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

RE: [existlist] Re: The loonies on the lawn

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Feb 6 4:59 PM
    • 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.