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

Re: suffering fools

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart51
    Chris, Why? is a question not a statement. Further, your understanding of normativity is incorrect. A normative statement is a value judgement, an ought
    Message 1 of 37 , Feb 26, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Chris,

      "Why?" is a question not a statement.

      Further, your understanding of normativity is incorrect. A normative
      statement is a value judgement, an 'ought' statement. For example:
      you ought to improve your philosophical thinking.

      Jim



      >
      > LOL! you missed it! silly boy. "WHY?" is a NORMATIVE STATEMENT! The
      > DESCRIPTIVE cover HOW. The normative covers VALUE JUDGEMENTS and so
      WHY. You
      > asked for ONE normative statement and I gave you one but your so
      DENSE that
      > you missed it. Get grip dude. Your closet naturalist is showing.
      >
      > Chris
      > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/AbstractDomain.html
      >
    • chris lofting
      ... The realm of increased subjectivity is derived from a realm of generic sameness we all share as neuron-dependent species. As such the neural hierarchy
      Message 37 of 37 , Feb 27, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jimstuart51
        > Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2009 12:11 AM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: suffering fools
        >
        > Chris,
        >
        > Yes, that's much better.
        >
        > So your main normative claim seems to be this: We ought to
        > spend time learning about the dynamics of neurology so we can
        > act without ignorance and so avoid unnecessary problems.
        >
        > Although this is rather vague, there is some content to it,
        > so it does, indeed, answer my challenge. However, I'm still
        > not convinced that I can learn how to behave well purely by
        > studying neurology and your own IDM.
        >

        The realm of increased subjectivity is derived from a realm of generic
        sameness we all share as neuron-dependent species. As such the neural
        hierarchy gives us a level of LABEL production to aid in differentiating
        contexts and that level is resting upon an older level where there is only
        ONE context and so no need for labels.

        What IDM identifies is the template of classes of meaning present in the
        single context level that is still functioning as part of the neural
        hierarchy. It can be used to translate a set of specialist labels into a
        representation of some other specialist format by reducing down to the
        single context, no labels, level and back up through a different set of
        labels. This is what the example does, the Emotional I Ching work where
        categories derived from recursion of fight/flight are translated into
        categories of yin/yang and generate an image of such that can elicit
        emotional resonance confirming the original, but vague, emotional
        assessment.

        This leads into an analysis of subjectivity and the translation of personal
        labels into some other set of labels in that the underlying single context
        level of the neurology is still functioning in all of us. The labels will
        always point to the classes of meaning derived by the neurology at the
        single context level. As such we have a level we can call 'brain' and it is
        beneath the label level, and a level we can call 'mind' and it is at the
        label level and above; mind plays with symbols, can swap contexts quickly
        for assessment etc and amplify a specific context - brain on the other hand
        covers the flow of patterns within an implicit single context. Thus brain
        covers flow, single context, dialectical perspectives. Mind covers statics,
        contexts identified by labels, metaphysical perspectives.

        The converses are also present, multiple texts in a single context vs single
        text in multiple contexts.

        The dynamic allows for quick assessment of specialist expressions, language,
        by mapping to other specialist expressions and so covers the dynamics of
        analogy/metaphor processing. For ANYTHING to 'be meaningful' it has to be so
        across all levels of the neurology and that includes the single context, no
        label, level where all is vague classes of meaning more as feelings. The IDM
        Abstract Domain Model covers the different specialist domains and their
        mapping to the abstract domain. These specialist domains would also include
        a purely subjective domain, one's personal specialist meaning domain where
        the labels, to be communicatable, MUST point to the underlying classes of
        meanings at the single context level of the neural hierarchy. This enables
        them to be translated into some other, more familiar-to-others, specialist
        label set. Argument is thus a dynamic of synchronising labels - converting
        difference to sameness and that is sped-up through understanding the
        brain/mind 'barrier' and how to cross and recross it.

        > With regard to logic, I would make two points. First the
        > basic rules of logical argument (for example not both A and
        > not-A) are surely assumed before the neurological and IDM
        > work begins. They are not proved by your own research, rather
        > they are assumed at the start, they are used by you in
        > pursuing your own research.
        >

        The equivalence of A/NOT-A is a property of symmetric thinking and covers
        the interchangability of metaphors and so of the explicit form of
        identification of what IS and the form defined by what is NOT. There is a
        sense of establishing a superposition, sharing the same space but not equal,
        equivalent.

        The exclusive nature of A/NOT-A is a property of anti-symmetric thinking and
        covers high precision, local context, identification of differences WITHIN
        sameness (e.g. positron/electron where they are same (symmetric) other than
        the particular property of charge)

        Hegel intuitively picked this up but did not have access to the
        neuroscience/psychology data that supports such perspectives.

        The presence of the classes of numbers used in mathematics as a specialist
        domain, and the classes of logic operators as a specialist domain, bring out
        these two 'languages' being able to share space with themselves or other
        domains. What IDM does is introduce the BIT domain to represent any
        dichotomy and allow for application of logic operators to bring our
        perceptual differences, and the choice of.

        > Your own dichotomies such as asymmetry vs. symmetry could
        > count as part of the `new' logic your own research
        > introduces. But I'm not sure if such dichotomies are results
        > you discover from your research, or whether they are axioms
        > in your system.
        >

        The issues of asymmetry/symmetry come out of (a) my own focus on issues of
        precision in styles of thinking
        (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm006.html and (b)
        Matte-Blanco's work on understanding logical thinking in psychotherapy:
        Matte-Blanco, I., (1975,1998)"The Unconscious as Infinite Sets" Karnac

        My own work covers a dimension of precisions, Matte-Blanco sticks to
        asymmetry/symmetry.

        Different perspectives have lead to the same conclusions about variation in
        precision of thought and consequences of such. The focus on
        asymmetry/symmetry is a general form of a more precise focus on
        anti-symmetry/symmetry (aka aspects/whole, open/closed) and the mediation
        across that dichotomy as consciousness and so asymmetric.

        > I agree that logic is a normative science, but it is
        > normative in a rather different way to the way in which the
        > disciplines of aesthetics and ethics are normative.
        >

        The studies on styles of reasoning (probabilistic vs deductive) point to the
        logic operators as basic filters for processing generic information. Thus
        the yin/yang dichotomy can be interpreted as symmetric, anti-symmetric, or
        asymmetric and the different logic operators applied focus on XOR (NOT-EQV),
        EQV (NOT-XOR), and IMP (the ONLY asymmetric operator). These filters then
        seed aesthetic and ethical determinations - seeing symmetry elicits a
        different aesthetic experience to seeing asymmetry etc.

        Aesthetics starts off as symmetry-focused and becomes more personal with
        maturity and differentiation. Morality is also symmetric but ethics emerges
        with increased subjectivity; becomes personal, a 'code' to live by as
        compared to an imposed form from social morals etc.

        GIVEN the mechanical aspects that seed the organic, so we can refine
        discernments and so the normative assessments of existence. As such IDM
        serves to GUIDE and no more but that is better than what we have at the
        moment in high schools/first-year-university, no idea as to HOW we derive
        meaning - it is all 'ad-hoc' and that presents as being inefficient. The
        extended analysis of the normative element present is in the detailed focus
        on the qualities of the categories defined and their tie to direct personal
        experience.

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