. The continued complexity in this dynamic has then led to the
      emergence of 'ordered asymmetry' in the form of our consciousness mediating
      anti-symmetry/symmetry dynamics and so a reduction in time for adaptations
      and so increased symmetrisations based within a dynamics of general whole
      fragmenting into particular wholes (local symmetries - this is manifest in
      positive feedback dynamics where the discretisation acts to enclose a realm
      of negative feedback, such being the integrating nature of symmetry; thus a
      part can take on the form of the whole and, if possible, break free to
      become a whole in its own right)

      > the concept of mapping implies connectivity, but unles one
      > clones or maps an identity, there is partial transfer, not
      > the entirety.

      The focus on mapping brings out precision and aims to create the 'best fit'
      maps - and that includes virtual reality models (simulators etc) that can
      reach a level of technological precision where it become hard to
      differentiate experiencing the map from experiencing the territory it
      represents.

      Within our brains are 'mirror neurons' that work to mimic social behaviours
      and map reality to speed-up adaptations to that reality; copying is an
      evolution 'fundamental' (well covered in RNA/DNA replication dynamics).

      > early genetics research assumed more or less
      > unchanged transfer of infomation and the argument of nature
      > or nurture as a primary problem to be solved.

      The differences are in the two methods of transfer, the infrastructural form
      of mitosis or the 'variations on themes' of meiosis. This brings out the
      symmetry present in infrastructure and so support vs the
      anti-symmetry/asymmetry that can come out of 'variations' where such can
      include the unique. This brings out the dichotomy of
      mereological/topological.

      Shift from the physical to the mental and the same dynamics occur but the
      energy-conserving nature of symmetry becomes a focus overall over the
      long-term, thus the 'natural' state is to prefer balance and so symmetry and
      so sameness over difference. For conscious beings this is devolution in that
      the symmetrisation reflects conformation to laws (identified by the
      mediating nature of consciousness and its creation of languages to aid in
      the mediations) and so a shift away from the uniqueness of local contexts to
      a 'globalisation' of local contexts and so imposition of 'sameness'. This
      imposing of a universal on a local without customisation elicits a degree of
      social neurosis where the local symmetry tries to maintain its identity
      through exaggeration of stereo-typing, both in the promotion of self
      (nationalism etc as positive) and promotion of others (as negatives).

      The promotion of a particular mindset upon all others is a mental form of
      mitosis in the form of imposing 'sameness' and so strengthening
      infrastructures to then allow for 'variations' to work within/over that
      infrastructure. This leads into formations of hierarchies with first forms
      being control focused and so pyramid/tree forms of hierarchy. As difference
      is managed, as algorithms/formulas generated (and so generic well-protected
      'sameness') so emerges a turning inwards in the form of relaxed hierarchy
      within the overall whole where we see web/network forms of hierarchy (this
      brings out qualitative differences and local dynamics in the form of 'court
      politics' and so a more adaptive bias over any innovative bias (the latter
      possibly symmetry breaking)).

      Studies on the development of SELF, grounded in neuroscience and psychiatry,
      bring out the influence of early nurture on the development of
      consciousness-as-we-know-it. The demands of the local context, in the form
      of language pressures, determines to some degree the development of
      consciousness as a fully-expressed sense of unique expression as compared to
      a generic level of development that can 'fit in' socially (and so be more
      reflecting a symmetry-focused 'smart ape' than a conscious, proactive,
      being)


      > today we know about switching mechanisms that in the early
      > development of the organism's genetics turn on and off in
      > response to the environment thereby partaking in flexible identity.
      >

      .. but all within a well-determined infrastructure. Those proto life forms
      with extreme variations in their genetics either elicit spontaneous abortion
      or are born with such disabilities as being unable to survive without huge
      energy expenditures of immediate family or local culture.

      These dynamics work at the level of the psyche as well.

      > contrary to how many outside folkloristics would have it,
      > tradition is not like a cloned dinosaur from who knows when
      > in one complete moment.
      > the transfer of lore is always partial and ongoing, reacting
      > to the specific timespace environment. the creative act
      > requires past - present
      > - future simultaneously and no two performances of folklore
      > or folklife are identical.

      Democracy and globalisation attempt to change such a perspective - local
      folklore become income earning (tourism etc) and so surrenders its 'reality'
      to becoming a marketable product (and so joins in the globalisation
      dynamic). This then differentiates the traditions from the individuals
      concerned in that the individuals become consumers themselves and so are
      'globalised' economically. This then brings out competition where
      'variations' to traditions are introduced to attract tourist to 'my version
      of tradition' as compared to 'your version of tradition' - thus tradition
      fragments.

      Democracy is a political system grounded in the promotion of 'sameness', one
      man, one vote, and so symmetry. It is egalitarian but in being so ignores
      the other half of our genetics, our competitive natures that clearly favour
      aristocracy over egalitarianism and so 'differences' over sameness - this
      brings out the replace-context-with-something-'better' vs
      coexist-with-current-context.

      Thus the promotion of democracy is done in prose that focuses on
      equality/equivalence and so sameness and so symmetry. It favours 'dumbing
      down' and so acts to restrain 'aristocratic' developments. BUT, as
      infrastructure it allows for local variations on a theme to emerge where
      such include economic systems such as capitalism or socialism and in turn
      creativity that is 'free' (innovative but also potentially 'rubbish') or
      'guided' (adaptive but can lack innovation that is a 'difference that makes
      a difference' - most of symmetry is around 'difference that does NOT make a
      difference')

      > the components of any one
      > community are also changing through addition of new members
      > from outside or as newborns, and loss of old ones, so
      > community is not a fixed or bounded entity.
      >

      The hierarchies within a symmetric infrastructure come in two main forms -
      control focus that emphasises syntax (and so reflect anti-symmetry, and so a
      local context, parts focus) and flux focus (emphasis on semantics,
      web/network form trusting and dynamics are in the form of flux, things
      'percolate' rather than move into far-from-equilibrium states). What you
      describe above is 'flux'. The rate of birth to death can be enforced
      politically to maintain balance overall (e.g. China limits to single child
      or the ZPG emphasis in Western cultures - the extreme would be limiting a
      birth to a death)

      In all of this we witness imposition of symmetric perspectives in general.
      Education then reinforces such through training in 'traditions' - we impose
      symmetry on offspring to maintain social form. Cognitive science has brought
      out the fact that each generation, if allowed, would create their own
      language (Creole style) - and even with education this still occurs to some
      degree but WITHIN a symmetry-focused infrastructure (and 'freedom' of
      expression allows for 'feral' kids to emerge within our more democratic
      societies)

      > of course even with adaptation & change, humans don't escape
      > the age-old antimonies grounded in the laws of nature.
      > insofar as humans can perceive in relation and poetically
      > contrasted to their own mutability, these laws are of long
      > duration - poetically expressed as "forever."
      > this does not mean that change as perceived by humans is not
      > significant for human lived experience.
      >

      The sense of 'forever' is in fact linked to high energy usage in
      interpreting reality - the high energy is in the sample rates (as we seek
      more precision we encourage increase in frequencies for information
      processing/distinction making and so increase our bandwidth to get more
      information. This increase in energy is reciprocal to our experience of
      subjective time, to such a degree that as infants (VERY high burn rates
      compared to mass) will often experience a sense of 'forever' or 'eternity'
      etc in their experiences of time vs an adult. NOT understanding these
      dynamics can elicit imaginative interpretations of the sense of 'forever'
      etc

      > also contrary to Hollywood, in the early formation of humans,
      > there was considerable diversity (there's more trace of early
      > genetic diversity in Africa than in Asia) and people rather
      > lived in acephalous, non-hierarchical bands.

      Alpha males/females are a property of our primate genetics - charisma is not
      something that is only learnt, it can be born. Competitiveness comes in two
      forms, aggression (eradication of existing context to impose one's own
      immediately) and sex (replication of self to drown out oppositions).
      Genetically this difference is manifest in such as Chimps (aggressive focus
      on competition - patriarchy) or Bonobos (sexual focus on competition -
      matriarchy).

      This then gets into styles of leadership. From the front (local leader,
      tactical) or the back (focus on management, strategic)

      SMALL groups can be proactive but as they increase in size so division of
      labour is required and an increasingly reactive nature emerges and with that
      comes management and 'group order' and so a loss in local dynamics as
      'governance' takes over to impose 'laws'.

      It is the imposition of law from outside of local contexts that bring out an
      emerging development of 'sameness' and so a development towards 'symmetry'
      overall. what this brings out is the focus on cooperation can in fact impose
      a symmetric perspective that can lead to 'dumbing down' as well as
      stereo-typing and lose in precision such that technology becomes 'mystical'
      for most.

      The cycle of general-symmetry/local-symmetries reflects the adaptation of a
      symmetric form to change through fragmentation and re-integration and we
      witness this today in that the local symmetries bring out competitive
      dynamics (due to demands to make finer distinctions to survive and in doing
      so letting loose complexity/chaos dynamics and so life appears to 'speed
      up'). Science comes out in the form of demands for technology to identify
      'best practice' in all of the competition. The adopting of
      algorithms/formulas (all of those 'self-help' books etc) will be across all
      competitors over time such that they look different but start to think the
      same - this can lead to phase transition and so re-establishment of the
      general-symmetry but now with a focus away from difference and more towards
      sameness.

      The problem for consciousness is that with the formation of well-defined
      instincts/habits (be they internal as behaviours or external as aids) so
      mediation requirements diminish and so specialist languages fade and a
      general purpose communication format emerges ("Chinglish?") that is
      dominatingly, like, 'vague'- like. ;-)

      One of the features of symmetrisation is its response to complexity of
      specialist, asymmetric thinking; dumbing-down is encouraged rather than a
      focus on smartening-up beyond using the algorithms/formulas of science
      without understanding them (a bit like using calculators in mathematics
      exams and so bypassing the training in mental arithmetic etc)

      Chris.
    • louise
      Chris, Firstly, I have shortened your post, to make this reply a little more manageable. Secondly, it is time that I were a little more specific, about why I
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 22 7:55 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Chris,

        Firstly, I have shortened your post, to make this reply a little more
        manageable. Secondly, it is time that I were a little more specific,
        about why I have described your efforts here as 'self-indulgent
        drivel'. Not that I could have done so earlier - brain function, for
        a trusting soul like mine, is, in the first shock of this kind of
        encounter, fairly neutralised. My understanding of existentialism is
        that the thinker applies his thought to the fact of existing, to that
        which is unique and unable to be replicated - in other words, within
        that realm of reality which pertains to living experience and not to
        observable event. Your own living experience, as subjective being,
        is kept rigidly concealed. Do you never apply your analytic
        astuteness, to your own mental functions, motivations, and
        decisions? If not, why trust your analysis of what you observe in
        others? It is the context, as I did in fact state before, I believe,
        that makes your statements read like drivel, because we are
        discussing existentialism here. Science cannot deal with psychical
        realities, and I am not yet convinced that you are even practising a
        form of science. At any rate, you never get anywhere near practising
        philosophy. In his book, "What is Philosophy?", Heidegger writes of
        the secret kinship between thinking and poetic creation, and that
        nevertheless an abyss divides them, for they "dwell on the most
        widely separated mountains". Science occupies a different continent
        altogether. My own methods at the list are cumulative. Though I
        know where I am going, I cannot yet tell on which path to make the
        journey, nor even, very often, make out whether there is a path at
        all. Politics cannot be ignored, for it is on political, cultural
        and social grounds, that much of what is currently obscured has the
        effect of making unintelligible what would otherwise make perfectly
        sound sense, and could at least be tested in open debate.

        Louise

        --- 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, 22 September 2008 11:40 PM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
        > >
        > > chris:
        > >
        > > > A fundamental of social dynamics is the sense of whole, and so
        a
        > > > closed system and so a focus of symmetry, in social
        > > collectives. The
        > > > life of collectives as such is a topological life where one
        cannot
        > > > break the whole (equilibrium), only distort it
        > > (far-from-equilibrium).
        > > > In general, this limits creativity to adaptations of
        > > existing forms,
        > > > to variations on a theme rather than the innovation of some
        > > new theme
        > > > where THAT can be symmetry-breaking (as it can be new
        > > symmetry-making). Chris.
        > >
        > > do you consider evolution of life-forms as "stuck in
        > > symmetry," and if so, do you have an alternative mechanism of
        > > change & continuity? what about Escher-like morphings? while
        > > the initial change may not do much more than distort the
        > > existing state, given more timespace something easily
        > > identified as in some way different does emerge in an open system.
        > >
        >
        > A common theme for some time is the increase in dumbing down
        information for
        > ease in communication and so a general shift from the precision of
        > asymmetric thinking to symmetric thinking; any areas of precision
        > (mathematics, physics etc) take on a specialist aire to the
        extreme. This is
        > a step backwards and it encourages a focus on algorithms and
        formulas to
        > dominate the collective rather than be support elements for the
        collective.
      • chris lofting
        ... Always. Your failure in understanding the existentialist component in what I write is in not comprehending the ramifications of my little experiment , the
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 23 8:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
          > Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2008 12:56 PM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
          >
          > Chris,
          >
          > Firstly, I have shortened your post, to make this reply a
          > little more manageable. Secondly, it is time that I were a
          > little more specific, about why I have described your efforts
          > here as 'self-indulgent drivel'. Not that I could have done
          > so earlier - brain function, for a trusting soul like mine,
          > is, in the first shock of this kind of encounter, fairly
          > neutralised. My understanding of existentialism is that the
          > thinker applies his thought to the fact of existing, to that
          > which is unique and unable to be replicated - in other words,
          > within that realm of reality which pertains to living
          > experience and not to observable event. Your own living
          > experience, as subjective being, is kept rigidly concealed.
          > Do you never apply your analytic astuteness, to your own
          > mental functions, motivations, and decisions?

          Always. Your failure in understanding the existentialist component in what I
          write is in not comprehending the ramifications of my little 'experiment',
          the Emotional I Ching
          (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/Emotional/homep.html ), for it gives
          you personal access to your personal unconscious, even if vaguely, and so
          increases the depth of understanding one's "living experience". I suppose it
          is the apparent simplicity of the system that leads to dismissal but I
          assure you that the presented simplicity is deceptive and you can gain good
          insights into 'issues' covering your personal, deep, unconscious emotions
          looking out for No1 vs your socially trained consciousness suppressing the
          expression of those emotions for the sake of issues of 'taboo' or 'not
          appropriate at this time' behaviours. - under usual conditions one will get
          a response congruent with what your consciousness has reasoned; but in
          moments of discomfort you will find a response that can be surprising and
          eliciting a sheepish reaction from consciousness as its suppression
          activities are revealed.

          So, Louise, what is offered is in fact more personal, more unique, in
          covering all aspects of your personal existence and it being driven by
          material just under the surface of consciousness and as such still very much
          part of 'you'.

          To be able to come up with such material brings out the depths of
          phenomenological analysis I have gone through to flesh all of this out and
          at the same time remain at some level of scientific rigour to ensure that
          the process is repeatable in all of us a species members and yet unique to
          each of us as 'every day' living beings.

          What I have identified is a "Language of the Vague" that seeds all languages
          and that includes the creation of one's own language as part of the act of
          self-describing (autological) where such an act is possible for
          self-referencing systems; we can create our own languages to communicate all
          of that personal, unique, experience - something most existentialist
          perspectives struggle to do since they don't have access to the full
          spectrum of their "living experiences" - at best they have a sense of 'not
          feeling right' or 'feeling uncomfortable but not able to identify' - to a
          level some may go for help by taking a talking cure. The EIC material (a)
          aids in revealing the general concern and (b) works as a tool to be used in
          the communication of issues as part of the talking cure.

          > If not, why
          > trust your analysis of what you observe in others? It is the
          > context, as I did in fact state before, I believe, that makes
          > your statements read like drivel, because we are discussing
          > existentialism here.

          My focus cover existentialism but to a degree your obviously have never
          experienced before.

          > Science cannot deal with psychical
          > realities,

          IMHO delusion. There are issues with dealing with singular natures but a
          developing precision in dealing with particular/general natures. The EIC
          work stems from the considerations on the output of neuroscience work and
          psychiatric work etc etc etc and its application to personal psyche and in
          doing so identifying the generic nature of all psyches and that includes
          languages to describe such.

          If you familiarise yourself with the EIC I assure you you will be often
          surprised at the precision of an estimation based only on the generic
          questions asked.

          The more general point is that the EIC in fact reflect the ONE method we use
          for considerations of reality, from the personal/local to the
          social/non-local and you can use it to ask any question you like THROUGH the
          method presented since what makes a difference is the CONTEXT - and so the
          methodology can be used to map personal dynamics as it can "political,
          cultural, and social grounds".

          SO Louise, perhaps you need to 'live a little' and discover all of that
          unconscious dynamic that seeds your "living experience" beyond the partial,
          limiting, level of your immediate consciousness.

          Chris.
        • chris lofting
          BTW Louise the path of examination using the EIC is, potentially, of infinite length since we are dealing with a form of language - so don t get lost (and
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 23 9:16 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            BTW Louise the path of examination using the EIC is, potentially, of
            infinite length since we are dealing with a form of language - so don't get
            lost (and remember we use the ONE set of categories at each level of
            examination where it is the string of contexts that grounds meaning - cut
            the string, lose sight of where you are, and all is lost ;-)

            Here is a little experiment for you from the abstract level consideration of
            what *YOU FEEL* existentialism is more often concerned with

            (1) facts OR values? ('feel' the answer, draw it up from your 'soul' ;-))
            (2) what was/is/will-be OR what could-have-been/is-not/could-be?
            (3) being proactive (instigating) OR reactive (responding)?

            (in the EIC there are six questions, four possible answers for each, but the
            above will also work if but vaguely ;-))

            These simple questions can elicit infinite depth in examination but an issue
            can develop in monitoring the thread of context required since the
            'language' has 'letters' in the form of vague qualities and if you lose the
            context thread you lose the meaning.

            Chris.
          • bhvwd
            In my discussions with business and legal people,today, my reading of the discussion draft of the Dodd legislation and CNN,NYT coverage,I think we are best
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 23 10:44 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In my discussions with business and legal people,today, my reading of
              the discussion draft of the Dodd legislation and CNN,NYT coverage,I
              think we are best to assist our financial system to the extent we
              can right the situation. It is one opinion but I put due diligence
              into the opinion and I print it. Accession to this legislation, or
              what legally evolves to be law, will cause sizable changes to occur
              in the US society and whatever world order exists.
              I view it as the US attempting to do the right thing. We blew it in
              many areas and we will try to pay the price and reclaim prosperity.
              It will probably be inflationary but controlled inflation is
              preferable to economic depression. Business people call it "the
              unthinkable", harder minds might call it civil insurrection. I call
              it something I do not want to live through. Dislocations may be
              numerous but unavoidable and they may be as uncomfortable as
              listening to President Bush at the UN. I remember hating Nixon,
              hating Johnson, and now listening to the primary author of the
              aforementioned debacle I remember what lost leadership causes.
              A fun romp in jargon will not cure this geopolitical rift. So, while
              trusting in the common usage of words, I return to the title and
              again bow before the wondrous cosmos with hope for continued
              acceptance. Bill
            • louise
              ... in what I ... little experiment , ... it gives ... and so ... suppose it ... but I ... gain good ... emotions ... suppressing the ... or not ... will get
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 23 12:49 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, 23 September 2008 12:56 PM
                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
                > >
                > > Chris,
                > >
                > > Firstly, I have shortened your post, to make this reply a
                > > little more manageable. Secondly, it is time that I were a
                > > little more specific, about why I have described your efforts
                > > here as 'self-indulgent drivel'. Not that I could have done
                > > so earlier - brain function, for a trusting soul like mine,
                > > is, in the first shock of this kind of encounter, fairly
                > > neutralised. My understanding of existentialism is that the
                > > thinker applies his thought to the fact of existing, to that
                > > which is unique and unable to be replicated - in other words,
                > > within that realm of reality which pertains to living
                > > experience and not to observable event. Your own living
                > > experience, as subjective being, is kept rigidly concealed.
                > > Do you never apply your analytic astuteness, to your own
                > > mental functions, motivations, and decisions?
                >
                > Always. Your failure in understanding the existentialist component
                in what I
                > write is in not comprehending the ramifications of my
                little 'experiment',
                > the Emotional I Ching
                > (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/Emotional/homep.html ), for
                it gives
                > you personal access to your personal unconscious, even if vaguely,
                and so
                > increases the depth of understanding one's "living experience". I
                suppose it
                > is the apparent simplicity of the system that leads to dismissal
                but I
                > assure you that the presented simplicity is deceptive and you can
                gain good
                > insights into 'issues' covering your personal, deep, unconscious
                emotions
                > looking out for No1 vs your socially trained consciousness
                suppressing the
                > expression of those emotions for the sake of issues of 'taboo'
                or 'not
                > appropriate at this time' behaviours. - under usual conditions one
                will get
                > a response congruent with what your consciousness has reasoned; but
                in
                > moments of discomfort you will find a response that can be
                surprising and
                > eliciting a sheepish reaction from consciousness as its suppression
                > activities are revealed.

                No, Chris, you do not understand that all of this represents an
                abandonment of the dialectical element of inward life which is out of
                the question for one of my existential commitment. Your idea of what
                my life should look like is not of interest to me for as long as you
                are incapable of listening to one whose valuations are different from
                your own. If I wanted to join a therapy list I would do so. This
                group discusses philosophical and literary matter, in relation to
                lived existence. I find your posts, on reflection, to present a kind
                of literary criticism in relation to lifestyle and sociology. You do
                write with care and a certain elegance, as I remarked before, but
                your subject matter concerns a structured sociality and bad faith
                individuality in which I am emphatically not interested. Louise

                >
                > So, Louise, what is offered is in fact more personal, more unique,
                in
                > covering all aspects of your personal existence and it being driven
                by
                > material just under the surface of consciousness and as such still
                very much
                > part of 'you'.
                >
                > To be able to come up with such material brings out the depths of
                > phenomenological analysis I have gone through to flesh all of this
                out and
                > at the same time remain at some level of scientific rigour to
                ensure that
                > the process is repeatable in all of us a species members and yet
                unique to
                > each of us as 'every day' living beings.
                >
                > What I have identified is a "Language of the Vague" that seeds all
                languages
                > and that includes the creation of one's own language as part of the
                act of
                > self-describing (autological) where such an act is possible for
                > self-referencing systems; we can create our own languages to
                communicate all
                > of that personal, unique, experience - something most existentialist
                > perspectives struggle to do since they don't have access to the full
                > spectrum of their "living experiences" - at best they have a sense
                of 'not
                > feeling right' or 'feeling uncomfortable but not able to identify' -
                to a
                > level some may go for help by taking a talking cure. The EIC
                material (a)
                > aids in revealing the general concern and (b) works as a tool to be
                used in
                > the communication of issues as part of the talking cure.
                >
                > > If not, why
                > > trust your analysis of what you observe in others? It is the
                > > context, as I did in fact state before, I believe, that makes
                > > your statements read like drivel, because we are discussing
                > > existentialism here.
                >
                > My focus cover existentialism but to a degree your obviously have
                never
                > experienced before.
                >
                > > Science cannot deal with psychical
                > > realities,
                >
                > IMHO delusion. There are issues with dealing with singular natures
                but a
                > developing precision in dealing with particular/general natures.
                The EIC
                > work stems from the considerations on the output of neuroscience
                work and
                > psychiatric work etc etc etc and its application to personal psyche
                and in
                > doing so identifying the generic nature of all psyches and that
                includes
                > languages to describe such.
                >
                > If you familiarise yourself with the EIC I assure you you will be
                often
                > surprised at the precision of an estimation based only on the
                generic
                > questions asked.
                >
                > The more general point is that the EIC in fact reflect the ONE
                method we use
                > for considerations of reality, from the personal/local to the
                > social/non-local and you can use it to ask any question you like
                THROUGH the
                > method presented since what makes a difference is the CONTEXT - and
                so the
                > methodology can be used to map personal dynamics as it
                can "political,
                > cultural, and social grounds".
                >
                > SO Louise, perhaps you need to 'live a little' and discover all of
                that
                > unconscious dynamic that seeds your "living experience" beyond the
                partial,
                > limiting, level of your immediate consciousness.
                >
                > Chris.
                >
              • bhvwd
                ... component ... for ... vaguely, ... one ... but ... suppression ... of ... what ... you ... from ... kind ... do ... unique, ... driven ... still ... this
                Message 7 of 28 , Sep 23 7:24 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                  > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2008 12:56 PM
                  > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
                  > > >
                  > > > Chris,
                  > > >
                  > > > Firstly, I have shortened your post, to make this reply a
                  > > > little more manageable. Secondly, it is time that I were a
                  > > > little more specific, about why I have described your efforts
                  > > > here as 'self-indulgent drivel'. Not that I could have done
                  > > > so earlier - brain function, for a trusting soul like mine,
                  > > > is, in the first shock of this kind of encounter, fairly
                  > > > neutralised. My understanding of existentialism is that the
                  > > > thinker applies his thought to the fact of existing, to that
                  > > > which is unique and unable to be replicated - in other words,
                  > > > within that realm of reality which pertains to living
                  > > > experience and not to observable event. Your own living
                  > > > experience, as subjective being, is kept rigidly concealed.
                  > > > Do you never apply your analytic astuteness, to your own
                  > > > mental functions, motivations, and decisions?
                  > >
                  > > Always. Your failure in understanding the existentialist
                  component
                  > in what I
                  > > write is in not comprehending the ramifications of my
                  > little 'experiment',
                  > > the Emotional I Ching
                  > > (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/Emotional/homep.html ),
                  for
                  > it gives
                  > > you personal access to your personal unconscious, even if
                  vaguely,
                  > and so
                  > > increases the depth of understanding one's "living experience". I
                  > suppose it
                  > > is the apparent simplicity of the system that leads to dismissal
                  > but I
                  > > assure you that the presented simplicity is deceptive and you can
                  > gain good
                  > > insights into 'issues' covering your personal, deep, unconscious
                  > emotions
                  > > looking out for No1 vs your socially trained consciousness
                  > suppressing the
                  > > expression of those emotions for the sake of issues of 'taboo'
                  > or 'not
                  > > appropriate at this time' behaviours. - under usual conditions
                  one
                  > will get
                  > > a response congruent with what your consciousness has reasoned;
                  but
                  > in
                  > > moments of discomfort you will find a response that can be
                  > surprising and
                  > > eliciting a sheepish reaction from consciousness as its
                  suppression
                  > > activities are revealed.
                  >
                  > No, Chris, you do not understand that all of this represents an
                  > abandonment of the dialectical element of inward life which is out
                  of
                  > the question for one of my existential commitment. Your idea of
                  what
                  > my life should look like is not of interest to me for as long as
                  you
                  > are incapable of listening to one whose valuations are different
                  from
                  > your own. If I wanted to join a therapy list I would do so. This
                  > group discusses philosophical and literary matter, in relation to
                  > lived existence. I find your posts, on reflection, to present a
                  kind
                  > of literary criticism in relation to lifestyle and sociology. You
                  do
                  > write with care and a certain elegance, as I remarked before, but
                  > your subject matter concerns a structured sociality and bad faith
                  > individuality in which I am emphatically not interested. Louise
                  >
                  > >
                  > > So, Louise, what is offered is in fact more personal, more
                  unique,
                  > in
                  > > covering all aspects of your personal existence and it being
                  driven
                  > by
                  > > material just under the surface of consciousness and as such
                  still
                  > very much
                  > > part of 'you'.
                  > >
                  > > To be able to come up with such material brings out the depths of
                  > > phenomenological analysis I have gone through to flesh all of
                  this
                  > out and
                  > > at the same time remain at some level of scientific rigour to
                  > ensure that
                  > > the process is repeatable in all of us a species members and yet
                  > unique to
                  > > each of us as 'every day' living beings.
                  > >
                  > > What I have identified is a "Language of the Vague" that seeds
                  all
                  > languages
                  > > and that includes the creation of one's own language as part of
                  the
                  > act of
                  > > self-describing (autological) where such an act is possible for
                  > > self-referencing systems; we can create our own languages to
                  > communicate all
                  > > of that personal, unique, experience - something most
                  existentialist
                  > > perspectives struggle to do since they don't have access to the
                  full
                  > > spectrum of their "living experiences" - at best they have a
                  sense
                  > of 'not
                  > > feeling right' or 'feeling uncomfortable but not able to
                  identify' -
                  > to a
                  > > level some may go for help by taking a talking cure. The EIC
                  > material (a)
                  > > aids in revealing the general concern and (b) works as a tool to
                  be
                  > used in
                  > > the communication of issues as part of the talking cure.
                  > >
                  > > > If not, why
                  > > > trust your analysis of what you observe in others? It is the
                  > > > context, as I did in fact state before, I believe, that makes
                  > > > your statements read like drivel, because we are discussing
                  > > > existentialism here.
                  > >
                  > > My focus cover existentialism but to a degree your obviously have
                  > never
                  > > experienced before.
                  > >
                  > > > Science cannot deal with psychical
                  > > > realities,
                  > >
                  > > IMHO delusion. There are issues with dealing with singular
                  natures
                  > but a
                  > > developing precision in dealing with particular/general natures.
                  > The EIC
                  > > work stems from the considerations on the output of neuroscience
                  > work and
                  > > psychiatric work etc etc etc and its application to personal
                  psyche
                  > and in
                  > > doing so identifying the generic nature of all psyches and that
                  > includes
                  > > languages to describe such.
                  > >
                  > > If you familiarise yourself with the EIC I assure you you will be
                  > often
                  > > surprised at the precision of an estimation based only on the
                  > generic
                  > > questions asked.
                  > >
                  > > The more general point is that the EIC in fact reflect the ONE
                  > method we use
                  > > for considerations of reality, from the personal/local to the
                  > > social/non-local and you can use it to ask any question you like
                  > THROUGH the
                  > > method presented since what makes a difference is the CONTEXT -
                  and
                  > so the
                  > > methodology can be used to map personal dynamics as it
                  > can "political,
                  > > cultural, and social grounds".
                  > >
                  > > SO Louise, perhaps you need to 'live a little' and discover all
                  of
                  > that
                  > > unconscious dynamic that seeds your "living experience" beyond
                  the
                  > partial,
                  > > limiting, level of your immediate consciousness.
                  > >
                  > > Chris.
                  > >You gotta be Chris to be cruel. Bungaloo Bill is dead and there
                  is nothing I can do. As our best lady presents your diction has merit
                  but the rest you might lay aside. I quicken to my topic, Does
                  reductionism eqiil deregulation? I understand these concepts are on
                  different planes but deconstruction has been proposed by the
                  nuscientific trend as something that might be discussed. Come on ,
                  take the bate and we will play for stars. Bill
                  >
                • chris lofting
                  ... ... The focus is more so rooted in the dialectical in that the emphasis is on oscillations across A/NOT-A and the synthesis of such that can
                  Message 8 of 28 , Sep 23 7:48 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                    > Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2008 5:49 AM
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
                    >
                    <snip>
                    >
                    > No, Chris, you do not understand that all of this represents
                    > an abandonment of the dialectical element of inward life
                    > which is out of the question for one of my existential
                    > commitment.

                    The focus is more so rooted in the dialectical in that the emphasis is on
                    oscillations across A/NOT-A and the synthesis of such that can transcend the
                    position.

                    representation=mediation(stimulus, response) first time through and from
                    then on representation=mediation(representation) ad infinitum if you wish.
                    The representation is in the form of a symbol for the original stimulus and
                    a habit for the original response. These are then refined, customised, over
                    time through more 'like' experiences to the original.

                    > Your idea of what my life should look like is
                    > not of interest to me for as long as you are incapable of
                    > listening to one whose valuations are different from your
                    > own. If I wanted to join a therapy list I would do so. This
                    > group discusses philosophical and literary matter, in
                    > relation to lived existence.


                    ...which is covered in the EIC material since your emotional being is very
                    much part of your "lived existence"... or are you denying that since you
                    have had difficulties accessing that form of information due to suppressions
                    of such by your consciousness?

                    Chris.
                  • chris lofting
                    ... Some lite reading from a networks dynamic position and very applicable to the current situation: Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970) A Contribution to
                    Message 9 of 28 , Sep 23 7:57 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
                      > Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2008 3:44 AM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [existlist] Unfathomable universe
                      >
                      > In my discussions with business and legal people,today, my
                      > reading of the discussion draft of the Dodd legislation and
                      > CNN,NYT coverage,I think we are best to assist our
                      > financial system to the extent we can right the situation. It
                      > is one opinion but I put due diligence into the opinion and I
                      > print it. Accession to this legislation, or what legally
                      > evolves to be law, will cause sizable changes to occur in
                      > the US society and whatever world order exists.
                      > I view it as the US attempting to do the right thing. We
                      > blew it in many areas and we will try to pay the price and
                      > reclaim prosperity.
                      > It will probably be inflationary but controlled inflation is
                      > preferable to economic depression. Business people call it
                      > "the unthinkable", harder minds might call it civil
                      > insurrection. I call it something I do not want to live
                      > through. Dislocations may be numerous but unavoidable and
                      > they may be as uncomfortable as listening to President Bush
                      > at the UN. I remember hating Nixon, hating Johnson, and now
                      > listening to the primary author of the aforementioned
                      > debacle I remember what lost leadership causes.
                      > A fun romp in jargon will not cure this geopolitical rift.
                      > So, while trusting in the common usage of words, I return to
                      > the title and again bow before the wondrous cosmos with
                      > hope for continued acceptance. Bill
                      >
                      >

                      Some 'lite' reading from a networks dynamic position and very applicable to
                      the current situation:

                      Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970)"A Contribution to the Critique of
                      Political Economy" International Publishers
                      Fidlon David, (trans) - Various(1968)"Historical Materialism : Basic
                      Problems" Progress Publishers, Moscow
                      Cohen, G.A. (1978)"Karl Marx's Theory of History" PUP
                      Elster, J., (1985)"Making Sense of Marx [part 2:theory of history]" CUP
                      Gladwell, M., (2000)"The Tipping Point" Little Brown
                      Buchanan, M., (2002)"Small World" Phoenix
                      Wolff, J.,(2002)"Why Read Marx Today?" OUP
                      Popper, K., (2002)"The Povery of Historicism" Routledge
                      Barabasi, A-L (2002)"Linked : The New Science of Networks" Perseus
                      Strogatz, S., (2003)"Sync" Allen Lane
                      Watts, J.D., (1999)"Small Worlds" Princeton
                      Watts, J.D., (2003)"Six Degrees" Heinemann
                      Ball, P., (2004)"Critical Mass : How one thing leads to another"Heinemann
                    • louise
                      ... is on ... transcend the ... from ... you wish. ... stimulus and ... customised, over ... is very ... since you ... suppressions ... Chris, You are in my
                      Message 10 of 28 , Sep 24 2:02 AM
                      • 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: Wednesday, 24 September 2008 5:49 AM
                        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
                        > >
                        > <snip>
                        > >
                        > > No, Chris, you do not understand that all of this represents
                        > > an abandonment of the dialectical element of inward life
                        > > which is out of the question for one of my existential
                        > > commitment.
                        >
                        > The focus is more so rooted in the dialectical in that the emphasis
                        is on
                        > oscillations across A/NOT-A and the synthesis of such that can
                        transcend the
                        > position.
                        >
                        > representation=mediation(stimulus, response) first time through and
                        from
                        > then on representation=mediation(representation) ad infinitum if
                        you wish.
                        > The representation is in the form of a symbol for the original
                        stimulus and
                        > a habit for the original response. These are then refined,
                        customised, over
                        > time through more 'like' experiences to the original.
                        >
                        > > Your idea of what my life should look like is
                        > > not of interest to me for as long as you are incapable of
                        > > listening to one whose valuations are different from your
                        > > own. If I wanted to join a therapy list I would do so. This
                        > > group discusses philosophical and literary matter, in
                        > > relation to lived existence.
                        >
                        >
                        > ...which is covered in the EIC material since your emotional being
                        is very
                        > much part of your "lived existence"... or are you denying that
                        since you
                        > have had difficulties accessing that form of information due to
                        suppressions
                        > of such by your consciousness?
                        >
                        > Chris.
                        >

                        Chris,

                        You are in my opinion totally and grotesquely off-topic.
                        Existentialism is merely a tool for your own egoistic vanities. If
                        you were to apply a philosophical critique to your own life and
                        valuations, all this would be clear to you. The depressing nature of
                        your obsessions is consequence of your presence at a list where your
                        preoccupations are out of place. If the moderator does not want to
                        take action against you, then my only recourse is silence.

                        Louise
                      • chris lofting
                        ... ... From the core reference page for this list: Existentialism attempts to describe our desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 24 3:20 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                          > Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2008 7:02 PM
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
                          >
                          > >
                          <snip>
                          >
                          > Chris,
                          >
                          > You are in my opinion totally and grotesquely off-topic.
                          > Existentialism is merely a tool for your own egoistic
                          > vanities. If you were to apply a philosophical critique to
                          > your own life and valuations, all this would be clear to you.
                          > The depressing nature of your obsessions is consequence of
                          > your presence at a list where your preoccupations are out of
                          > place. If the moderator does not want to take action against
                          > you, then my only recourse is silence.
                          >

                          From the core reference page for this list:

                          "Existentialism attempts to describe our desire to make rational decisions
                          despite existing in an irrational universe. Unfortunately, life might be
                          without inherent meaning (existential atheists) or it might be without a
                          meaning we can understand (existential theists). Either way, the human
                          desires for logic and immortality are futile. We are forced to define our
                          own meanings, knowing they might be temporary. In this existence.

                          The Individual Defines Everything."

                          GIVEN this I am VERY much on topic in covering the roots of meaning at the
                          neurological levels as working to seed creation of languages at the level of
                          'blind' consciousness. Me thinks you protest too much Louise; your trying to
                          play court politics. tsk tsk.

                          My ESSENTIAL point re categories of mediation is that there IS purpose but
                          applicable to collectives - our consciousness as such is a mutation and so
                          exists WITHIN a determined context; at the moment you cannot break free of
                          your body Louise, despite attempts to try (or more so ignore its presence!).

                          The point with the IDM focus is that the SURFACE structures of meaning are
                          temporary in their form as labels mapping to some local context, but the
                          underlying meanings are not - they are hard-coded into our social species
                          nature. The logic present at that level is approximate, lacks precision due
                          it a bias to symmetry and so the conditional is always in the form of the
                          bi-conditional and that influences social dynamics and brings about
                          consequences where the conditional emerges with the development of personal
                          consciousness.

                          Husserl's focus on logic as valid but limited in NOT being aware of the
                          dynamics of 'in here' and so the differences of
                          asymmetric/anti-symmetric/symmetric patterns of thought influencing the
                          making of 'rational' decisions (the fact here being that symmetric thinking
                          maps to what formal logic call 'irrational' when the case is more a thinking
                          lacking in differentiation past a pair and so rooted in relational dynamics
                          that, when interpreted from formal dynamics is 'illogical' - what this
                          brings out are issues of TRAINING; a lack of education can mean being stuck
                          in a seemingly logic mindset grounded in the bi-conditional; this logic is
                          the logic of emotional dynamics as it is of dreams.

                          These difference influence the individual's defining of everything and
                          denying the existence of these influences does not help in anyone's desire
                          to identify to make meaning in this universe.

                          The IDM work CLEARLY maps out the origins of categories of meaning WITHIN
                          neuron-dependent life forms and so by implication, due to adaptation to
                          environment, the meaningful FOR US exists throughout the universe. The
                          LIMITATIONS on meaning are in that any categories OUTSIDE of those derived
                          from the neurology will be interpreted from within the neurology and so
                          present as paradox (oscillations as the brain tries to mediate without
                          success).

                          Thus INHERENT meaning DOES EXIST - BUT at a vague, unconscious form, at the
                          bedrock level of the neurology where it sets the foundation for the
                          individual to 'define everything' at the consciousness, local context,
                          level.

                          The issue that is left is coverage where "life ... might be without a
                          meaning we can understand" - this gets into issues of paradox as it does
                          personal experiences not communcatable to others due to genetic diversity -
                          this best manifest in examples of synaesthesia. Thus there is GENERAL
                          meaning across all neuron-dependent life forms, with the development of
                          consciousness allowing to create more meaning through language creation and
                          so labelling universals for fit some local context (after some customisation
                          of course, otherwise what emerges is neurosis ;-))

                          So, Louise, for THIS list I am VERY much 'on topic'. More so, my work on
                          serial-to-parallel processing of information, and so reason seeding
                          intuition brings out material not covered in the original existentialist
                          texts since the authors did not have access to neuroscience/psychiatry data.

                          All of this leads to considerations of the subject go existentialism and
                          phenomenology (and so in the latter case hitting on M-Ponty's "phenomenology
                          of phenomenology".

                          Chris.
                        • louise
                          I think my reply to this post has been swallowed by the ether, and I am inclined to defer any further attempt. Louise ... decisions ... might be ... without a
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 24 6:36 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think my reply to this post has been swallowed by the ether, and I
                            am inclined to defer any further attempt. Louise

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                            > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2008 7:02 PM
                            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Unfathomable universe
                            > >
                            > > >
                            > <snip>
                            > >
                            > > Chris,
                            > >
                            > > You are in my opinion totally and grotesquely off-topic.
                            > > Existentialism is merely a tool for your own egoistic
                            > > vanities. If you were to apply a philosophical critique to
                            > > your own life and valuations, all this would be clear to you.
                            > > The depressing nature of your obsessions is consequence of
                            > > your presence at a list where your preoccupations are out of
                            > > place. If the moderator does not want to take action against
                            > > you, then my only recourse is silence.
                            > >
                            >
                            > From the core reference page for this list:
                            >
                            > "Existentialism attempts to describe our desire to make rational
                            decisions
                            > despite existing in an irrational universe. Unfortunately, life
                            might be
                            > without inherent meaning (existential atheists) or it might be
                            without a
                            > meaning we can understand (existential theists). Either way, the
                            human
                            > desires for logic and immortality are futile. We are forced to
                            define our
                            > own meanings, knowing they might be temporary. In this existence.
                            >
                            > The Individual Defines Everything."
                            >
                            > GIVEN this I am VERY much on topic in covering the roots of meaning
                            at the
                            > neurological levels as working to seed creation of languages at the
                            level of
                            > 'blind' consciousness. Me thinks you protest too much Louise; your
                            trying to
                            > play court politics. tsk tsk.
                            >
                            > My ESSENTIAL point re categories of mediation is that there IS
                            purpose but
                            > applicable to collectives - our consciousness as such is a mutation
                            and so
                            > exists WITHIN a determined context; at the moment you cannot break
                            free of
                            > your body Louise, despite attempts to try (or more so ignore its
                            presence!).
                            >
                            > The point with the IDM focus is that the SURFACE structures of
                            meaning are
                            > temporary in their form as labels mapping to some local context,
                            but the
                            > underlying meanings are not - they are hard-coded into our social
                            species
                            > nature. The logic present at that level is approximate, lacks
                            precision due
                            > it a bias to symmetry and so the conditional is always in the form
                            of the
                            > bi-conditional and that influences social dynamics and brings about
                            > consequences where the conditional emerges with the development of
                            personal
                            > consciousness.
                            >
                            > Husserl's focus on logic as valid but limited in NOT being aware of
                            the
                            > dynamics of 'in here' and so the differences of
                            > asymmetric/anti-symmetric/symmetric patterns of thought influencing
                            the
                            > making of 'rational' decisions (the fact here being that symmetric
                            thinking
                            > maps to what formal logic call 'irrational' when the case is more a
                            thinking
                            > lacking in differentiation past a pair and so rooted in relational
                            dynamics
                            > that, when interpreted from formal dynamics is 'illogical' - what
                            this
                            > brings out are issues of TRAINING; a lack of education can mean
                            being stuck
                            > in a seemingly logic mindset grounded in the bi-conditional; this
                            logic is
                            > the logic of emotional dynamics as it is of dreams.
                            >
                            > These difference influence the individual's defining of everything
                            and
                            > denying the existence of these influences does not help in anyone's
                            desire
                            > to identify to make meaning in this universe.
                            >
                            > The IDM work CLEARLY maps out the origins of categories of meaning
                            WITHIN
                            > neuron-dependent life forms and so by implication, due to
                            adaptation to
                            > environment, the meaningful FOR US exists throughout the universe.
                            The
                            > LIMITATIONS on meaning are in that any categories OUTSIDE of those
                            derived
                            > from the neurology will be interpreted from within the neurology
                            and so
                            > present as paradox (oscillations as the brain tries to mediate
                            without
                            > success).
                            >
                            > Thus INHERENT meaning DOES EXIST - BUT at a vague, unconscious
                            form, at the
                            > bedrock level of the neurology where it sets the foundation for the
                            > individual to 'define everything' at the consciousness, local
                            context,
                            > level.
                            >
                            > The issue that is left is coverage where "life ... might be without
                            a
                            > meaning we can understand" - this gets into issues of paradox as it
                            does
                            > personal experiences not communcatable to others due to genetic
                            diversity -
                            > this best manifest in examples of synaesthesia. Thus there is
                            GENERAL
                            > meaning across all neuron-dependent life forms, with the
                            development of
                            > consciousness allowing to create more meaning through language
                            creation and
                            > so labelling universals for fit some local context (after some
                            customisation
                            > of course, otherwise what emerges is neurosis ;-))
                            >
                            > So, Louise, for THIS list I am VERY much 'on topic'. More so, my
                            work on
                            > serial-to-parallel processing of information, and so reason seeding
                            > intuition brings out material not covered in the original
                            existentialist
                            > texts since the authors did not have access to
                            neuroscience/psychiatry data.
                            >
                            > All of this leads to considerations of the subject go
                            existentialism and
                            > phenomenology (and so in the latter case hitting on M-
                            Ponty's "phenomenology
                            > of phenomenology".
                            >
                            > Chris.
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.