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

Re: Unfathomable universe

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.