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

Re: The loonies on the lawn

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    ... of ... point. He ... idea for ... positions. ... given ... differences. ... a NATURAL ... context, ... and ... covers high ... covers ... enantiodromia and
    Message 1 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 2 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.