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

Re: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    HB3G, I read the literature all of the time, and while I have my doubts about some of the recent conjectures by some cosmologists, I am not aware of any
    Message 1 of 21 , May 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      HB3G,

      I read the literature all of the time, and while I have my doubts about some of the recent conjectures by some cosmologists, I am not aware of any equivocation on the cosmic expansion if 'this' universe. Where have you seen otherwise? I would be very interested to see that myself.

      Wil




      -----Original Message-----
      From: Herman B. Triplegood <hb3g@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:58 pm
      Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245































      Bill:



      ... and that "thirteen point seven billion light years" you bring up is based upon what is just a hypothesis, really, that is in turn based upon the supposition that expansion is the only possible explanation for the red shift that Hubble observed.



      ... and yet, the same scientists who dreamed up that Big Bang "theory" also acknowledge that gravitational lensing, produced by the presence of concentrated matter, like what is there in a black hole, also produces a red shift. This was predicted by Einstein, and it has been observed too.



      ... and, those same scientists cannot explain the angular momentum of rotating galaxies without postulating the existence of a dark matter, or dark energy, or both, in there to keep the spinning galaxy from literally flying off into inter-galactic space, dark matter/energy, furthermore, that they postulate may very well account for 96% of the material stuff in the universe, the presence of which would also cause gravitational lensing and an observable red shift in every direction that we look, just like what Hubble saw.



      ... and, in an article in Scientific American from about two years ago, it was revealed that an observable red shift can be induced merely by certain crystalline configurations of matter at the quantum level that, in addition, can produce optical effects that defy our orthodox theoretical understanding of the nature of light and other such electromagnetic phenomena.



      The Big Bang, and all of those impressive suppositions that you draw from it, like the "thirteen point seven billiosn years" in the end, is not really a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis, and it is an "ad hoc" hypothesis at that, as is practically all of what is being put out there as so-called "cosmology" is these days, and it is an "hypothesis" that has huge consistency problems, like the horizon problem, along with the various really weird "ad hoc" attempts to fix that horizon problem, like inflation, and variable speed of light.



      Being against so-called "wild imaginings" which supposedly have no basis in concrete reality is one thing. But, presenting a ad hoc cosmological "hypothesis" as if it were an established fact is plain dishonest.



      I have read extensively in the cosmological literature, and I have done some of the math, and I studied physics and mathematics in college, and I have been keepin up with the literature for the past thirty years, and I am telling you there is very little there that is actually proven to factually be the case.



      But, of course, that isn't the story you get from the Science channel, or from good old Stephen Hawking's books. I would recommend that you read the physics books, Bill, and watch less TV. You might learn somehing about science by doing that. Like, it isn't nearly as cut and dried, factual, and empirical, as you dream it up to be. In point of fact, physics, right now, is in crisis, because two of its most importan theories, general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics, can't get along together, and, the scientists at CERN are hoping that they may be able to find some clues, using the Large Hadron Collider, as to how to go forward and fix physics.



      The physicists are groping.



      But they've "duped" you and a lot of other people into believing that they know what they are doing by putting on good TV shows replete with all of those required impressive magical effects thyat are sure to make you drop your jaw in awe. Give me a break! Of course the physicists want you to believe that they know what they are doing. The more people there are who believe the physicists have physics under control, the more likely it is they will get the funding they want so they can do more experiments.



      Do you know what physicists do. They throw things at each other and see what happens. Sometimes, what happens is a really big explosion.



      Do you know what chemists do? They mix things together and see what happens. Sometimes, what happens is...



      You guessed it... a really big explosion.



      Of course, the physicists are telling us that the LHC will be safe too. But they have conveniently ignored one little problem. The Hawking Radiation that they "say" will cause the micro black holes to spontaneously evaporate isn't an established fact either. It is just another one of their "ad hoc" hypotheses.



      Ever since Teller and his buddies blew Bikini Atol and Johnston Island off the map, we have all been too ready to say, "Yes! Yes! Whatever you want! Blow thyings up! Impress us!" to our mad scientists. But we better take heed of what Tesla said. At bottom, we really have no idea what we are truly messing with here.



      Such is the power of nature. She is beyond our control. If you doubt that, then, go through a Katrina or a 2004 Tsunami and then tell me what you think about man's admirable control over natural events. Our so-called "power" over nature is really nature's power. It always has been. We are just borrowing it. To improve, hopefully, and not destroy, the place that she has rented to us, for a limited time, upon the face of this blessed earth.



      And we call nature's power our... technology... ?



      Forget about pie in the sky wild imaginings. The wildest imagining of all is exactly that kind of reckless "hubris" that thinks we own the earth and that we can own the rest of the universe as well, and that we are free to dispose of what is in it at our whim.



      Pffft!



      What a bunch of bunk that is!



      But, of course, Bill, you have bought into the unquestioning worship of scientific authority like a lot of other people have these days. You are right in line with the progress program for a brave new world. Congratulations to you for your membership in the most current of dogmas. Never mind calling anything into question. No bother. It is all good. It is science. It is all we need. Right? And if anybody disagrees? Or asks a hard question? Like this one. Is progress sreally such a good idea? Why, we can just deal with that person by calling him names, by calling him stupid, through the use of ridicule and derision.



      Okay. I see how it is now. It isn't about truth. It isn't about anything higher. Or better. Or profounder. It is about winning. It is about getting with the program. It is about the wide screen TV, the iPOD and the cell phone, and owning the fastest car on the block, and being married to a trophy wife.



      Well... you know what? I ain't playing. You can all have that game if you want it.



      Hb3g



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:

      >

      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:

      > >

      > > I don't grasp how shunning metaphysics in any way depreciates my sense of something greater, astonishment, or the simplicity/depth of life in the universe. What underpins our experiences is both real and unreal: it might not matter.

      > >

      > > Mary

      > >

      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@> wrote:

      > >

      > > Where has our sense of something higher gone?

      > >

      > > What has happened to our ability to be astonished?

      > >

      > > Why is it that simplicity is no longer deep for us?

      > >Mary, Something bigger, just how much bigger do these philosophical types need? Thirteen point seven billion light years may not impress them but it sure as hell gets my attention. Seven times around the earth is one light secound.We are looking at light years, Thirteen point seven BILLION of them. Why don`t they do the math and ponder just how much distance we are talking about? These yahoos want to muse about parallel universes or bubble time. Such things are mathematical statements with no foundation in real time physics. I do not think they wish to know, they want to feel the wonder of metaphysics. That is bunk and at best unprovable theory. I want to see where all that energy expanding from the big bang can go, when will it run out ? Does the matter being formed in stars return to energy in supernovi or are hypernovi the reactive levels necessary to reverse the cosmos back to pure energy? Those questions are what hubble is out to answer. I find great wonder in such questions while bizarre concotcions of metaphysics are the wonderings of simple minded children.Also like children they want attention for their spirtual musings. I will not notice them for what amounts to their personal religous forays.

      > We are finally finding out who, what and even where we are but these dupes just want to spout their wild imaginings and be petted on their pointy heads. No wonder philosophy has become a backwash for mysticism and ignorance. The real work of discovery is being done in very different diciplines. Bill

      >


























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • chris lofting
      ... ... Its called evolution and the properties and methods of the neurology are found to be the foundations for the classes of numbers etc we use as
      Message 2 of 21 , May 29, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of devogney
        > Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 3:28 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
        >
        <snip>
        >
        > How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of
        > human thought which is independent of experience, is so
        > admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human
        > reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought,
        > able to fathom the properties of real things? Einstein
        >

        Its called evolution and the properties and methods of the neurology are
        found to be the foundations for the classes of numbers etc we use as
        mathematics. The stability of the neuron, going back to its roots in sponge
        life circa 600 million years ago, brings out the success of the dynamics of
        the neuron in dealing with the environment. The core classes of meaning
        derived from the mechanics of the neurology seed all languages and as such
        allow us to map 'out there' or more so those symmetric patterns of 'out
        there' (all EMF measurements etc are grounded in symmetry as is our species
        nature in that a symmetry-grounded existence is energy conserving, vital in
        a thermodynamic universe).

        Given the filtering of reality by the neurology so all of our maps will be
        about the same thing - the patterns etc that make up the interface between
        'in here' and 'out there':

        "It becomes apparent that if certain facts about our common experience of
        perception, or what we might call the inside world, can be revealed by an
        extended study of what we call, in contrast, the outside world, then an
        equally extended study of this inside world will reveal, in turn, the facts
        first met with in the world outside: for what we approach, in either case,
        from one side or the other, is the common boundary between them" p xxv
        Spencer-Brown. G., (1972) "Laws of Form" EP Dutton

        ALL of our investigations into 'out there', and 'in here', will develop to
        take-on the properties and methods of the filtering system - the neuron.
        This includes a methodology of the neuron (recursion of a dichotomy) that
        elicits 'particle/wave duality' across all scales. These dynamics only
        become noticeable when we zoom-in to the microcosm, but the patterns exist
        at the mesocosm and macrocosm levels as well.

        Thus all specialist perspectives are made up of a specialist language that
        relabels the basic universals of meaning that come out of the neurology. All
        of these specialist perspectives are applicable to the study of ourselves
        since they reflect ourselves. The more challenging specialist perspectives
        such as QM have forced us to use all of our resources in trying to
        understand what is going on, but QM still reflects us since its tools etc
        are extensions of us since any meaning outside of what we can deal with will
        be interpreted from within what we can deal with and present as if paradox
        of else as 'invisible' but possibly implied.

        <snip>
        >
        > The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is
        > a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the
        > servant and has forgotten the gift.
        >

        No - we have created nothing, we have developed in an ad-hoc manner,
        ignorant of what is going on overall. The dynamics of the reasoning mind and
        the intuitive mind cover the dynamics of serial/parallel processing of
        information. The reasoning mind has emerged from the realm of the intuitive,
        symmetric, the holistic, and aids in making finer distinctions that allow
        for refinement of intuition and so the getting of wisdom.

        The mindless dynamics of species development covers the push for energy
        conservation in the form of refined instincts/habits development. The
        success of mediations in that effort have favoured the selection of
        capabilities to make choices in real-time, not on genetic anomalies allowing
        variations over generations. The making of choices covers the development of
        language and consciousness and the use of such serial, delayed, behaviours
        to refine our parallel natures - the issue have been on the lack of trust in
        that parallel nature in that the bias to energy conservation is selective
        and can lack precision in mediation when compared to consciousness
        mediating.

        Now that we are in a position to better understand the serial/parallel
        dynamic so we are in a position to refine our understandings since we can
        identify overall purposes and so develop towards achieving such.

        Chris.
      • louise
        Quite interesting fiction, this. Still believing we need Heidegger s critique of the natural sciences to make clear to you hermeneutically naive types just
        Message 3 of 21 , May 29, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Quite interesting fiction, this. Still believing we need Heidegger's critique of the natural sciences to make clear to you hermeneutically naive types just what has to happen before you can tell these stories.
          Once upon a time, there was a primitive neuron ... and so on. It's a very stark sort of narrative, to serve the lower functions of human sensibility. I much prefer myth, myself.

          Louise

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of devogney
          > > Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 3:28 PM
          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
          > >
          > <snip>
          > >
          > > How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of
          > > human thought which is independent of experience, is so
          > > admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human
          > > reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought,
          > > able to fathom the properties of real things? Einstein
          > >
          >
          > Its called evolution and the properties and methods of the neurology are
          > found to be the foundations for the classes of numbers etc we use as
          > mathematics. The stability of the neuron, going back to its roots in sponge
          > life circa 600 million years ago, brings out the success of the dynamics of
          > the neuron in dealing with the environment. The core classes of meaning
          > derived from the mechanics of the neurology seed all languages and as such
          > allow us to map 'out there' or more so those symmetric patterns of 'out
          > there' (all EMF measurements etc are grounded in symmetry as is our species
          > nature in that a symmetry-grounded existence is energy conserving, vital in
          > a thermodynamic universe).
          >
          > Given the filtering of reality by the neurology so all of our maps will be
          > about the same thing - the patterns etc that make up the interface between
          > 'in here' and 'out there':
          >
          > "It becomes apparent that if certain facts about our common experience of
          > perception, or what we might call the inside world, can be revealed by an
          > extended study of what we call, in contrast, the outside world, then an
          > equally extended study of this inside world will reveal, in turn, the facts
          > first met with in the world outside: for what we approach, in either case,
          > from one side or the other, is the common boundary between them" p xxv
          > Spencer-Brown. G., (1972) "Laws of Form" EP Dutton
          >
          > ALL of our investigations into 'out there', and 'in here', will develop to
          > take-on the properties and methods of the filtering system - the neuron.
          > This includes a methodology of the neuron (recursion of a dichotomy) that
          > elicits 'particle/wave duality' across all scales. These dynamics only
          > become noticeable when we zoom-in to the microcosm, but the patterns exist
          > at the mesocosm and macrocosm levels as well.
          >
          > Thus all specialist perspectives are made up of a specialist language that
          > relabels the basic universals of meaning that come out of the neurology. All
          > of these specialist perspectives are applicable to the study of ourselves
          > since they reflect ourselves. The more challenging specialist perspectives
          > such as QM have forced us to use all of our resources in trying to
          > understand what is going on, but QM still reflects us since its tools etc
          > are extensions of us since any meaning outside of what we can deal with will
          > be interpreted from within what we can deal with and present as if paradox
          > of else as 'invisible' but possibly implied.
          >
          > <snip>
          > >
          > > The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is
          > > a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the
          > > servant and has forgotten the gift.
          > >
          >
          > No - we have created nothing, we have developed in an ad-hoc manner,
          > ignorant of what is going on overall. The dynamics of the reasoning mind and
          > the intuitive mind cover the dynamics of serial/parallel processing of
          > information. The reasoning mind has emerged from the realm of the intuitive,
          > symmetric, the holistic, and aids in making finer distinctions that allow
          > for refinement of intuition and so the getting of wisdom.
          >
          > The mindless dynamics of species development covers the push for energy
          > conservation in the form of refined instincts/habits development. The
          > success of mediations in that effort have favoured the selection of
          > capabilities to make choices in real-time, not on genetic anomalies allowing
          > variations over generations. The making of choices covers the development of
          > language and consciousness and the use of such serial, delayed, behaviours
          > to refine our parallel natures - the issue have been on the lack of trust in
          > that parallel nature in that the bias to energy conservation is selective
          > and can lack precision in mediation when compared to consciousness
          > mediating.
          >
          > Now that we are in a position to better understand the serial/parallel
          > dynamic so we are in a position to refine our understandings since we can
          > identify overall purposes and so develop towards achieving such.
          >
          > Chris.
          >
        • chris lofting
          ... Umm... no, once upon a time there emerged sponge life and the dynamics of information processing in that life form appears to have led to the development
          Message 4 of 21 , May 29, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
            > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 9:28 AM
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
            >
            > Quite interesting fiction, this. Still believing we need
            > Heidegger's critique of the natural sciences to make clear to
            > you hermeneutically naive types just what has to happen
            > before you can tell these stories.
            > Once upon a time, there was a primitive neuron ... and so on.

            Umm... no, once upon a time there emerged sponge life and the dynamics of
            information processing in that life form appears to have led to the
            development of the neuron. It is possible to trace such connections through
            analysis of molecular biology patterns, DNA sequences etc See such as:

            Sakarya O., et al. (2007). A post-synaptic scaffold at the origin of the
            animal kingdom. PLoS ONE 2 (6): e506. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000506.

            (link to paper -
            http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.13
            71/journal.pone.0000506 )

            > It's a very stark sort of narrative, to serve the lower
            > functions of human sensibility. I much prefer myth, myself.
            >

            Religion is associable with symmetric thinking and that with a realm of rich
            "myths to live by" (J. Campbell).
            Symmetric thinking elicits such as stereotyping and a favouring of
            qualitative, primitive emotion-riddled, perspectives that lack the
            development of refined logic (asymmetry-focused); symmetric logic is limited
            to the bi-conditional (if and only if) and so lacking in precision.

            Such texts as the ancient Chinese I Ching reflect the attempts to describe
            sensations through use of analogy/metaphor through ties to the
            histories/legends/myths of the times. Closer scrutiny of such systems as
            covered in the IDM work, shows the underlying neurology at work in seeding
            such specialist perspectives and so the ability to deconstruct and
            reconstruct such systems to a level where they can in fact work - but not in
            the mumbo-jumbo format presented in the original work (IOW the
            reconstruction shows that the belief in some form of 'divination' was
            grounded in some fact but facts not understood at the time of the original
            development).

            What my book does is tie emotional assessments of any situation to a
            yang/yin form of representation - this possible since all of these
            specialist perspectives have their foundations in classes of meaning defined
            at the neurological level. It is this isomorphism that allows for all
            languages to work (the I Ching, from my studies, being an example of a
            primitive language, a 'language of the vague', as is [primary emotion (our
            intuitive side - secondary emotion, OTOH, is dependent on the definition of
            our sense self to operate)

            The book is now available in hardback and paperback format (although on
            Amazon at the moment only the paperback is available, for the hardback go to
            the storefront - http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=3688701 )

            The ability to map fight/flight dynamics to yang/yin dynamics, even if
            vague, brings out the foundations of meaning in patterns in our neurology
            and as such reduce the amount of prose usually required to describe things
            once the patterns are understood ;-) At the same time, by understanding the
            patterns one can quickly grasp complex prose since all prose will cover the
            identified patterns - anything outside of those patterns will be interpreted
            from within those patterns and appear as if paradox.

            Thus existentialist perspectives will rely on those patterns to enable
            'resonance' in meaning for those trained with the existentialist language.
            Thus "Being and Time" for example is reducible to attempts to describe the
            universals of meaning that seed all thought, as is all philosophy, but with
            a particular style of expression that customises the set of POSSIBLE
            meanings to fit the local context (Heidegger and his readings at the time of
            writing where such included his ignorance of the neurology at work ;-)).

            The isomorphism of all perspectives allows, for example, for a 'quantum
            mechanical' analysis of "Being and Time" etc etc!

            Chris
          • louise
            Chris, You completely miss the point of what I was saying. When the story begins is not relevant. This is a philosophical list, and you have not the least
            Message 5 of 21 , May 30, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Chris,

              You completely miss the point of what I was saying. When the story begins is not relevant. This is a philosophical list, and you have not the least idea how to philosophise. Everything you write is about time, and ontical existence lived in time. Of being you have not the least conception. The fact that your own emotion-riddled existence is so socially normative that the contradictory nature of your theories escapes your attention, indicates that you lack self-knowledge. Great surprise! As an impassioned Hellenist, I find untenable - for myself - an existentialism that would omit the most radical possible examination of human conduct, right to the level of perception, rather than on the level of action. Still finding my way, and suspecting that it is on these grounds that I part company from such as Sartre and Camus. Anyway, I find it all to the good that your writing has ceased to amuse me.

              Louise

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
              > > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 9:28 AM
              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
              > >
              > > Quite interesting fiction, this. Still believing we need
              > > Heidegger's critique of the natural sciences to make clear to
              > > you hermeneutically naive types just what has to happen
              > > before you can tell these stories.
              > > Once upon a time, there was a primitive neuron ... and so on.
              >
              > Umm... no, once upon a time there emerged sponge life and the dynamics of
              > information processing in that life form appears to have led to the
              > development of the neuron. It is possible to trace such connections through
              > analysis of molecular biology patterns, DNA sequences etc See such as:
              >
              > Sakarya O., et al. (2007). A post-synaptic scaffold at the origin of the
              > animal kingdom. PLoS ONE 2 (6): e506. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000506.
              >
              > (link to paper -
              > http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.13
              > 71/journal.pone.0000506 )
              >
              > > It's a very stark sort of narrative, to serve the lower
              > > functions of human sensibility. I much prefer myth, myself.
              > >
              >
              > Religion is associable with symmetric thinking and that with a realm of rich
              > "myths to live by" (J. Campbell).
              > Symmetric thinking elicits such as stereotyping and a favouring of
              > qualitative, primitive emotion-riddled, perspectives that lack the
              > development of refined logic (asymmetry-focused); symmetric logic is limited
              > to the bi-conditional (if and only if) and so lacking in precision.
              >
              > Such texts as the ancient Chinese I Ching reflect the attempts to describe
              > sensations through use of analogy/metaphor through ties to the
              > histories/legends/myths of the times. Closer scrutiny of such systems as
              > covered in the IDM work, shows the underlying neurology at work in seeding
              > such specialist perspectives and so the ability to deconstruct and
              > reconstruct such systems to a level where they can in fact work - but not in
              > the mumbo-jumbo format presented in the original work (IOW the
              > reconstruction shows that the belief in some form of 'divination' was
              > grounded in some fact but facts not understood at the time of the original
              > development).
              >
              > What my book does is tie emotional assessments of any situation to a
              > yang/yin form of representation - this possible since all of these
              > specialist perspectives have their foundations in classes of meaning defined
              > at the neurological level. It is this isomorphism that allows for all
              > languages to work (the I Ching, from my studies, being an example of a
              > primitive language, a 'language of the vague', as is [primary emotion (our
              > intuitive side - secondary emotion, OTOH, is dependent on the definition of
              > our sense self to operate)
              >
              > The book is now available in hardback and paperback format (although on
              > Amazon at the moment only the paperback is available, for the hardback go to
              > the storefront - http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=3688701 )
              >
              > The ability to map fight/flight dynamics to yang/yin dynamics, even if
              > vague, brings out the foundations of meaning in patterns in our neurology
              > and as such reduce the amount of prose usually required to describe things
              > once the patterns are understood ;-) At the same time, by understanding the
              > patterns one can quickly grasp complex prose since all prose will cover the
              > identified patterns - anything outside of those patterns will be interpreted
              > from within those patterns and appear as if paradox.
              >
              > Thus existentialist perspectives will rely on those patterns to enable
              > 'resonance' in meaning for those trained with the existentialist language.
              > Thus "Being and Time" for example is reducible to attempts to describe the
              > universals of meaning that seed all thought, as is all philosophy, but with
              > a particular style of expression that customises the set of POSSIBLE
              > meanings to fit the local context (Heidegger and his readings at the time of
              > writing where such included his ignorance of the neurology at work ;-)).
              >
              > The isomorphism of all perspectives allows, for example, for a 'quantum
              > mechanical' analysis of "Being and Time" etc etc!
              >
              > Chris
              >
            • louise
              ... A further clarification. There are many ways to philosophise, and, to the best of my knowledge, some forms of philosophy would indeed concentrate solely
              Message 6 of 21 , May 30, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                >
                > Chris,
                >
                > You completely miss the point of what I was saying. When the story begins is not relevant. This is a philosophical list, and you have not the least idea how to philosophise. Everything you write is about time, and ontical existence lived in time.

                A further clarification. There are many ways to philosophise, and, to the best of my knowledge, some forms of philosophy would indeed concentrate solely on ontical existence. Chris Lofting is, however, not engaged in any kind of philosophy. I made the critique I did because he refers to Heidegger, whose work is rooted in experience of the primordial. He [CL] is weaving patterns in quite different territory, the scientistic. With an orientation that is not existential but therapeutic. As though life were a disease. If it be, there is still Plato to resort to for wisdom and consolation. Mary has, I believe, stated her own commitment to scientism, yet this does not vitiate the genuine existential quality of her thought. My own prose is sending me to sleep again, having to think about these distinctions, but I can hardly complain about the duty, since it was my own indulgence of this young contributor that led to an exponential increase in his output here. Hopefully I can learn from my mistakes :-). L.

                Of being you have not the least conception. The fact that your own emotion-riddled existence is so socially normative that the contradictory nature of your theories escapes your attention, indicates that you lack self-knowledge. Great surprise! As an impassioned Hellenist, I find untenable - for myself - an existentialism that would omit the most radical possible examination of human conduct, right to the level of perception, rather than on the level of action. Still finding my way, and suspecting that it is on these grounds that I part company from such as Sartre and Camus. Anyway, I find it all to the good that your writing has ceased to amuse me.
                >
                > Louise
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                > > > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 9:28 AM
                > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                > > >
                > > > Quite interesting fiction, this. Still believing we need
                > > > Heidegger's critique of the natural sciences to make clear to
                > > > you hermeneutically naive types just what has to happen
                > > > before you can tell these stories.
                > > > Once upon a time, there was a primitive neuron ... and so on.
                > >
                > > Umm... no, once upon a time there emerged sponge life and the dynamics of
                > > information processing in that life form appears to have led to the
                > > development of the neuron. It is possible to trace such connections through
                > > analysis of molecular biology patterns, DNA sequences etc See such as:
                > >
                > > Sakarya O., et al. (2007). A post-synaptic scaffold at the origin of the
                > > animal kingdom. PLoS ONE 2 (6): e506. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000506.
                > >
                > > (link to paper -
                > > http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.13
                > > 71/journal.pone.0000506 )
                > >
                > > > It's a very stark sort of narrative, to serve the lower
                > > > functions of human sensibility. I much prefer myth, myself.
                > > >
                > >
                > > Religion is associable with symmetric thinking and that with a realm of rich
                > > "myths to live by" (J. Campbell).
                > > Symmetric thinking elicits such as stereotyping and a favouring of
                > > qualitative, primitive emotion-riddled, perspectives that lack the
                > > development of refined logic (asymmetry-focused); symmetric logic is limited
                > > to the bi-conditional (if and only if) and so lacking in precision.
                > >
                > > Such texts as the ancient Chinese I Ching reflect the attempts to describe
                > > sensations through use of analogy/metaphor through ties to the
                > > histories/legends/myths of the times. Closer scrutiny of such systems as
                > > covered in the IDM work, shows the underlying neurology at work in seeding
                > > such specialist perspectives and so the ability to deconstruct and
                > > reconstruct such systems to a level where they can in fact work - but not in
                > > the mumbo-jumbo format presented in the original work (IOW the
                > > reconstruction shows that the belief in some form of 'divination' was
                > > grounded in some fact but facts not understood at the time of the original
                > > development).
                > >
                > > What my book does is tie emotional assessments of any situation to a
                > > yang/yin form of representation - this possible since all of these
                > > specialist perspectives have their foundations in classes of meaning defined
                > > at the neurological level. It is this isomorphism that allows for all
                > > languages to work (the I Ching, from my studies, being an example of a
                > > primitive language, a 'language of the vague', as is [primary emotion (our
                > > intuitive side - secondary emotion, OTOH, is dependent on the definition of
                > > our sense self to operate)
                > >
                > > The book is now available in hardback and paperback format (although on
                > > Amazon at the moment only the paperback is available, for the hardback go to
                > > the storefront - http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=3688701 )
                > >
                > > The ability to map fight/flight dynamics to yang/yin dynamics, even if
                > > vague, brings out the foundations of meaning in patterns in our neurology
                > > and as such reduce the amount of prose usually required to describe things
                > > once the patterns are understood ;-) At the same time, by understanding the
                > > patterns one can quickly grasp complex prose since all prose will cover the
                > > identified patterns - anything outside of those patterns will be interpreted
                > > from within those patterns and appear as if paradox.
                > >
                > > Thus existentialist perspectives will rely on those patterns to enable
                > > 'resonance' in meaning for those trained with the existentialist language.
                > > Thus "Being and Time" for example is reducible to attempts to describe the
                > > universals of meaning that seed all thought, as is all philosophy, but with
                > > a particular style of expression that customises the set of POSSIBLE
                > > meanings to fit the local context (Heidegger and his readings at the time of
                > > writing where such included his ignorance of the neurology at work ;-)).
                > >
                > > The isomorphism of all perspectives allows, for example, for a 'quantum
                > > mechanical' analysis of "Being and Time" etc etc!
                > >
                > > Chris
                > >
                >
              • chris lofting
                ... No. the coverage is total and covers sequences and magnitudes, the serial and the parallel, the doing and the being, the precise and the approximate, the
                Message 7 of 21 , May 30, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                  > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 7:14 PM
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Chris,
                  > >
                  > > You completely miss the point of what I was saying. When
                  > the story begins is not relevant. This is a philosophical
                  > list, and you have not the least idea how to philosophise.
                  > Everything you write is about time, and ontical existence
                  > lived in time.
                  >

                  No. the coverage is total and covers sequences and magnitudes, the serial
                  and the parallel, the doing and the being, the precise and the approximate,
                  the quantitative and the qualitative. The focus on language brings out the
                  ONE set of classes of meanings used in all contexts and as such identifying
                  the generic determinism of meaning within which local context dynamics
                  elicit particular novelty.

                  Without consideration of sequencing we have a symmetric form that lacks
                  direction and is sterile and approximate - goes with symmetric thinking.

                  > A further clarification. There are many ways to
                  > philosophise, and, to the best of my knowledge, some forms of
                  > philosophy would indeed concentrate solely on ontical
                  > existence. Chris Lofting is, however, not engaged in any
                  > kind of philosophy. I made the critique I did because he
                  > refers to Heidegger, whose work is rooted in experience of
                  > the primordial. He [CL] is weaving patterns in quite
                  > different territory, the scientistic. With an orientation
                  > that is not existential but therapeutic. As though life were
                  > a disease.

                  Not at all. The Emotional I Ching is a particular example of the IDM work
                  where the focus is on the roots of meaning regardless of orientation. Change
                  the fight/flight dichotomy to, say, being/time and the SAME patterns will
                  emerge but now coloured with terms covering, for example, Heidegger's
                  perspectives on Being, being, and our social aspects.

                  Most philosophy, given the current work in neurosciences, becomes
                  marginalised in that the speculations of philosophy have been developed in a
                  context ignorant of our workings at the basic level of meaning
                  derivation/processing.

                  IF one does not consider the neurological when focusing on philosophy then
                  one's time is up - go and play bingo or golf or something since one is past
                  one's best-before/use-by date. Simple. Heidegger's perspectives were mostly
                  'wind' in his attempts to describe basics that he had no knowledge of
                  directly (as we do, if but vaguely, now). The verbosity of the prose is like
                  that of the ancients in their attempts to describe basics through
                  analogies/metaphors to/of past history/legend/myth.

                  In this context attempts to describe, for example, E=MC^2 are only possible
                  through pages and pages of prose and film etc in trying to explain the
                  equation to those ignorant of basic physics etc. (and even the popular form
                  of the equation is in fact an approximation, leaving out such as the vacuum
                  constant etc) A problem with those who lack education is in the need to dumb
                  things down for them to achieve some form of understanding. The problem
                  there is that what has been dumbed-down is not presented as such, it is
                  presented as if 'the facts' and so believed as such with the imaginative
                  consequences that come out of the mouths of those lacking precise
                  understanding.

                  Simply put, your out of date Louise, a flat-earther trying to maintain a
                  perspective superseded by investigations of 'in here' and 'out there' -
                  investigations that need to be considered in any school of philosophy,
                  existentialism included - ESPECIALLY so with the focus on living.

                  Chris.
                • louise
                  No, Chris, there are many ways of being up-to-date. I m a believer in pluralism. What you are doing is cannibalising work whose inner meaning is hidden from
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 30, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    No, Chris, there are many ways of being up-to-date. I'm a believer in pluralism. What you are doing is cannibalising work whose inner meaning is hidden from you. I can live with that, actually. Louise

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                    > > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 7:14 PM
                    > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                    > >
                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Chris,
                    > > >
                    > > > You completely miss the point of what I was saying. When
                    > > the story begins is not relevant. This is a philosophical
                    > > list, and you have not the least idea how to philosophise.
                    > > Everything you write is about time, and ontical existence
                    > > lived in time.
                    > >
                    >
                    > No. the coverage is total and covers sequences and magnitudes, the serial
                    > and the parallel, the doing and the being, the precise and the approximate,
                    > the quantitative and the qualitative. The focus on language brings out the
                    > ONE set of classes of meanings used in all contexts and as such identifying
                    > the generic determinism of meaning within which local context dynamics
                    > elicit particular novelty.
                    >
                    > Without consideration of sequencing we have a symmetric form that lacks
                    > direction and is sterile and approximate - goes with symmetric thinking.
                    >
                    > > A further clarification. There are many ways to
                    > > philosophise, and, to the best of my knowledge, some forms of
                    > > philosophy would indeed concentrate solely on ontical
                    > > existence. Chris Lofting is, however, not engaged in any
                    > > kind of philosophy. I made the critique I did because he
                    > > refers to Heidegger, whose work is rooted in experience of
                    > > the primordial. He [CL] is weaving patterns in quite
                    > > different territory, the scientistic. With an orientation
                    > > that is not existential but therapeutic. As though life were
                    > > a disease.
                    >
                    > Not at all. The Emotional I Ching is a particular example of the IDM work
                    > where the focus is on the roots of meaning regardless of orientation. Change
                    > the fight/flight dichotomy to, say, being/time and the SAME patterns will
                    > emerge but now coloured with terms covering, for example, Heidegger's
                    > perspectives on Being, being, and our social aspects.
                    >
                    > Most philosophy, given the current work in neurosciences, becomes
                    > marginalised in that the speculations of philosophy have been developed in a
                    > context ignorant of our workings at the basic level of meaning
                    > derivation/processing.
                    >
                    > IF one does not consider the neurological when focusing on philosophy then
                    > one's time is up - go and play bingo or golf or something since one is past
                    > one's best-before/use-by date. Simple. Heidegger's perspectives were mostly
                    > 'wind' in his attempts to describe basics that he had no knowledge of
                    > directly (as we do, if but vaguely, now). The verbosity of the prose is like
                    > that of the ancients in their attempts to describe basics through
                    > analogies/metaphors to/of past history/legend/myth.
                    >
                    > In this context attempts to describe, for example, E=MC^2 are only possible
                    > through pages and pages of prose and film etc in trying to explain the
                    > equation to those ignorant of basic physics etc. (and even the popular form
                    > of the equation is in fact an approximation, leaving out such as the vacuum
                    > constant etc) A problem with those who lack education is in the need to dumb
                    > things down for them to achieve some form of understanding. The problem
                    > there is that what has been dumbed-down is not presented as such, it is
                    > presented as if 'the facts' and so believed as such with the imaginative
                    > consequences that come out of the mouths of those lacking precise
                    > understanding.
                    >
                    > Simply put, your out of date Louise, a flat-earther trying to maintain a
                    > perspective superseded by investigations of 'in here' and 'out there' -
                    > investigations that need to be considered in any school of philosophy,
                    > existentialism included - ESPECIALLY so with the focus on living.
                    >
                    > Chris.
                    >
                  • chris lofting
                    ... A statement that validates the assessment of your thinking being symmetric - but that does not appear to be the case re religious pluralism ;-) Symmetric
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 30, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                      > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 8:50 PM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                      >
                      > No, Chris, there are many ways of being up-to-date. I'm a
                      > believer in pluralism.

                      A statement that validates the assessment of your thinking being symmetric -
                      but that does not appear to be the case re religious pluralism ;-)

                      Symmetric thinking is a realm we can equate with aspectualism - lots of
                      variations of the one theme, lots of metaphors and so of interchangability
                      of metaphors, the core nature of post-modernism being 'any metaphor will do'
                      ;-) This also gets into a grounding in suffering and depression where the
                      overindulgence in aspectual analysis, reflecting difficulties in identifying
                      something explicitly and so prone to 'beating around the bush' in attempts
                      to flush-out identity, means a loss in direction (or more so, no direction,
                      just lots of emotional highs and lows), an over-dependency on relationships
                      to form identity and so a fear in loss of such, presented as depression.

                      The problem with symmetric thinking is this lack of clear direction - the
                      symmetric is all spatial and so grounded in a play with emotional highs and
                      lows, sensory colourings etc and so all working within the one, vague, box.
                      A closed system. There is a struggle in that the closed system means a play
                      with topology and so only able to distort the whole, never break it. But the
                      core properties of consciousness are not like that. The mediation dynamics
                      of consciousness allow for symmetry breaking as well as making. With the
                      development of consciousness emerges an increase in a unique perspective
                      that is local in focus and areligious (although it can be concentrated into
                      narcissism and so a religion of 'one'! - as such we head into the realm of
                      psychoticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoticism - and so being
                      'disagreeable' - competitive over cooperative.)

                      To escape the symmetric you need to surrender your faith in a 'god' etc., or
                      perhaps concentrate such into a faith in yourself, to trust yourself over
                      all else and so draw-in the 'all is connected' property of symmetry where
                      such is extended to cover the universe to apply within your boundaries and
                      so consolidate faith in yourself. This can mean a more competitive style of
                      living but there is the concept that experienced reality is the consequence
                      of treating everything as waves and reality is the constructive/destructive
                      interference patterns that come with the interactions of waves.

                      Of note is the benefits of speed and cocaine in exaggerating this focus on
                      self but also the issues of this exaggeration raising things to a level of
                      paranoia and psychosis! (this then gets into fundamentalism, charismatics,
                      etc and the surrendering of any pluralist perspective for the benefits of a
                      sense of direction, single-mindedness, no prisoners ;-)) At the other end of
                      the drug spectrum is ecstasy where the initial, aspects-attracted,
                      cooperative high crashes to severe depression due to the over-stimulation of
                      serotonin release such that there are no reserves available immediately and
                      depression sets in until more of the neuromodulator is recycled/made.

                      As for cannibalising, no. More so pruning, removing all of chaff from the
                      wheat.

                      Chris.
                    • louise
                      Chris, You present what appears to be a narcissist s charter. Not only do you take concepts from existential philosophy to misapply in scientistic guise, but
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 30, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Chris,

                        You present what appears to be a narcissist's charter. Not only do you take concepts from existential philosophy to misapply in scientistic guise, but appear to give advice on the basis of an implicit socio-political agenda which excludes a sceptical awareness of the other, that is, of the difference and specificity of the other. All you see are different variants of yourself. I'm familiar with this phenomenon myself. It requires to be transcended. Or not.
                        Without subjectivity, there is no freedom worth the name. My own subjectivity rejects the application of your suggestions to my living.

                        Louise

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                        > > Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 8:50 PM
                        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                        > >
                        > > No, Chris, there are many ways of being up-to-date. I'm a
                        > > believer in pluralism.
                        >
                        > A statement that validates the assessment of your thinking being symmetric -
                        > but that does not appear to be the case re religious pluralism ;-)
                        >
                        > Symmetric thinking is a realm we can equate with aspectualism - lots of
                        > variations of the one theme, lots of metaphors and so of interchangability
                        > of metaphors, the core nature of post-modernism being 'any metaphor will do'
                        > ;-) This also gets into a grounding in suffering and depression where the
                        > overindulgence in aspectual analysis, reflecting difficulties in identifying
                        > something explicitly and so prone to 'beating around the bush' in attempts
                        > to flush-out identity, means a loss in direction (or more so, no direction,
                        > just lots of emotional highs and lows), an over-dependency on relationships
                        > to form identity and so a fear in loss of such, presented as depression.
                        >
                        > The problem with symmetric thinking is this lack of clear direction - the
                        > symmetric is all spatial and so grounded in a play with emotional highs and
                        > lows, sensory colourings etc and so all working within the one, vague, box.
                        > A closed system. There is a struggle in that the closed system means a play
                        > with topology and so only able to distort the whole, never break it. But the
                        > core properties of consciousness are not like that. The mediation dynamics
                        > of consciousness allow for symmetry breaking as well as making. With the
                        > development of consciousness emerges an increase in a unique perspective
                        > that is local in focus and areligious (although it can be concentrated into
                        > narcissism and so a religion of 'one'! - as such we head into the realm of
                        > psychoticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoticism - and so being
                        > 'disagreeable' - competitive over cooperative.)
                        >
                        > To escape the symmetric you need to surrender your faith in a 'god' etc., or
                        > perhaps concentrate such into a faith in yourself, to trust yourself over
                        > all else and so draw-in the 'all is connected' property of symmetry where
                        > such is extended to cover the universe to apply within your boundaries and
                        > so consolidate faith in yourself. This can mean a more competitive style of
                        > living but there is the concept that experienced reality is the consequence
                        > of treating everything as waves and reality is the constructive/destructive
                        > interference patterns that come with the interactions of waves.
                        >
                        > Of note is the benefits of speed and cocaine in exaggerating this focus on
                        > self but also the issues of this exaggeration raising things to a level of
                        > paranoia and psychosis! (this then gets into fundamentalism, charismatics,
                        > etc and the surrendering of any pluralist perspective for the benefits of a
                        > sense of direction, single-mindedness, no prisoners ;-)) At the other end of
                        > the drug spectrum is ecstasy where the initial, aspects-attracted,
                        > cooperative high crashes to severe depression due to the over-stimulation of
                        > serotonin release such that there are no reserves available immediately and
                        > depression sets in until more of the neuromodulator is recycled/made.
                        >
                        > As for cannibalising, no. More so pruning, removing all of chaff from the
                        > wheat.
                        >
                        > Chris.
                        >
                      • chris lofting
                        ... All you see are ... No. Each of us as a unique conscious being are not repeatable (and so replicable - all DNA cloning etc does is give you spare
                        Message 11 of 21 , May 30, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                          > Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2009 3:55 AM
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                          >
                          <snip> All you see are
                          > different variants of yourself.

                          No. Each of us as a unique conscious being are not repeatable (and so
                          replicable - all DNA cloning etc does is give you spare parts, not a
                          replication of mind). However, as species members we will fall into classes
                          of behaviour that reflect collective specialisations . These are picked-up
                          the various typologies used to map generic 'sameness'. That data is then
                          used to 'guide' the presentation of material to each person for purchase etc
                          (advertising etc)

                          > I'm familiar with this
                          > phenomenon myself. It requires to be transcended. Or not.
                          > Without subjectivity, there is no freedom worth the name. My
                          > own subjectivity rejects the application of your suggestions
                          > to my living.
                          >

                          The advantage of unique being is in increasing the bandwidth of the species
                          in processing of information - as such it allows for a particular insight to
                          change the mindset of the species over night - or at least attract a
                          particular 'type' to that mindset and so form specialist groups (such as
                          existentialists ;-)) - we can trace such back to warning cries where one
                          does not have to see what is being warned-about, the cry makes the herd turn
                          and run and so a single/partial source of information can direct the
                          movement of the whole.

                          Chris.
                        • louise
                          Chris, Your writing returns to its strange comic charm. Here the conversation must end for me. May those who take you seriously derive some benefit from your
                          Message 12 of 21 , May 31, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Chris,

                            Your writing returns to its strange comic charm. Here the conversation must end for me. May those who take you seriously derive some benefit from your work. As for myself, I need to provide that explanation to the list I recently promised. Hoping that members here will excuse me if in the meantime I do not respond to any enquiries directed my way. Mental stability is difficult to maintain. I apologise again for ill effects this may have on anyone who reads. If an explanation for the unbelievable might have been provided earlier, I should have been glad to oblige. The fact is, that anger impedes much of my good intent.

                            Louise

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
                            > > Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2009 3:55 AM
                            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Subject: [existlist]Re:existenialism, Reaching back to 245
                            > >
                            > <snip> All you see are
                            > > different variants of yourself.
                            >
                            > No. Each of us as a unique conscious being are not repeatable (and so
                            > replicable - all DNA cloning etc does is give you spare parts, not a
                            > replication of mind). However, as species members we will fall into classes
                            > of behaviour that reflect collective specialisations . These are picked-up
                            > the various typologies used to map generic 'sameness'. That data is then
                            > used to 'guide' the presentation of material to each person for purchase etc
                            > (advertising etc)
                            >
                            > > I'm familiar with this
                            > > phenomenon myself. It requires to be transcended. Or not.
                            > > Without subjectivity, there is no freedom worth the name. My
                            > > own subjectivity rejects the application of your suggestions
                            > > to my living.
                            > >
                            >
                            > The advantage of unique being is in increasing the bandwidth of the species
                            > in processing of information - as such it allows for a particular insight to
                            > change the mindset of the species over night - or at least attract a
                            > particular 'type' to that mindset and so form specialist groups (such as
                            > existentialists ;-)) - we can trace such back to warning cries where one
                            > does not have to see what is being warned-about, the cry makes the herd turn
                            > and run and so a single/partial source of information can direct the
                            > movement of the whole.
                            >
                            > Chris.
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.