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

Re: In real time

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart51
    Hb3g, I enjoyed reading this post (47228), and I think you capture Sartre s outlook well. However, I not so sure of your attempt to find similarities between
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 1 5:46 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hb3g,

      I enjoyed reading this post (47228), and I think you capture Sartre's
      outlook well. However, I not so sure of your attempt to find
      similarities between Sartre's outlook and that of Socrates and Plato.
      You write:

      "It reminds me of the situation that Socrates is faced with in the
      Crito and the Phaedo. The course of action has been set by Socrates
      himself. He is condemned. He chooses not to flee into bad faith. The
      moment of truth has arrived. The moment at which life fails and death
      is victorious. Nothing is known about this situation. Nothing can be
      known. The argument for the immortality of the soul, the hope for a
      continuation afterwards, has been thrown, entirely, existentially,
      into an all consuming doubt. So much so that Socrates himself feels,
      in anticipation, the very danger of panic in the face of the absolute
      unknown, the sheer nothingness, the opacity, of his personal fate.
      There is no comfort to be had in the Phaedo. Every hopeful argument
      for a continuance of life after death is, in the end, dashed to
      pieces by the brutal reality of the act of compulsory suicide."

      I'm not so sure that "The argument for the immortality of the soul …
      has been thrown … into an all consuming doubt. …There is no comfort
      to be had in the Phaedo. Every hopeful argument for a continuance of
      life after death is, in the end, dashed to pieces by the brutal
      reality of the act of compulsory suicide."

      Why are the `hopeful' arguments for the immortality of the
      soul `dashed to pieces' by Socrates' suicide? The arguments for the
      immortality of the soul do not deny that each of us dies
      (physically). So witnessing somebody die has not effect on the
      strength of arguments for life after death.

      Further, perhaps I am wrong, but I thought the philosophical
      reflections of the Phaedo were a comfort to Socrates. He at least had
      the comfort that he was doing the noble thing, following his
      conscience, and acting in accord with reason.

      My recollection of the Phaedo is that Socrates presented what he
      considered to be strong arguments for the immortality of the soul,
      although he admitted he could not be certain that the arguments were
      sound, and thus he approached death with doubt as to whether death
      was the end or was just the end of the physical body with the soul
      continuing to live.

      Both Socrates and Plato had commitments to religious belief, ethical
      realism and the reality of an unseen world, more real than our world
      of appearances. Sartre held none of these otherworldly or
      transcendental/metaphysical views.

      Socrates held that to live a life of justice, integrity and
      rationality was more important to him than living a life of enjoyment
      and freedom. Sartre was the opposite – he valued freedom and
      enjoyment more.

      Jim
    • chris lofting
      ... The neuron goes back 600 million years to sponge life and so well before us . The dynamics of the neuron reflect a form of spectrum acquisition where all
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 4 7:12 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman B. Triplegood
        > Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2009 11:46 AM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: In real time
        >
        >Why does this "part" depend upon that "whole" in order
        > to functionally be just what it is?
        >
        > Why do we have concepts of "part" and "whole" anyway?
        >

        The neuron goes back 600 million years to sponge life and so well before
        'us'. The dynamics of the neuron reflect a form of spectrum acquisition
        where all sensory data 'feeds' into one area (through what is call Amplitude
        Modulation, AM radio, WAVE focused) and that data gets discretised into a
        pulse train (Frequency Modulation, FM, PULSE focus) representing the
        spectrum of that whole and so a PARTS LIST of that whole. That data is
        distributed to other neurons or directly onto muscle through release of
        hormones etc to get the muscle to contract.

        A feature of the neurology is where a feedback system developed across
        collectives of neurons where the output of one fed back into one input and
        this creates an Exclusive OR loop and so development of a form of memory.
        Formations that develop in the input areas of neurons serve to represent
        memories as instincts/habits and so filters of data that can contribute to
        neural responses to data - as can issues of neuron synchronisation with
        other neurons etc (this also gets into division of labour etc).

        The formation of collectives of neurons reflect an interesting property of
        self-referencing, the collective will behave 'AS IF' a single neuron (but
        with increase in bandwidth and so able to process a lot more data). Here we
        get into 'fractal' dynamics and complexity/chaos behaviours.

        We can trace this property of the neurology all the way up into the
        hemispheres of our neocortex and from there to the abstraction notions of
        anti-symmmetry(XOR, partials focus, aspectual, local context) / symmetry
        (wholes process, EQV, non-local context).

        Sensory input covers aggregation of various inputs into a complex 'whole'
        that is then open to analysis through spectral breakdown into 'aspects' -
        sensory paradox demonstrates this feature where a complex line drawing is
        'broken down' into objects but not fully discretisable from that drawing -
        see examples in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

        These dynamics cover soma processing of data as they do psyche processing of
        data.

        Of interest is that the parts realm comes with properties that allow for
        emergences and so 'new' wholes are possible. This realm is dominated by
        positive feedback (discretisation and amplification) whereas the more whole
        realm is biased to negative feedback (integrating, error correcting,
        'getting closer to' etc)

        The label of 'parts' is object focused and one can focus more on 'aspects'
        where such includes static and dynamic relationships.

        It is the use of LABELS that can transcend the single context focus of the
        basic neurology and so move us into language usage etc. and the development
        of consciousness and the instinctive notions of 'partness' and 'wholeness'
        etc.

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