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

Re: Unfathomable universe

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Sep 22, 2008
    • 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 2 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
      • 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 3 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
        • 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 4 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
          • 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 5 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
              > > Sent: Tuesday, 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 6 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
              • 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 7 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
                • 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 8 of 28 , Sep 23, 2008
                  • 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 9 of 28 , Sep 24, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                      > > Sent: 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 10 of 28 , Sep 24, 2008
                      • 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 11 of 28 , Sep 24, 2008
                        • 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.