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

Elemental_Existential_Elemental

Expand Messages
  • William
    As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the phyla,
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a relatively short time to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation issued in existentialism.
      I think most here agree that each individual is a unique and uncopied entity.
      This process took billions of years and for the short span of a human life is lived out.
      Death ends the existential phase, the living phase and begins a process of reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental can be of varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the reduction is practically instantaneous. In the case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun will complete the transition for all of us.
      So it is Elemental to Existential to Elemental for all of us.
      Once, back at the elemental,. evolution could begin again and a new sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process appears rare but we do not know how long this cosmos will last and therefore we have little idea how many times elements might cycle through life and back to the elemental. Yet we can identify this cycle. We can see the sentient being is individual and finite. Through this identification of cycle we can join our emerging science to our evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
    • Mary
      Bill, The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you can t normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a normalization which contradicts individuality.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
        >
        > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a relatively short time to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation issued in existentialism.
        > I think most here agree that each individual is a unique and uncopied entity.
        > This process took billions of years and for the short span of a human life is lived out.
        > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase and begins a process of reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental can be of varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the reduction is practically instantaneous. In the case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun will complete the transition for all of us.
        > So it is Elemental to Existential to Elemental for all of us.
        > Once, back at the elemental,. evolution could begin again and a new sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process appears rare but we do not know how long this cosmos will last and therefore we have little idea how many times elements might cycle through life and back to the elemental. Yet we can identify this cycle. We can see the sentient being is individual and finite. Through this identification of cycle we can join our emerging science to our evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
        >
      • Mary
        I suppose another perhaps better way to say this is that standardization of knowledge allows for the non-standard to influence and change it. The normalization
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 26, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I suppose another perhaps better way to say this is that standardization of knowledge allows for the non-standard to influence and change it. The normalization of experience isn't possible and attempts to control it fail because experiences aren't simultaneous or equal. Consider moral imperatives for instance which are an attempt at external control of the individual. Standardized knowledge imposes this same control on experience when interpreting individual experience. Rare are the individuals able to experience and interpret independent of their cultures. The domains of knowledge and experience may overlap but it's their split which drives further knowledge.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
          >
          > Bill,
          >
          > The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a normalization which contradicts individuality.
          >
          > Mary
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
          > >
          > > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a relatively short time to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation issued in existentialism.
          > > I think most here agree that each individual is a unique and uncopied entity.
          > > This process took billions of years and for the short span of a human life is lived out.
          > > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase and begins a process of reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental can be of varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the reduction is practically instantaneous. In the case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun will complete the transition for all of us.
          > > So it is Elemental to Existential to Elemental for all of us.
          > > Once, back at the elemental,. evolution could begin again and a new sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process appears rare but we do not know how long this cosmos will last and therefore we have little idea how many times elements might cycle through life and back to the elemental. Yet we can identify this cycle. We can see the sentient being is individual and finite. Through this identification of cycle we can join our emerging science to our evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
          > >
          >
        • William
          ... The obfuscation attempts used to discredit global warming took the form of polling. Poll the scientists and they will tell us. Most were not
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bill,
            >
            > The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a normalization which contradicts individuality.
            >
            > Mary
            >Mary, I do not know what normalising knowledge means. Now if you say validate knowledge I might agree. I know science can change but the big theories seem to survive and thrive. The emergent concept of global warming was a attempt to normalise knowledge. The theory was political in its construction and the opposite political group used psychological, and selling techniques to not normalise but neutralise the scientific data. Now very few talk about it as any truth about the matter are buried under hugh amounts of competing data.
            The obfuscation attempts used to discredit global warming took the form of polling. Poll the scientists and they will tell us. Most were not climatoligists or even cosmologists. Just have a count of the heads and then we will have a winner. That is not science. Longitudinal studies can be scewed by when you begin and end a cycle. The coal and gas proponents have piled study on study that present data in opposition to Al Gore`s group. Al Gore is a politician who started this debate with a political agenda. Not withstanding he says he invented the internet, Gore is not a scientist and obviously not the best politician as he lost the White House.
            If you want unproven thought, altered consciousness states, hallucinations, poems and song lyrics to be included in proven theory then you have a garbage pile of conjecture. I will remain with the great proven theories of science and rudly exclude the rest . I know the elements are sound in theory. I know evolution is sound , I know relative cosmology is solid and those sort of theories my post relies upon.The only existential theory I used was Decartes opening gambit. It seems sound to me but is not a counting or expermentally proven theory. It is philosophy spoken by a mathamatician. That seems a good place to jump from science to philosophy. Thats what I think and I am. Bill
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
            > >
            > > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a relatively short time to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation issued in existentialism.
            > > I think most here agree that each individual is a unique and uncopied entity.
            > > This process took billions of years and for the short span of a human life is lived out.
            > > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase and begins a process of reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental can be of varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the reduction is practically instantaneous. In the case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun will complete the transition for all of us.
            > > So it is Elemental to Existential to Elemental for all of us.
            > > Once, back at the elemental,. evolution could begin again and a new sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process appears rare but we do not know how long this cosmos will last and therefore we have little idea how many times elements might cycle through life and back to the elemental. Yet we can identify this cycle. We can see the sentient being is individual and finite. Through this identification of cycle we can join our emerging science to our evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
            > >
            >
          • Mary
            Bill, I agree there s a problem with politicizing science, but it s no worse than power using science and/or religion to control society panoptically. Science
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 26, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Bill,

              I agree there's a problem with politicizing science, but it's no worse than power using science and/or religion to control society panoptically. Science is internal as well as external to living.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Bill,
              > >
              > > The problem with science is that its nature is to normalize knowledge, but you can't normalize experience. If experience is constrained by knowledge, an unfortunate limitation is imposed on both. Our need to normalize should be tempered with speculative reason as much as with skepticism. We needn't feel affront at differences in identity, only wary if some attempt to impose a normalization which contradicts individuality.
              > >
              > > Mary
              > >Mary, I do not know what normalising knowledge means. Now if you say validate knowledge I might agree. I know science can change but the big theories seem to survive and thrive. The emergent concept of global warming was a attempt to normalise knowledge. The theory was political in its construction and the opposite political group used psychological, and selling techniques to not normalise but neutralise the scientific data. Now very few talk about it as any truth about the matter are buried under hugh amounts of competing data.
              > The obfuscation attempts used to discredit global warming took the form of polling. Poll the scientists and they will tell us. Most were not climatoligists or even cosmologists. Just have a count of the heads and then we will have a winner. That is not science. Longitudinal studies can be scewed by when you begin and end a cycle. The coal and gas proponents have piled study on study that present data in opposition to Al Gore`s group. Al Gore is a politician who started this debate with a political agenda. Not withstanding he says he invented the internet, Gore is not a scientist and obviously not the best politician as he lost the White House.
              > If you want unproven thought, altered consciousness states, hallucinations, poems and song lyrics to be included in proven theory then you have a garbage pile of conjecture. I will remain with the great proven theories of science and rudly exclude the rest . I know the elements are sound in theory. I know evolution is sound , I know relative cosmology is solid and those sort of theories my post relies upon.The only existential theory I used was Decartes opening gambit. It seems sound to me but is not a counting or expermentally proven theory. It is philosophy spoken by a mathamatician. That seems a good place to jump from science to philosophy. Thats what I think and I am. Bill
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > As we have explored the cosmos, so far, we have found no other life.It appears life evolved here ,slowly , building up from the elemental, through the phyla, to the human. It took eons of evolution to get to Homo Sapiens and then a relatively short time to postulate "I think,therefore I am". That realisation issued in existentialism.
              > > > I think most here agree that each individual is a unique and uncopied entity.
              > > > This process took billions of years and for the short span of a human life is lived out.
              > > > Death ends the existential phase, the living phase and begins a process of reduction back to the elemental. The reduction back to the elemental can be of varing time span. In a nuclear explosion the reduction is practically instantaneous. In the case of the Ice man found in the alps, the reduction is incomplete for better than five thousand years. The red giant phase of our sun will complete the transition for all of us.
              > > > So it is Elemental to Existential to Elemental for all of us.
              > > > Once, back at the elemental,. evolution could begin again and a new sentient species might evolve . From what we have seen of the cosmos the process appears rare but we do not know how long this cosmos will last and therefore we have little idea how many times elements might cycle through life and back to the elemental. Yet we can identify this cycle. We can see the sentient being is individual and finite. Through this identification of cycle we can join our emerging science to our evolving existentialism and gain a knowledge of our situation in the cosmos. Bill
              > > >
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.