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

RE: [existlist] The loonies on the lawn

Expand Messages
  • chris lofting
    ... the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die Kierkegaard Chaney, Nixon, Johnson etc all made
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
      > Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 9:30 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] The loonies on the lawn
      >
      > How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out of
      > the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in point. He
      > is the kind of politician I feared. Nixon was another and so
      > was Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't necessarily what they were
      > thinking it was the cold certitude they employed in
      > prosecuting their positions.

      " the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for
      which I can live and die" Kierkegaard

      Chaney, Nixon, Johnson etc all made commitments in accord with what
      Kierkegaard expressed - they are/were prepared to die for their positions.
      The mindsets reflect a selection of the POSSIBLE mindsets available given
      our neurology and its seeding of social sameness and individual differences.

      Fundamentalism is a property of a focus on self over others and is a NATURAL
      property of our nature as a primate species. The more assertion of
      individuality the more borders created, the more focus on local context,
      competitiveness, self-organising systems. The full spectrum is huge and
      covers all possible behaviours given a specialist context and so covers high
      precision differentiating to low precision integrating (the latter covers
      the emergence of wave perspectives from pulse perspectives)

      The dynamics involved cover what the ancient Greeks called enantiodromia and
      this dynamic covers all scales and that includes historical dynamics
      covering generations. As these social dynamics play out, so individuals are
      born into certain times and some 'fit in' really well, others do not. What
      is obvious at the social level is the dynamics of competitive vs cooperative
      perspectives, of differentiating vs integrating and the mix of such. HIGH
      level differentiating will elicit a social bias to the individual over the
      group, the assertion of one's OWN context to replace the existing context. A
      lesser level is where the individual is still competitive but serves the
      existing context in that competitiveness. From a leadership perspective this
      latter is leadership from the back (management) the former from the front -
      recurse these and a spectrum emerges of POSSIBLE states, all with a
      'purpose', and all interacting with reality at the one instance where local
      context then 'selects' the best/worst fits and that can include one's
      assertion of one's own context over that local context! (and so
      competitiveness, argumentative etc etc etc)

      From a SPECIES position the only 'truth' is the survival of the species and
      its components in local collectives. From the SINGULAR position the only
      'truth' is in one's own survival and the adoption of a mindset to achieve
      such. (neurologically, the FEELING of 'truth' is sourced in the feeling of
      'correctness' that goes with syntax processing. Dig deeper and we find
      association of 'truth' with territorial mapping and so with a sense of
      personal/collective identity/ownership - dig deeper and we find the feeling
      of 'truth-as-identity' tied to a feeling of wholeness and so of symmetry -
      but that LACKS precision - is too static in a dynamic universe. That said,
      we realise that the best adaptation to a thermodynamic universe is energy
      conservation and so a symmetric perspective over all - but this is also a
      social perspective and the individual disappears to be 'one of many' all
      considered 'same'! THAT said, the closed nature of the collective is open to
      the unique perspectives of conscious individuals where such can re-organise
      the collective over night - and so the dynamics of part/whole,
      free-will/determinism, transcending/transforming, anti-symmetry/symmetry etc
      etc etc)

      Kierkegaard's statement was based on ignorance of our species nature and the
      specialist roles particular members of the species can play, and the unique
      perspectives emergable from those roles together with the occasional
      'innovative' perspective of an individual. GIVEN the understanding of our
      PARTICULAR natures we can identify core, generic, purpose in each of us
      where such covers serving the species over serving the self - thus if one
      struggles in trying to assert self so there is always the fall back on
      serving the species.

      Chris
      http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
    • bhvwd
      ... of ... point. He ... idea for ... positions. ... given ... differences. ... a NATURAL ... context, ... and ... covers high ... covers ... enantiodromia and
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
        > > Sent: Friday, 6 February 2009 9:30 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] The loonies on the lawn
        > >
        > > How do people get far out? Many it seems just cannot back out
        of
        > > the tunnel they have crawled into. Chaney seems a case in
        point. He
        > > is the kind of politician I feared. Nixon was another and so
        > > was Lyndon Johnson. It wasn't necessarily what they were
        > > thinking it was the cold certitude they employed in
        > > prosecuting their positions.
        >
        > " the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the
        idea for
        > which I can live and die" Kierkegaard
        >
        > Chaney, Nixon, Johnson etc all made commitments in accord with what
        > Kierkegaard expressed - they are/were prepared to die for their
        positions.
        > The mindsets reflect a selection of the POSSIBLE mindsets available
        given
        > our neurology and its seeding of social sameness and individual
        differences.
        >
        > Fundamentalism is a property of a focus on self over others and is
        a NATURAL
        > property of our nature as a primate species. The more assertion of
        > individuality the more borders created, the more focus on local
        context,
        > competitiveness, self-organising systems. The full spectrum is huge
        and
        > covers all possible behaviours given a specialist context and so
        covers high
        > precision differentiating to low precision integrating (the latter
        covers
        > the emergence of wave perspectives from pulse perspectives)
        >
        > The dynamics involved cover what the ancient Greeks called
        enantiodromia and
        > this dynamic covers all scales and that includes historical dynamics
        > covering generations. As these social dynamics play out, so
        individuals are
        > born into certain times and some 'fit in' really well, others do
        not. What
        > is obvious at the social level is the dynamics of competitive vs
        cooperative
        > perspectives, of differentiating vs integrating and the mix of
        such. HIGH
        > level differentiating will elicit a social bias to the individual
        over the
        > group, the assertion of one's OWN context to replace the existing
        context. A
        > lesser level is where the individual is still competitive but
        serves the
        > existing context in that competitiveness. From a leadership
        perspective this
        > latter is leadership from the back (management) the former from the
        front -
        > recurse these and a spectrum emerges of POSSIBLE states, all with a
        > 'purpose', and all interacting with reality at the one instance
        where local
        > context then 'selects' the best/worst fits and that can include
        one's
        > assertion of one's own context over that local context! (and so
        > competitiveness, argumentative etc etc etc)
        >
        > From a SPECIES position the only 'truth' is the survival of the
        species and
        > its components in local collectives. From the SINGULAR position the
        only
        > 'truth' is in one's own survival and the adoption of a mindset to
        achieve
        > such. (neurologically, the FEELING of 'truth' is sourced in the
        feeling of
        > 'correctness' that goes with syntax processing. Dig deeper and we
        find
        > association of 'truth' with territorial mapping and so with a sense
        of
        > personal/collective identity/ownership - dig deeper and we find the
        feeling
        > of 'truth-as-identity' tied to a feeling of wholeness and so of
        symmetry -
        > but that LACKS precision - is too static in a dynamic universe.
        That said,
        > we realise that the best adaptation to a thermodynamic universe is
        energy
        > conservation and so a symmetric perspective over all - but this is
        also a
        > social perspective and the individual disappears to be 'one of
        many' all
        > considered 'same'! THAT said, the closed nature of the collective
        is open to
        > the unique perspectives of conscious individuals where such can re-
        organise
        > the collective over night - and so the dynamics of part/whole,
        > free-will/determinism, transcending/transforming, anti-
        symmetry/symmetry etc
        > etc etc)
        >
        > Kierkegaard's statement was based on ignorance of our species
        nature and the
        > specialist roles particular members of the species can play, and
        the unique
        > perspectives emergable from those roles together with the occasional
        > 'innovative' perspective of an individual. GIVEN the understanding
        of our
        > PARTICULAR natures we can identify core, generic, purpose in each
        of us
        > where such covers serving the species over serving the self - thus
        if one
        > struggles in trying to assert self so there is always the fall back
        on
        > serving the species.
        >
        > Chris
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
        >Chris, Your use of a quote from SK is indicative of your love of
        meaningless verbiage. The man simply could not make up his mind and
        so he rambled in circles, he thought about thinking, and trembled in
        agnosticism. It is said he ended his extended tension with some
        hybrid god as conciliation. I am not that sort of existentialist and
        detest such dalliance with the fire of belief. Endless , pointless
        verbiage is in itself a stalling tactic perhaps used by those who
        cannot commit to a reasoned world. I have made that commitment to
        rational living and have had a good deal of success providing a
        life filled with scientific labor devoid of belief. I know it
        works, I have lived it and find real loathing of those who attempt
        to blabber out of existential responsibility in order to assuage
        their fear of the wrath of god or the responsibility of human
        progress.
        I have been warned words mean nothing, have been threatened with
        exclusion from the avant guard and still I will not spend my time
        reading or discussing the trembling trash written by the uncommitted.
        If the rational mind is at odds with itself, I suggest you look at
        the actual progress that has built a better world. I ask you to state
        your position regarding atheism, rationality and modernism. If you
        attempt an escape into your SK like posturing I will not respond, it
        is not worth my time.
        So I put the question to you,are you an existentialist ? If not why
        the hell do you attempt to write here ? If you claim to be an
        existentialist please inform me why you boast such confidence.
        Neuroscience speak is not relevant in this discussion, this is an
        existential site peopled by many of considerable writing skill. Can
        you cut it? Bill
      • chris lofting
        ... ... atheism - there is no need for the god hypothesis but there IS a sense of collective spirit shared across all humans as symmetry-determined
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bhvwd
          > Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2009 4:35 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: The loonies on the lawn
          >
          <snip>
          > >Chris, Your use of a quote from SK is indicative of your love of
          > meaningless verbiage. The man simply could not make up his
          > mind and so he rambled in circles, he thought about thinking,
          > and trembled in agnosticism. It is said he ended his extended
          > tension with some hybrid god as conciliation. I am not that
          > sort of existentialist and detest such dalliance with the
          > fire of belief. Endless , pointless verbiage is in itself a
          > stalling tactic perhaps used by those who cannot commit to
          > a reasoned world. I have made that commitment to rational
          > living and have had a good deal of success providing a life
          > filled with scientific labor devoid of belief. I know it
          > works, I have lived it and find real loathing of those who
          > attempt to blabber out of existential responsibility in
          > order to assuage their fear of the wrath of god or the
          > responsibility of human progress.
          > I have been warned words mean nothing, have been threatened
          > with exclusion from the avant guard and still I will not
          > spend my time reading or discussing the trembling trash
          > written by the uncommitted.
          > If the rational mind is at odds with itself, I suggest you
          > look at the actual progress that has built a better world.
          > I ask you to state your position regarding atheism,
          > rationality and modernism.

          atheism - there is no need for the 'god' hypothesis but there IS a sense of
          collective 'spirit' shared across all humans as symmetry-determined life
          forms (we ARE 'all connected' in that the emotions covering sympathy/empathy
          ties us all - mirror neurons reinforce that connectivity). The ignorance of
          consciousness as to what is going on is covered in such perspectives as that
          of 'angels' etc where in this link we find basic dynamics of context pushing
          neural buttons are sensed and interpreted as if 'spirits' at work -
          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html

          More recent work with mirror neurons suggests a main difference between our
          use and the use of such in monkeys is our ability to interpret mime -
          indicating the ability to pretend, to imagine. Something the monkeys could
          NOT do. See such research as in:

          Dehaene, S., et al (eds)(2005)"From Monkey Brain to Human Brain" MITP

          rationality - the issues in the brain with regard to differences in
          precision processing, and so resolution power, bring out styles of logic
          covering symmetry and asymmetric logics. The former lacks precision in it
          cannot reduce past a PAIR (and so favours symmetry) - as such the
          BI-conditional dominated all thinking and this covers social dynamics as it
          does the 'logic' of dreams. The latter covers high precision thinking that
          includes the asymmetry of the conditional. It requires EDUCATION to develop
          this ability as it does in developing regulation of our more
          primate-grounded emotions. NOT educating people along this line means we
          have some very smart apes hanging around and they dominate at the moment ;-)

          Other life forms have reasoning skills but we include in reasoning the
          ability to falsely reason and so justify all sorts of perspectives! The
          development of consciousness as a proactive agent of mediation allows for
          selective reasoning and includes the use of being unreasonable/irrational as
          a way to escape false reasoning. As such, reasoning allows for the
          refinement of intuitive, immediate, responses to situations and
          consciousness allows for refinement of reasoning and that included the
          exploitation of intuition where such has been refined by reasoning.

          modernism - the initial dynamics were good but the movement into
          post-modernism opened up a reaction to the diversity of issues raised where
          the cutting of old ties, antiquated perspectives, removed a sense of
          committed 'meaning' that comes with such long-standing ties. The
          sophistication of arguments etc flummoxed the masses to a level where 'any
          metaphor will do' type of thinking developed - this being a manifestation of
          symmetric thinking. Science itself is grounded in a perspective that DEMANDS
          symmetry (repeatability, falsifiability etc etc) and so the push of
          scientific perspectives without education of such other than to 'those with
          natural skills' (about 15% of the population) elicited a dumbing-down of the
          population (standards were dropped, and still are being dropped).

          Most hard-core science-trained individuals (the over-educated) turned their
          back on such development (they are not too good at politics) and we find
          ourselves in the mess we are in, a lot of smart apes playing their alpha
          male/female games but globally and so out of context (where such games fit
          locally).

          The IDM material in fact aids in education through identifying all of the
          specialist perspectives as local manifestations of our filtering system -
          the neurology. LOCAL context customisations bring out differences but behind
          them all is a level of sameness spanning the species (and so a ground in the
          symmetric, the determinism of the species within which operates
          consciousness as an agent of mediation and so 'randomiser' of data, a maker
          of choices, to elicit unique perspectives and so able to break and make
          symmetries proactively rather than the reactive path that favours a
          reduction to symmetric living reactively)

          > If you attempt an escape into
          > your SK like posturing I will not respond, it is not worth my time.

          I was not posturing, just quoting a existentialist perspective applicable to
          all the people you hate so much. As such I was emphasising that your
          perspective is no different emotionally to theirs. The rage you apply to
          Cheney etc is I am sure the same as the rage he applies to those who are
          against him!

          > So I put the question to you,are you an existentialist ?

          No. I am a human FIRST. THEN comes a favouring of existentialist
          perspectives but a perpetual re-questioning of such given the work in
          neurosciences etc. YOUR obvious desire to escape your apeness is amusing at
          times, sad at other times.

          > If
          > not why the hell do you attempt to write here ? If you claim
          > to be an existentialist please inform me why you boast such
          > confidence.

          I am more integrated than you; transcendence covers enantiodromia as it does
          the development of wisdom - thus the circular dynamic is more so spiral in
          form. Thus development covers more awareness of the depth of our being as
          individuals, as humans and as apes and the mix. You present more as an
          over-educated, over-specialist, individual and as such one incapable at the
          moment to extend one's perspective - you appear to live in fear and with it
          express anger etc and cover a symmetric mindset (where stereotyping is a
          trait)! - perhaps scientific method has got to you where you LIVE IT rather
          than USE IT?

          The focus in science on SAMENESS, on algorithms and formulas through use of
          scientific method and its roots in symmetry, inevitably leads to a symmetric
          bias in perspective but such is misleading when applied to the universe as a
          whole. In fact all that traditional science has covered so far, in the
          context of understanding the universe etc, is to reveal only 6% of what is
          there! All of that work has been grounded in SYMMETRIC perspectives and so
          only brings out the symmetry present, the rest remains 'hidden' until we
          change our perspectives where such is possible given the asymmetry of
          consciousness and so a movement into modernism-squared where the
          methodologies used in science are open to questioning. Neuroscience is
          aiding in that work in that we can map-out modernism to post-modernism
          (where the plethora of gods/belief systems are now seen as METAPHORS and so
          increasing in number when the intent was to remove such beliefs! - as such
          the spiritual aspect of our species is recognised as vague/general and so in
          need of labelling to fit each individual's perspective where such includes
          secular fundamentalism as it does religious fundamentalism - all the
          interchangeable metaphors covering the ONE generic 'trait')

          > Neuroscience speak is not relevant in this discussion, this
          > is an existential site peopled by many of considerable
          > writing skill.

          ....meaningless in the context of resolving the issues of our time. There is
          no room in philosophy for those NOT up to date with neurosciences since the
          tie of consciousness/meaning/mediation to our nature as neuron-dependent
          life forms is inescapable. It makes no difference how good a writer you
          are, how good you are at rhetoric, it still reduces in the long run to
          'wind' if there is no empirical support for the material. The excuse in the
          past has been to lack of empirical data covering the dynamics of thought etc
          but that is now being resolved day by day. Ignoring the research data is
          akin to putting oneself in the same state as the mentioned rabbi and his
          perspective of 'angels' (see above link).

          The only reason I can see for ignoring the research is for the sake of
          defending oneself where the specialist talents of writing skills are under
          threat - you cannot bulldoze your way through life based on rhetoric alone -
          it has been tried and shown to be a failure in contributing to resolving the
          issues of our time; thus an upgrade in methodology is required where
          adapting a set of patterns to live-by requires a little knowledge of one's
          species nature beside one's singular nature.

          Chris
          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.