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

Re: the monstrosity of thought

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , May 4, 2010
      --- 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.