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

Re: where is everybody

Expand Messages
  • louise
    ... push of ... deal with ... stories when a ... beings etc. ... totally blind ... All of this is still your interpretation, and only one possible
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 13, 2009
    • 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: Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:43 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@> wrote:
      > <snip>
      > > >
      > > > The whole of existentialism is a story - an INTERPRETATION as
      > > compared to
      > > > "WHAT IS".
      > >
      > > Your assertion. The classical European existentialists, to
      > > borrow Bill's recent phrase, live their ideas (or may claim
      > > to do so, and fail); to exist is not a form of art in the way
      > > a film is a form of art. An interpretation is an
      > > intellectual effort. My own experience of engaging with the
      > > ideas of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, is that it is DANGEROUS,
      > > in a way basically telling stories is not. It relates to
      > > EXISTENCE. The same may be said of those who are inspired by
      > > Sartre or Camus. The examined life tends to be strenuous.
      >
      > Only to those who have NOT examined the unconscious. Only to those
      > over-sensitive to the immediacy of experience and so blind to the
      push of
      > context on behaviours. The 'classical' existentialists could only
      deal with
      > what they were CONSCIOUS of and as such covered the making of
      stories when a
      > simple behaviour of context pushing an instinct/habit, and unconscious
      > activity, elicited awareness of the sensation of 'push' and the
      > extrapolation of that sensation to the existence of 'imagined'
      beings etc.
      > etc. The examination was focused on literalisation of events,
      totally blind
      > to the figurative focus; the neurology's focus on analogy/metaphor, on
      > pattern matching and so classes of meaning that can get confused with
      > instances of the class.

      All of this is still your interpretation, and only one possible
      interpretation. You practise an exclusivist utopianism without
      apparent consciousness of same whilst counselling examination of the
      unconscious to those who see more than you do in the works of authors
      whose exactnesses escape your notice. This is about as far as I can
      go in spelling out my scepticism to you, since in general you show
      yourself as impenetrable to a different view as any wide-eyed cultist.

      >
      > > One
      > > of the shortcomings of discussion at the list in my own
      > > estimation, is that we have never really arrived at a just
      > > appreciation of what will to power is, for Nietzsche.
      >
      > The derivation of classes of consciousness from consideration of
      unconscious
      > processes brings out a high level differentiating position that
      equates with
      > charisma and attempts to assert one's own context over the existing.
      > Genetically this is traceable back to basic alpha male/female
      dynamics in
      > collectives and is identified all the way up to primates (see such
      texts as
      > Demonic Males - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_males )
      >
      > The further exaggeration of this competitive dynamic through
      development of
      > humans covers the development of fundamentalism around some charismatic
      > individual.

      I find this a typically reductive caricature of the idea of will to
      power. It's commonplace in the culture, but that does not prove it
      has any link with Nietzsche's thought and life.

      >
      > > I am
      > > still not strong enough as yet to take this point further.
      > > The disappointments of seeing historical errors repeat
      > > themselves is not something I imagine you can understand.
      > >
      >
      > The IDM material covers EXACTLY this dynamic where LACK of
      understanding the
      > unconscious and its seeding by context allows for repetition of history.

      Rubbish. How can you teach anyone anything when you have not learnt
      how to listen, how to doubt your own understanding of someone else's
      words?


      > Karl Popper did not believe in such (see his "The Poverty of
      Historicism")
      > but recent work with small world networks etc re-introduces a focus
      on such
      > - also see my page and refs listed there -
      > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html - you
      continue to
      > underestimate my capabilities/understanding ;-)
      >
      > > To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
      > > > the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity.
      > >
      > > My, what a godlike project. Not a simple matter, even to attempt.
      > >
      >
      > not really. It just takes time, generations in fact, to accumulate the
      > information - this these days we have more choices than the past but
      often
      > can have too many choices and so we open up a place for learning
      > discernment.

      I accept that this is like a religious faith to you.

      >
      > > This
      > > > includes identifying the core seeding of experiences PRIOR to the
      > > > imaginative nature of consciousness trying to interpret limited by
      > > personal
      > > > experiences and local context 'traditional' social perspectives.
      > >
      > > Science and sociality do not begin to take the question back
      > > to its core.
      > >
      >
      > The core is in the unconscious and so a focus on (a) neurosciences, (b)
      > psychiatry, (c) psychology, (d) sociology. The generic sameness
      spanning all
      > species members (and so a symmetric foundation of determinism) seeds the
      > asymmetry nature of consciousness and the development of the unique
      being.

      The unconscious is a word you are taking to indicate your own
      interpretation of how you believe the humanly accessible world to be
      structured. The various sciences you invoke do not interest me
      vitally until I become convinced that their practitioners are not
      trying to pull a fast one, philosophically, and hence become simply
      tools of a partially-hidden political process that depresses human
      culture in favour of a (relatively) coarse biologism. Just the sort
      of thing Nietzsche was trying to counter in the aftermath of the
      Franco-Prussian war.

      >
      > > >
      > > > As for this list - it covers existentialism and that includes
      > > phenomenology
      > > > and is NOT limited to literature. The list introduction:
      > > >
      > > > "Founded (elsewhere) in November, 1996, this mailing list is a
      > > > community interested in existentialism and phenomenology.
      > > Yes, Sartre,
      > > Nietzsche, and
      > > > Kierkegaard, but also many others: Frankl, May, Jaspers, and
      > > Merleau-Ponty
      > > > to name a few. This list encourages questions and exchanges of
      > > information.
      > > > We want to know about the latest literature, articles, book
      > > releases, and
      > > > more. Participate!"
      > > >
      > > > If YOU are favouring of a more specialist focus that is not my
      > > problem, it
      > > > is your problem.
      > >
      > > I am not favouring a specialist focus at all. Unlike you, I
      > > am interested in the critique philosophy makes of those
      > > interpretations which precede the scientific and sociological
      > > presuppositions from which you comfortably begin your analyses.
      > >
      >
      > Science is grounded in a methodology covering critique in that it
      does NOT
      > favour direct proof of something but more so indirect proof through
      attempts
      > to falsify past claims. Thus if you claim 'the sky is blue' then the
      focus
      > is not on validating the claim but falsifying it. FAILURE to do so
      serves to
      > validate.
      >
      > What precedes all is the dynamics of the neurology and its sensory
      systems -
      > take that away and all sensations of 'human' disappear.
      >
      > <snip>
      > >
      > > What a lovely fairy-tale this is. As though political and
      > > economic considerations, not to say the ordinary social
      > > pressures on human beings did not have a vast impact on what
      > > those paid to be scientists are interested in investigating,
      > > and all that they do not take into consideration.
      > >
      >
      > Your not considering the depth of what is going on. The political and
      > socio-economic dynamics fall within the bounds of what the neurology
      allows,
      > anything outside of that is interpreted as paradox and can be
      characterised
      > as 'psychotic'.

      In other words, you are a conformist. L.
    • chris lofting
      ... ... Such post-modernist perspective! ;-) all interpretations are equal and so interchangeable - THAT is symmetric thinking Louise. When we focus
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 13, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
        > Sent: Friday, 13 February 2009 8:42 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        <snip>
        >
        > All of this is still your interpretation, and only one
        > possible interpretation.

        Such post-modernist perspective! ;-) all interpretations are 'equal' and so
        interchangeable - THAT is symmetric thinking Louise.

        When we focus on what is neurologically POSSIBLE we cover ALL forms of
        interpretations. Anything outside of that set will be interpreted from
        within it and it will be experienced as if paradox - we will oscillate
        across all of the possibles, never settling on any one.

        The VALUE of an interpretation is then determined by context in that local
        context 'sorts' the interpretations into 'best-fit/worst-fit' order rather
        than randomising interpretations - as such there are interpretations not as
        'equal' as others.

        As a SOCIAL species language is hard-coded in the form of categories derived
        from the neurology and seeding cognition, emotion, and on into symbols and
        metaphors. Included in this set of POSSIBLE meanings is categorisation of
        classes of consciousness and so cover the ground for unique interpretations
        that are communicatable - those that are not come out of mental states
        considered 'psychotic' by the society. This same area is also the area of
        innovative creativity and we see the tie of innovation and insanity.

        > You practise an exclusivist
        > utopianism without apparent consciousness of same whilst
        > counselling examination of the unconscious to those who see
        > more than you do in the works of authors whose exactnesses
        > escape your notice. This is about as far as I can go in
        > spelling out my scepticism to you, since in general you show
        > yourself as impenetrable to a different view as any wide-eyed
        > cultist.
        >

        ;-) that is just your interpretation Louise, and only one possible
        interpretation. ;-)


        <snip>
        >
        > I find this a typically reductive caricature of the idea of
        > will to power. It's commonplace in the culture, but that
        > does not prove it has any link with Nietzsche's thought and life.
        >

        such is testable.

        > >
        > > > I am
        > > > still not strong enough as yet to take this point further.
        > > > The disappointments of seeing historical errors repeat
        > themselves is
        > > > not something I imagine you can understand.
        > > >
        > >
        > > The IDM material covers EXACTLY this dynamic where LACK of
        > understanding the
        > > unconscious and its seeding by context allows for
        > repetition of history.
        >
        > Rubbish. How can you teach anyone anything when you have not
        > learnt how to listen, how to doubt your own understanding of
        > someone else's words?
        >

        YOU seem to have this issue Louise and its called projection.

        >
        > > Karl Popper did not believe in such (see his "The Poverty of
        > Historicism")
        > > but recent work with small world networks etc re-introduces a focus
        > on such
        > > - also see my page and refs listed there -
        > > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html - you
        > continue to
        > > underestimate my capabilities/understanding ;-)
        > >
        > > > To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
        > > > > the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity.
        > > >
        > > > My, what a godlike project. Not a simple matter, even to attempt.
        > > >
        > >
        > > not really. It just takes time, generations in fact, to
        > accumulate the
        > > information - this these days we have more choices than the past but
        > often
        > > can have too many choices and so we open up a place for learning
        > > discernment.
        >
        > I accept that this is like a religious faith to you.
        >

        More post-modernism. Any assertion of a preference over other perspectives
        is considered 'wrong' in that all is 'same' and nothing really 'better' than
        any other perspective. The adopting of a preference is considered as some
        form of 'religious faith' etc. LOL! your funny!

        > >
        > > > This
        > > > > includes identifying the core seeding of experiences
        > PRIOR to the
        > > > > imaginative nature of consciousness trying to interpret
        > limited by
        > > > personal
        > > > > experiences and local context 'traditional' social perspectives.
        > > >
        > > > Science and sociality do not begin to take the question
        > back to its
        > > > core.
        > > >
        > >
        > > The core is in the unconscious and so a focus on (a) neurosciences,
        > > (b) psychiatry, (c) psychology, (d) sociology. The generic sameness
        > spanning all
        > > species members (and so a symmetric foundation of
        > determinism) seeds
        > > the asymmetry nature of consciousness and the development of the
        > > unique
        > being.
        >
        > The unconscious is a word you are taking to indicate your own
        > interpretation of how you believe the humanly accessible
        > world to be structured.

        The term 'unconscious' refers to a testable, demonstratable, property of our
        being and is covered in such work as the Emotional I Ching (EIC) work and
        its focus on a "Language of the Vague"
        (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/Emotional/homep.html ) where
        apparent congruence in assessments of a situation can be contradicted
        through simple distinctions of conscious vs unconscious (primary emotions)
        assessments.

        As such we see here the PARALLEL nature of experience vs the SERIAL nature
        of such - the latter through reason/consciousness, the former through
        intuition. Thus we see consciousness suppressing assessments due to them
        being 'inappropriate' or 'lacking in precision' - we can see the roots of
        consciousness as a mediation agent that includes use of rationalisations and
        so covering up 'true' experience for some idealised form of interpretation.

        > The various sciences you invoke do
        > not interest me vitally until I become convinced that their
        > practitioners are not trying to pull a fast one,
        > philosophically, and hence become simply tools of a
        > partially-hidden political process that depresses human
        > culture in favour of a (relatively) coarse biologism. Just
        > the sort of thing Nietzsche was trying to counter in the
        > aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war.
        >

        The repeated validation of the EIC dynamic brings out for the first time a
        level of information processing not covered before in science; a focus
        ignored/denied by science. There is no 'fast one' being pulled in that YOU
        can alter the questions used etc as long as you maintain the hierarchy in
        that it is the hierarchy that is the ground for meaning derivation as far as
        the basic levels of the brain are concerned.

        What we are dealing with in the EIC is FIRST PERSON perspective on the
        experience of consciousness AND the unconscious. Most times the assessments
        will agree but in cases where emotions are causing 'discomfort' for no
        apparent reason we are in fact experiencing the conflict of an unconscious
        looking out for number 1, vs a consciousness conforming to social demands.

        Chris
        http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
      • louise
        ... and so ... No, Chris, I am not a post-modernist, and do not believe that all interpretations are equal , except in the very narrow sense that each
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 13, 2009
        • 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: Friday, 13 February 2009 8:42 PM
          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [existlist] Re: where is everybody
          > >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > <snip>
          > >
          > > All of this is still your interpretation, and only one
          > > possible interpretation.
          >
          > Such post-modernist perspective! ;-) all interpretations are 'equal'
          and so
          > interchangeable - THAT is symmetric thinking Louise.

          No, Chris, I am not a post-modernist, and do not believe that all
          interpretations are 'equal', except in the very narrow sense that each
          emanates from a unique subjectivity. Truth values, and other kinds of
          values, differ tremendously, and matter immensely.

          >
          > When we focus on what is neurologically POSSIBLE we cover ALL forms of
          > interpretations. Anything outside of that set will be interpreted from
          > within it and it will be experienced as if paradox - we will oscillate
          > across all of the possibles, never settling on any one.
          >
          > The VALUE of an interpretation is then determined by context in that
          local
          > context 'sorts' the interpretations into 'best-fit/worst-fit' order
          rather
          > than randomising interpretations - as such there are interpretations
          not as
          > 'equal' as others.
          >
          > As a SOCIAL species language is hard-coded in the form of categories
          derived
          > from the neurology and seeding cognition, emotion, and on into
          symbols and
          > metaphors. Included in this set of POSSIBLE meanings is
          categorisation of
          > classes of consciousness and so cover the ground for unique
          interpretations
          > that are communicatable - those that are not come out of mental states
          > considered 'psychotic' by the society. This same area is also the
          area of
          > innovative creativity and we see the tie of innovation and insanity.
          >
          > > You practise an exclusivist
          > > utopianism without apparent consciousness of same whilst
          > > counselling examination of the unconscious to those who see
          > > more than you do in the works of authors whose exactnesses
          > > escape your notice. This is about as far as I can go in
          > > spelling out my scepticism to you, since in general you show
          > > yourself as impenetrable to a different view as any wide-eyed
          > > cultist.
          > >
          >
          > ;-) that is just your interpretation Louise, and only one possible
          > interpretation. ;-)

          Yes, it is my interpretation, and I acknowledge my singleness simply
          and without pretension. I am asking for the same from you.

          >
          >
          > <snip>
          > >
          > > I find this a typically reductive caricature of the idea of
          > > will to power. It's commonplace in the culture, but that
          > > does not prove it has any link with Nietzsche's thought and life.
          > >
          >
          > such is testable.
          >
          > > >
          > > > > I am
          > > > > still not strong enough as yet to take this point further.
          > > > > The disappointments of seeing historical errors repeat
          > > themselves is
          > > > > not something I imagine you can understand.
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > The IDM material covers EXACTLY this dynamic where LACK of
          > > understanding the
          > > > unconscious and its seeding by context allows for
          > > repetition of history.
          > >
          > > Rubbish. How can you teach anyone anything when you have not
          > > learnt how to listen, how to doubt your own understanding of
          > > someone else's words?
          > >
          >
          > YOU seem to have this issue Louise and its called projection.

          You believe I have this 'issue', as you put it, because you are unable
          to feel the particular nature of my subjectivity. I have most
          certainly put it to myself that your approach might be entirely valid
          and applicable, even universally. To question myself and put my
          existence in the service of what may lay claim to the truth of a
          common account, humanly or cosmically, is what I do. Your tendency to
          mistake your own hard work for a universal prescription, is a typical
          error of egoism. It is my responsibility not to capitulate to the
          self-serving needs of others' intellectual theories. Nothing to do
          with projection.

          >
          > >
          > > > Karl Popper did not believe in such (see his "The Poverty of
          > > Historicism")
          > > > but recent work with small world networks etc re-introduces a focus
          > > on such
          > > > - also see my page and refs listed there -
          > > > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html - you
          > > continue to
          > > > underestimate my capabilities/understanding ;-)

          I am not underestimating your capacities, which are considerable, am
          only subjecting them to the sort of critique they should have, at a
          group for discussion.

          > > >
          > > > > To live a life within "WHAT IS" means it is useful to understand
          > > > > > the ground of "WHAT IS" over which you place your subjectivity.
          > > > >
          > > > > My, what a godlike project. Not a simple matter, even to attempt.
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > not really. It just takes time, generations in fact, to
          > > accumulate the
          > > > information - this these days we have more choices than the past but
          > > often
          > > > can have too many choices and so we open up a place for learning
          > > > discernment.
          > >
          > > I accept that this is like a religious faith to you.
          > >
          >
          > More post-modernism. Any assertion of a preference over other
          perspectives
          > is considered 'wrong' in that all is 'same' and nothing really
          'better' than
          > any other perspective. The adopting of a preference is considered as
          some
          > form of 'religious faith' etc. LOL! your funny!

          I find your attitude simply arrogant, but hardly offensive. There
          seems little point with continuing the debate, when you have not the
          first idea about ways of living and thinking that are not to your
          taste. Again, a question of imagination. Of the refusal to imagine,
          or to doubt. If you do not wish to listen about my rejection of
          post-modernism, then perhaps others will. Louise
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.