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

the monstrosity of thought

Expand Messages
  • ian malloy
    With all do respect, I believe the dualistic position we find ourselves in is a result of the language we employ to discuss such phenomenon as what we perceive
    Message 1 of 7 , May 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      With all do respect, I believe the dualistic position we find ourselves in is a result of the language we employ to discuss such phenomenon as what we perceive and experience.  It is possible to formulate theorems explaining explicitly how our consciousness can be reduced, and it is possible to formulate theorems describing relationships that prevent science from being able to explain consciousness; however, with the formal system that I've created to analyze consciousness the argument for reduction is much stronger, though I was able to 'prove' both cases.  This leads me to conclude that it is an issue of language, and not actual representation.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Welcome, Ian. I think the fundamental problem we have with phenomena is distance which makes things seem separate. Mary
      Message 2 of 7 , May 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Welcome, Ian. I think the fundamental problem we have with phenomena is distance which makes things seem separate. Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ian malloy <ijmalloy@...> wrote:
        >
        > With all do respect, I believe the dualistic position we find ourselves in is a result of the language we employ to discuss such phenomenon as what we perceive and experience.  It is possible to formulate theorems explaining explicitly how our consciousness can be reduced, and it is possible to formulate theorems describing relationships that prevent science from being able to explain consciousness; however, with the formal system that I've created to analyze consciousness the argument for reduction is much stronger, though I was able to 'prove' both cases.  This leads me to conclude that it is an issue of language, and not actual representation.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • tom
        Mary and all, As I understand it, we all start our lives experiencing life as a unity, with the mother at the center of this unity. I suspect that such
        Message 3 of 7 , May 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Mary and all,

          As I understand it, we all start our lives experiencing life as a unity, with the mother at the center of this unity. I suspect that such experience was the essence of Goddess worshiping cultures, and the symbol of the Christ child represents the experience of the infant experiencing life as unity. As the child moves from the oral to the anal stage, he or she begins to experience life as consisting of seperate persons and things, some of which are perceived as predators, and others are perceived as game for the family and tribe.So certainly, this is one factor in the usual adult experience of experiencing multiplicity.

          I also believe that since the ability to reason was probably the most recent option added to the earlier version of the more primal humanoid, that like many options it still has many bugs in it. As humans have evolved economically, and thought has become more and more the dominant function, I'd guess that the older functions of sensing, feeling, and intuition have become more dwarfed in more advanced cultures. The fact that people with aboriginal genetic makeup and culture are disproportionately represented among sports' stars is to a large extent caused by the fact that such people are more likely to have more developed sensory motor mechanisms that give them the edge in sports, as it gave advantages in living a more aboriginal existence.

          Again Mary, my best wishes on your new paradigms generated by your study of Boem.It certainly appears to be something that appeals to your reason, your imagination, and your heart.

          Peace,
          Tom
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Mary
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 10:02 AM
          Subject: [existlist] Re: the monstrosity of thought



          Welcome, Ian. I think the fundamental problem we have with phenomena is distance which makes things seem separate. Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ian malloy <ijmalloy@...> wrote:
          >
          > With all do respect, I believe the dualistic position we find ourselves in is a result of the language we employ to discuss such phenomenon as what we perceive and experience. It is possible to formulate theorems explaining explicitly how our consciousness can be reduced, and it is possible to formulate theorems describing relationships that prevent science from being able to explain consciousness; however, with the formal system that I've created to analyze consciousness the argument for reduction is much stronger, though I was able to 'prove' both cases. This leads me to conclude that it is an issue of language, and not actual representation.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mary
          Thank you, Tom. I m finding the path to new paradigm leads to the paradigm-less :) Mary ... Again Mary, my best wishes on your new paradigms generated by your
          Message 4 of 7 , May 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you, Tom. I'm finding the path to new paradigm leads to the paradigm-less :) Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:

            Again Mary, my best wishes on your new paradigms generated by your study of
            Boem.It certainly appears to be something that appeals to your reason, your
            imagination, and your heart.
          • William
            ... Now I think we know where we came from and certainly who we are. Where we are going remains a mystery but the possibilities are beginning to sort
            Message 5 of 7 , May 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              >
              > Thank you, Tom. I'm finding the path to new paradigm leads to the paradigm-less :) Mary
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
              >
              > Again Mary, my best wishes on your new paradigms generated by your study of
              > Boem.It certainly appears to be something that appeals to your reason, your
              > imagination, and your heart.
              >Mary, I have been into Steven Hawkings . There is progrees there as more is now understood about the matter/antimatter annihilation and the expansion of the remaining matter just after the big bang. Hawkings,himself is most interesting as he is little more than a brain and eyes hooked to a computer. He is a cyborg and is considered by many to be the smartest man alive. If you studied him you might be able to answer some of your questions about thought itself. A man so totally reliant on technology for communication could be seen as a model for our future. Remember Eduard thought that was where we are going. Hawkings may be a most accomplished leader of that direction.
              Now I think we know where we came from and certainly who we are. Where we are going remains a mystery but the possibilities are beginning to sort themselves out. The idea that the speed of light speed limit was exceeded in the first micro secounds of the big bang gives us a perspective on nothingness. You can go faster than the speed of light when you expand into nothingness. It appears in the expansion in the big bang that happned. The worm hole options are very tenuous and so here in this cosmos we have a speed limit. We still have no transport beyond this galaxy but by learning to live in space we might find refuge in other galactic star systems. Bill
            • Mary
              Bill and all, I m very excited and optimistic that information communication is beginning to dominate both science and human relationships. For me it doesn t
              Message 6 of 7 , May 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill and all,

                I'm very excited and optimistic that information communication is beginning to dominate both science and human relationships. For me it doesn't portend machine-like humans as much as it points to a common link between human perception and discovering the fabric of reality. Following in the steps of Einstein's rich imagination, physicists like Susskind and Hawking continue to test quantum theory and their work is pointing to a holographic principle. Their work for me intersects with Bohm's focus on thought and perception (consciousness) in this respect: they understand complementarity in an apparently finite system. What's left wide open is the depth of communication of information. I expect that at some juncture in the near future people, other than physicists, will be faced with such a dearth of valuable knowledge, they will seek information which reveals their connections throughout the cosmos. Primal cultures are/were satisfied with theirs, but `ours' is hopelessly more complicated by religious and philosophical traditions stretching back several millenia.

                Einstein's dissatisfaction with non-locality is being answered or gradually fulfilled, not only by physicists but ironically, by a common drive among humans to weave themselves into the fabric of reality. When we realize that every drop of blood shed through ignorance, hatred, or greed is both significant and insignificant, we may feel free enough to realize we already sit on both sides of the event horizon of a black hole. Most of us who do philosophy are afraid of what happens if we go beyond good and evil, but open-minded physicists understand we're already there. Einstein, understandably reluctant, sent us down the rabbit hole, but quantum physicists who are working with holographic principle are still in that endless tumble. I like peeking in, because I haven't the intellectual wherewithal to endure more than a split second of understanding. However, when the structures and processes represented by our abstracts begin to better match the holographic reality, amazing things will happen for those fortunate enough to have survived misinformation along the way. Thinking will integrate with perception, and we will perceive, as many have already suggested, that each point of our holographic universe contains the whole of it. If existentialism has any challenge, it's this: how does such a comprehension affect any of existentialism's traditional tenets?

                Mary
              • William
                ... Now I think existentialism was slow on the uptake of the huge accomplishments of science in cosmology, genetics, nuclear and quantum science. Especially
                Message 7 of 7 , May 4, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Bill and all,
                  >
                  > I'm very excited and optimistic that information communication is beginning to dominate both science and human relationships. For me it doesn't portend machine-like humans as much as it points to a common link between human perception and discovering the fabric of reality. Following in the steps of Einstein's rich imagination, physicists like Susskind and Hawking continue to test quantum theory and their work is pointing to a holographic principle. Their work for me intersects with Bohm's focus on thought and perception (consciousness) in this respect: they understand complementarity in an apparently finite system. What's left wide open is the depth of communication of information. I expect that at some juncture in the near future people, other than physicists, will be faced with such a dearth of valuable knowledge, they will seek information which reveals their connections throughout the cosmos. Primal cultures are/were satisfied with theirs, but `ours' is hopelessly more complicated by religious and philosophical traditions stretching back several millenia.
                  >
                  > Einstein's dissatisfaction with non-locality is being answered or gradually fulfilled, not only by physicists but ironically, by a common drive among humans to weave themselves into the fabric of reality. When we realize that every drop of blood shed through ignorance, hatred, or greed is both significant and insignificant, we may feel free enough to realize we already sit on both sides of the event horizon of a black hole. Most of us who do philosophy are afraid of what happens if we go beyond good and evil, but open-minded physicists understand we're already there. Einstein, understandably reluctant, sent us down the rabbit hole, but quantum physicists who are working with holographic principle are still in that endless tumble. I like peeking in, because I haven't the intellectual wherewithal to endure more than a split second of understanding. However, when the structures and processes represented by our abstracts begin to better match the holographic reality, amazing things will happen for those fortunate enough to have survived misinformation along the way. Thinking will integrate with perception, and we will perceive, as many have already suggested, that each point of our holographic universe contains the whole of it. If existentialism has any challenge, it's this: how does such a comprehension affect any of existentialism's traditional tenets?
                  >
                  > Mary
                  >Mary, I think it affects some of the philosophies root tenants in a positive way. Existentialism is often portrayed as an opponent of prior mystical philosophies but seldom as a sedgway into accepted science. As a non experimental philosophy of words existentialism had no direct ax to grind with the fact finding processes of science.
                  Now I think existentialism was slow on the uptake of the huge accomplishments of science in cosmology, genetics, nuclear and quantum science. Especially Eienstein and the rush of facts revealed by Hubble just blew by existentialism. Yet the philosophy was not blown away or obviated. it simply did not react as most of its found ers were old and did not understand the philosophical effects of all this change. But existentialism had birthed modernism and modernism freed science to move on and out.
                  I remember when the Bush religios tried to cancell Hubble. They hoped to put the genie back in the bottle but those pictures and their meaning put down a mystical god like a rabid dog. When the deep field pictures dated the big bang and the scriptures were discredated as rational basis for genesis even dumb fucks could understand the creation stories were flat out wrong.
                  When an ass end follower like Jim attempts to pull down ,slow the progress of science and modernism I push back. He wants to be the rule maker and he has no basis,no right to rule anyone but himself. He will end a frustrated follower who has not helped progress.
                  As you say it is very hard to understand quantum physics and cosmology at once. Hawkins speaks of time travel by flying around a black hole. Just try to picture that as you look back to where you came from and the black hole is just the same but backgrounded by completely different star fields. When you get back you are not in the same time as those you left. That sort of basic relativity is at face value irrational but Eienstein understood it and slowly,painfully I see how it works.
                  That the morals of priests and the rules they demand are out of step with modernism is the proof of both science and existentialism. We do not need obey any but those with a bigger club. That is certainly not a fairy footed pedophile who should, by democratic law, be in the joint.
                  I feel damn lucky to be on the right side of this centuries long fight. Science keeps pinging away with facts and we keep the gawd dogs barely at bey. I think it is important work and so I keep up the struggle even though at times it seems dated and lost. Bill
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.