Optimality Requires "self" In Order To Exist.

[Legion]

By Judith Rosen

 

We are alive-- each of us, independently of one another. And, because we are alive, we each have our own self-based values for fundamentals like health and optimality. That's the difference between organisms and ecosystems. I recently had a discussion with someone about the lack of a value for optimality in "Nature", generally. Nature doesn't care about individual living organisms or whole populations or even entire species. Nature doesn't care about ecosystems, either. There's no malice but no protective concern. It just "is". I think that malice depends on life-- on anticipation-- and arises with a certain level of capacity of mind-- with imagination. It involves not only an ability to recognize what is sub-optimal for another organism, but an ability to form an intention-- to choose to pursue a sub-optimal outcome on another organism's behalf. To inflict that sub-optimal outcome on the organism, deliberately, not because one needs to in order to survive, but because one CAN. That's malice. That's how evil arises.

 

 

Each organism, as an anticipatory system, has those internally derived values for self, for health, and for optimality-- and for each organism, optimality is in fact determined and measured according to the other two values. An environment which has no living organisms as components behaves differently than an environment which does have organisms and relations between organisms, etc, as components. The difference is that each organism is interacting with everything according to it's models. The models are those filters I was speaking of earlier. It would be impossible to predict any organism's behavior without taking into account its models-- without knowing how it evaluates optimality. So, if we want OUR models of ecosystems to be accurate at all, we have to incorporate information of this type into them.

 

 

I think that the fundamental "self" models of organisms are the same thing as an ego. Ego is what defines self and health, and thereby optimality. The problem that arises in human affairs, in my view, is that the mind is similarly an anticipatory system. It is to some degree independent of the body in how it defines self, health, and optimality. It is capable of imagination, which involves a further, peculiar detachment from "reality" (in particular, the reality of actual environment and "real time"). Therefore, the values within the mind can become deformed, in some sense, and there is not a direct interaction to correct it the way there is for our somatic "self". Our intellectual/mental self can become inflated beyond all reality and THAT is what is dangerous. Equally dangerous (from my point of view), however, would be to entirely "kill off" one's sense of self. Even to try is not helpful, in my opinion. What is required is balance. Seeing that "self" is both an independent living organism as well as a component in multiple other systems upon which all living organisms alive now currently depend. Seeing that there are relations between the two that are similarly crucial... these simultaneous memberships are all required and must be sustained and maintained. THAT'S what humanity needs to work on, I think.

[Antlerman]

By Judith Rosen

 

<snip>

 

I think that the fundamental "self" models of organisms are the same thing as an ego. Ego is what defines self and health, and thereby optimality. The problem that arises in human affairs, in my view, is that the mind is similarly an anticipatory system. It is to some degree independent of the body in how it defines self, health, and optimality. It is capable of imagination, which involves a further, peculiar detachment from "reality" (in particular, the reality of actual environment and "real time"). Therefore, the values within the mind can become deformed, in some sense, and there is not a direct interaction to correct it the way there is for our somatic "self". Our intellectual/mental self can become inflated beyond all reality and THAT is what is dangerous. Equally dangerous (from my point of view), however, would be to entirely "kill off" one's sense of self. Even to try is not helpful, in my opinion. What is required is balance. Seeing that "self" is both an independent living organism as well as a component in multiple other systems upon which all living organisms alive now currently depend. Seeing that there are relations between the two that are similarly crucial... these simultaneous memberships are all required and must be sustained and maintained. THAT'S what humanity needs to work on, I think.

When I read this I think, 'close, but still smoking the reductionists cigar'.

 

When I read this, "Ego is what defines self and health, and thereby optimality," I question what school of thought it is that is defining ego this way. Psychoanalytical theory? Are we to say that the squirrel in my tree has an ego then? Does an infant have a defined ego? No. They do very much however have a self-sense. They are aware of their existence, have a sense of self, even if it it somatic, even if it is instinctual. The ego is what arises as the self-sense differentiates from it's environment and places its self-sense into this wrapper of individual distinctiveness: "My name is Billy! I'm five years old, and I have friends at school! My daddy is a butcher! I have fun toys!". All those things are elements of Billy's world that he amasses as part of his new way of self-identifying as "Billy". When Billy grows up he continues with the ego identification, "My name is Billy. I'm a CEO of a major corporation and have large house and an Escalade, and am a member in good standing in my church". (None of these of course are who he really is - only what he identifies self with in his particular stage of self-awareness - objects associated with his particular individual sphere or interaction).

 

Ego is not what defines self, as self is also experienced purely sensorimotor, preogic way. Rather ego is a self-image which is gradually evolved through childhood development in humans into which the self identification moves to, from the sensory motor stage. The child under two is largely undifferentiated from the world. There is no ego yet, but it is quite well aware of its own needs, as any parent would attest to.

 

It is capable of imagination, which involves a further, peculiar detachment from "reality" (in particular, the reality of actual environment and "real time").

I somewhat shudder at the underlying view that may be suggesting there somehow is an 'objective' reality that we are out of sync with. I would suggest that our imagination is itself very much a part of influencing and shaping that 'realty' and the fact that our mind arises from it, it in fact is directly part of the very processes of it. Such dualism that somehow imagines us as 'not-that', creates an detachment from 'reality' itself that can never be overcome understanding it in those terms. Reality that does not include all of everything will always be outside "us", therefore at best an illusion.

 

Therefore, the values within the mind can become deformed, in some sense, and there is not a direct interaction to correct it the way there is for our somatic "self"

This is an interesting speculation. Again, reductionist in the sense that it sees that mind is in need of some external authority of 'facts' - in her case the somatic truth. The physical is what is real. The physical can be trusted. Again I continue to come back to this mindset inherited in the West that somehow needs things to have 'facts', in some sort of carry-over of Christian Orthodoxy.

 

There is interplay between the mental and the material, and the mental is as natural to the universe as any form is. The difference is, it's not a physical sphere that is much simpler to study and analyze and predict. It is the mental sphere, which operates with it's own set of interactions 'above' the physical - not 'free' from them, but not determined by them either.

 

Our intellectual/mental self can become inflated beyond all reality and THAT is what is dangerous.

I would agree with this as well pointed at those that imagine they can or should gut humans and reduced them to predictable models! That is in fact quite dangerous to humanity, IMHO.

 

The immaterial does not need be supernatural you know. I have yet to be able to examine an idea under and electron microscope. Goodness, it's our imagination that has created us!!

 

I'll stop there as that's enough examples.

[Antlerman]

Alright, forgive my shortness last night. I shouldn't post when I was tired right before bed. This below which she said does help somewhat...

 

Equally dangerous (from my point of view), however, would be to entirely "kill off" one's sense of self.

I would agree very much with this, as a strictly reductionist/materialist view can do this.

 

Even to try is not helpful, in my opinion. What is required is balance. Seeing that "self" is both an independent living organism as well as a component in multiple other systems upon which all living organisms alive now currently depend. Seeing that there are relations between the two that are similarly crucial... these simultaneous memberships are all required and must be sustained and maintained. THAT'S what humanity needs to work on, I think.

I agree. This is what I espouse. But in order to include that 'self' as part of it we must look at it with the proper tools - introspection. You cannot understand the nature of the individual by examining it objectively. At best you end up with a two-dimensional sketch. Integrating the self into an understanding of its interrelationship with the world is a best an intellectual understanding, and that does not translate into an experiential understanding.

 

Where I would add here is that experientially speaking we should never attempt to get rid of self through some philosophy that reduces it to a function of body, or through some religious ascetic practice of extreme self-denial. Rather that as much as we develop our understanding of the nature of the material world we develop our understanding of self in a subjective space. By understanding in a subjective sense I do not mean a rational understanding which is to look at something objectively, but understand it experientially. The more we understand the nature of 'being' in our 'beingness' the more it interacts with our intellectual models of the objective world. The greater the whole experience, the deeper the intellectual knowledge, the higher the state of experience, etc.

 

Self should never be denied or minimized, but neither should it be objectified, which in effect is doing those very things. To try to make the human scientifically predictive is to strip away 'self' or reduce it to a component of the machine, a feature.

 

When I speak of transcending self, it means that self-identification with the ego alone, i.e., "I am Billy. I have a wife and a kid, and a car and a house". As we integrate more of the world into the experience of our being, our self-sense begins to move beyond ego-identification, the ego reaches the end of "I am Billy" to "I am others", or higher still, "I am all that is", "I AM".

 

"Billy" then becomes a part of what we build our self-identification on top of, like having blond hair and green eyes. "My name is Billy", as opposed to "I am Billy". If our self-identity is tied to everything, than that is who we need to realize not with the mind alone, but with our being. Becoming that 'self' experientially. It's a two-fold path, if you will, that includes the subjective as subjective in relation to and with the objective, ultimately integrating and dissolving into pure identification as the universe itself.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The human sense of self comes from our means of trying to make sense of the world. Much like the whole agent-patient distinctions we make both mentally and linguistically (sometimes linguistically, that I know of, most indoeuropean languages don't, but english does sometimes and sumerian always does). These things evolve over time, because they help us to make sense of the world we live in, hence, they aid our survival.

 

So you can safely conclude that the "sense of self" we all have, is based in some objective reality, merely based on the fact that it helps us to get around and survive in that objective reality. Certainly you're sense of self can be inflated to the point where its dangerous, but that's another issue.

[Rev R]

um...what the hells is "optimality"?

[Legion]

As I sit down at my computer to write this I can feel the fatigue of the day in my body. I've been looking forward to this all day. I feel good. I think to myself, "Stay small. Don't become defensive. There's nothing to defend." I put on some music as I think of Buddha's discovery of the middle way and I hope it keeps me not too tight, not too loose. I imagine the eyes of those here on me. I ask myself, "What can I say that will bring honor and understanding to everyone here, including me?" "Do I have the wisdom for it?" "I hope this goes well."

 

45 minutes later...

 

Antlerman, I tried to respond to many of the things you said. It took me a while. But then I discarded all of it. I think it's going to require me a great deal of thought before I can say something useful to you with brevity. You've written a lot here and that will help I think.

 

Babylonian Dream, we seem to be mostly in agreement.

 

Rev, I think optimality is our "image" or model of what is good for us and what is not.

 

That was much shorter than I was expecting to write here. I feel vaguely disappointed, but that's okay. I still have A-man's response to think about.

[Legion]

A-man I thought about it a bit. My intuition has been wrong before and it may be wrong now, but this is what I feel/think...

 

I intend no disrespect. I think you have a good mind and maybe your style is just very different from mine. I don't know. I want to be open to learning things here. I really do. But I don't want it to be a one way street. I would prefer if you were also open to learning things here too. My impression may be wrong here, but I don't sense that you are. You seem to have the answers. You seem to be satisfied. I am not satisfied. My curiosity is still strong. I don't yet have the answers I'm looking for.

 

Maybe I should ask this... What are you curious about?

[Legion]

Something doesn't jibe here in my mind Galien.

 

At once you say... "one sided relationships and interactions, which cause me deep grief and disappointment" then... "I am who I am, and I am happy with that person."

 

Can you explain that for me?

[Legion]

But you seem to be proud of the fact that you love others even though you get screwed. That seems weird to me. Something's not right.

[Legion]

But you seem to be proud of the fact that you love others even though you get screwed. That seems weird to me. Something's not right.

 

Proud??? Proud....how much pride do you think is left in a person who gets constantly screwed over?? Sometimes I wonder what they teach you in the weird and wonderful US of A. There are concepts that exist outside your realm of experience, and outside of mine. Just because we haven't understood or experienced them does not mean they do not or cannot exist. My parents beat the pride out of me when I was small, my peers when I was at school, my husbands, churches, life in general. What possible use would I have for pride Legion?? Just because you cannot imagine a person without pride, does not mean there aren't any.

Are you angry here? It seems to me like you are angry.

 

I will say this to you but not to hurt you even though it will hurt. When you lose your mother and you sit there, knowing you have no control to save her, remember that feeling Legion. It is living in the world knowing that control is an illusion. When you have had everything taken from you over and over again, there is no place or need for it anymore. I still spend some days sobbing with sorrow for the world I live in, for the loss of the world that could be, if only we could see past the end of our own nose.

Uh, no this didn't hurt. And I don't believe control is an illusion. I have some small measure of self-control.

[Antlerman]

I overslept this morning so I don't have time for much of a responses. First I realized after I posted my initial response it came off rather abrasively. I apologize for that and recognize the important points that were being raised, and largely I agree with and appreciate them but feel they need to be taken one step further. I seem to chaff hard against reductionism (which of course is an indication of something internal in myself, that shadow self if you will), and in what I hear in this to a certain degree can be called a subtle reductionism. But dialog is more effective than rhetoric so I'll work to refrain from bearing claws like that. It's unfair to others.

 

What am I curious about? Mostly everything! To disclose the brilliance of existence in a fully realized life through an understanding that embraces and integrates everything. I do not feel like I have 'the answers' as that would halt expanding my understanding and it would become more a doctrinal belief system at that point, than a door to going the next step. I do however have certain areas I've looked at that I don't feel are valid conclusions. That said though, they can have truth in the points raised, even if I disagree with what conclusions someone thinks they indicate.

 

A related side point to this topic I feel to bring in response to Galien speaking of thinking of others before herself. I'm not so sure I would agree that being selfless translates into self denial. I agree with Judith's point about the importance of the self and its something I've said all along as well. It works like this: the ego-self begins to emerge in early childhood, and it is naturally ego-centric in its early stages. That is important, valid, and completely necessary for the child to gain a sense of self. As that happens and they continue to mature, that self includes an ever-widening range of others. The self-centeredness moves to include group-centeredness. Then in a fully developed ego it includes others beyond their immediate group (such as the Christian group in our past) and can include others in other groups as well. Development is a lessening of egocentric focus.

 

However, if someone in development never got to be selfish and for one reason or another put others ahead of themselves, they may never have fully gotten in touch with what they legitamately need to in order to widen that self-identity to include others. People cannot bypass that selfish stage. Selfishness is good and healthy for children, but its a 'bad word' in adult contexts because people who have matured should be beyond that stage in their interactions with other adults in a society. It's a 'bad word', in order for society to provoke someone to other adults to be self-aware of immature behaviors in their mature selves.

 

Some forms of therapy work to get an adult who has bypassed that necessary stage to give themselves permission to be selfish, in order to reclaim what they denied themselves. If someone doesn't think of themselves first and just becomes a doormat to others, they are in fact not being 'selfless' at all. They are a victim. We have to first fully love ourselves in order to fully love another. We cannot bypass the 'me' stage. "love others as yourself" has real meaning.

[Legion]

A-man, I've decided to switch gears with you. I am going to try and just ask you questions, and try to avoid reporting what I think/feel. Okay?

 

what I hear in this to a certain degree can be called a subtle reductionism.

What makes you think that?

 

What am I curious about? Mostly everything!

Do you ever feel like you might not have enough time to satisfy your curiosity?

[Antlerman]

A-man, I've decided to switch gears with you. I am going to try and just ask you questions, and try to avoid reporting what I think/feel. Okay?

Sounds good. I'll ask some questions as well and let's try to flesh this out.

 

what I hear in this to a certain degree can be called a subtle reductionism.

What makes you think that?

I'll start by asking you what do you consider reductionism, and what is it about that you find falling short, as I believe you have expressed before?

 

What am I curious about? Mostly everything!

Do you ever feel like you might not have enough time to satisfy your curiosity?

An interesting question. No, I don't feel that way. I feel I have found what is rewarding and complete for the given moment. I can never know everything, but I can know life in the now. As part of that, I'm not sure to express it, as a response to a love of it, to understand it is to celebrate it. It's not any longer a quest to find 'answers', or to understand in order to be satisfied.

 

It comes back to what I said before to something at the time you chided harshly against (and I understand it sounds like 'non-sense' from a certain mindset), but it comes to this:

"There is, in other words, an important distinction between Truth and forms of Truth. Radical Truth itself is formless, timeless, spaceless, changeless; its various forms, however, the various ideas, symbols, images, and thoughts we use to represent it, ceaselessly change and evolve. Radical Truth is timeless; its various forms exist in the world of time, and are subject to time's laws. Radical Truth is spaceless, whereas its various forms are space-bound, finite, and contingent. Radical Truth is not one condition among other conditions, but the very Condition of all conditions, the Nature of all natures, the suchness or thatness of isness of all phenomena and all forms, and is therefore not itself any particular phenomenon or form.

 

Now we can never know all the forms of Truth -- psychological truth, sociological truth, economic truth, biological truth, and so on. These forms ceaselessly advance and evolve, alter and complexify. And although we can never know all these forms of Truth, we can know Truth itself, or the absolute reality of which all these forms are but partial and approximate reflections. In other worlds although we can never know all the facts of existence, we can know the Fact of Existence which underlies and grounds all possible and relative facts, just as, once we know the ocean is wet, we know all waves are wet, even though we many never know each and every wave."

 

Ken Wilber, The Eye of Spirit, 473

 

I'm not looking for answers in some pursuit to ground me in some "objective reality", because frankly that's not possible for anyone. For me an unfolding understanding is like beautiful music to paint pictures of the ineffable that is all our ground. For me it enhances, not saves. Therefore, I can rest in that ineffable in my being, not in my rational knowledge.

[Deva]

By Judith Rosen

 

We are alive-- each of us, independently of one another. And, because we are alive, we each have our own self-based values for fundamentals like health and optimality. That's the difference between organisms and ecosystems. I recently had a discussion with someone about the lack of a value for optimality in "Nature", generally. Nature doesn't care about individual living organisms or whole populations or even entire species. Nature doesn't care about ecosystems, either. There's no malice but no protective concern. It just "is". I think that malice depends on life-- on anticipation-- and arises with a certain level of capacity of mind-- with imagination. It involves not only an ability to recognize what is sub-optimal for another organism, but an ability to form an intention-- to choose to pursue a sub-optimal outcome on another organism's behalf. To inflict that sub-optimal outcome on the organism, deliberately, not because one needs to in order to survive, but because one CAN. That's malice. That's how evil arises.

 

 

I think I can agree with this. We do not think of a lion as "evil" for killing an antelope although it is a very brutal end to the animals life - there are many other examples in nature. House cats are among the most vicious killers - toying with their helpless prey. Can malice be attributed even to those insects that use the bodies of other insects to lay their eggs in and then the larvae eat the insect when they hatch. Its hard to imagine anything more brutal, yet we have a hard time assigning moral values.

 

Yet if humans do such things to other humans we say its evil. And we feel its evil at a visceral level, especially if we know the victim personally.

 

 

Each organism, as an anticipatory system, has those internally derived values for self, for health, and for optimality-- and for each organism, optimality is in fact determined and measured according to the other two values. An environment which has no living organisms as components behaves differently than an environment which does have organisms and relations between organisms, etc, as components. The difference is that each organism is interacting with everything according to it's models. The models are those filters I was speaking of earlier. It would be impossible to predict any organism's behavior without taking into account its models-- without knowing how it evaluates optimality. So, if we want OUR models of ecosystems to be accurate at all, we have to incorporate information of this type into them.

 

This is not entirely clear to me. I am not sure values are entirely internally derived. I think she is using different language that I am not familiar with. I think that everything is filtered through the senses and what we actually experience is a small portion of what is really there. I am not sure entirely what is meant by "models" in the context used.

 

 

I think that the fundamental "self" models of organisms are the same thing as an ego. Ego is what defines self and health, and thereby optimality. The problem that arises in human affairs, in my view, is that the mind is similarly an anticipatory system. It is to some degree independent of the body in how it defines self, health, and optimality. It is capable of imagination, which involves a further, peculiar detachment from "reality" (in particular, the reality of actual environment and "real time"). Therefore, the values within the mind can become deformed, in some sense, and there is not a direct interaction to correct it the way there is for our somatic "self". Our intellectual/mental self can become inflated beyond all reality and THAT is what is dangerous. Equally dangerous (from my point of view), however, would be to entirely "kill off" one's sense of self. Even to try is not helpful, in my opinion. What is required is balance. Seeing that "self" is both an independent living organism as well as a component in multiple other systems upon which all living organisms alive now currently depend. Seeing that there are relations between the two that are similarly crucial... these simultaneous memberships are all required and must be sustained and maintained. THAT'S what humanity needs to work on, I think.

 

 

I think we are profoundly detached from "reality" most of the time, but due to habit and conditioning cannot realize it. We tend to relate everything that happens to the "self". I believe this is the survival instinct that kept us from going extinct as a species. Perhaps its our secret weapon! Of course the bad effects are obvious - selfishness, "me first" "my way or the highway" etc..(inflation)

 

It is impossible to "kill off" the self. All we can do is try to see things as they are, including this construct of the self, and that it is in fact a construct. I guess that is what she is saying.

 

I think that there is something else - something beyond the small "self" of the ego - you are much more than that, but here I am not speaking of "you" in the common sense of the ego and the personality. There is the whole interrelationship with everything that is. There are different words for it - "cosmic consciousness" is one term. The balance is fine but I think realization is the key. I mean realization at a deep level that you are not what you seem to be. I don't know how else to explain it, but mystics will understand.

[Legion]

I'll start by asking you what do you consider reductionism, and what is it about that you find falling short, as I believe you have expressed before?

Well, you've answered a question here with another question. I certainly hope that you will help me understand your view of reductionism after I explain mine. Okay?

 

Reductionism, as I am learning about it, is basically about a certain kind of understanding (model) of causality. Rosen (in private remarks relayed by his daughter Judith) intuitively captures the reductionist mindset by calling them "particle chasers". But in more rigorous language reductionism is characterized by a certain class of formalisms (mathematics) used to model the behavior of natural systems. And these are basically characterized by the use of state spaces and state transitions first employed by Newton and extended by others. These formalisms are limited by the fact that they will not permit or support closed loops of entailment. Some natural equivalents of these loops are often called "paradoxes" and some examples are "the chicken and the egg" and self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

What makes you believe Judith is being reductionistic?

 

Truth

Do you make a distinction between "truth" and "understanding"? If so, how?

[Guest Valk0010]

I have a hard time with such things, because I am still at I guess kindergarten level and thinking about how "self" related to nature and how nature flows to self in natural ways. I am referring to consciousness when I speak of self. The only thing I can say for sure is one can't exist without another "nature and self" I mean. I guess one could appeal to god in that area, but what would it solve, it would just be a stop gap.

[Antlerman]

I'll start by asking you what do you consider reductionism, and what is it about that you find falling short, as I believe you have expressed before?

Well, you've answered a question here with another question. I certainly hope that you will help me understand your view of reductionism after I explain mine. Okay?

 

Reductionism, as I am learning about it, is basically about a certain kind of understanding (model) of causality. Rosen (in private remarks relayed by his daughter Judith) intuitively captures the reductionist mindset by calling them "particle chasers". But in more rigorous language reductionism is characterized by a certain class of formalisms (mathematics) used to model the behavior of natural systems. And these are basically characterized by the use of state spaces and state transitions first employed by Newton and extended by others. These formalisms are limited by the fact that they will not permit or support closed loops of entailment. Some natural equivalents of these loops are often called "paradoxes" and some examples are "the chicken and the egg" and self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

What makes you believe Judith is being reductionistic?

"Particle chasers". That's good. Yes, reductionism is like atomism, that everything gets gutted out in trying to explain everything by the simplest form. Clearly those like Rosen in the complexity sciences, chaos theory, dynamic systems theory, etc can recognize that there are irreducible behaviors that arise as a result of interaction, interdependence, etc. But like atomism, or the 'particle chasers', systems theorists also reduce the world into an 'objective' understanding that excludes the subjective. It makes the world an "it" out there that if the mechanics can be analyzed sufficiently, in the case of complexity theories taking into account the emergent properties of dynamics of the systems, rather than imagining it's all contained in just the atom itself, then the world can be understood and even predicted. Instead of in the atom, it's in the nature of the systems. It remains an "it" outside the "I" or the "We".

 

Both reduce reality to the observable, objective, accessible by reason. What is the problem with that? Can you understand what it is to be an Eskimo by examining his society, language, or culture objectively? I'll let that be my question back to you. How do you understand what it is to be an Eskimo? What would be the proper approach? What then from that approach would be your walk-away understanding?

 

Truth

Do you make a distinction between "truth" and "understanding"? If so, how?

Words. Tricky little buggers. Our language really sucks actually. I make a distinction between knowing intellectually and knowing relationally. Same word, entirely different experience of knowing. Same with truth and understanding. Truth in the capital T sense of the word, trying to get the language beyond its limits, in the context above being used is not an intellectual or 'factual' truth, but a Truth in the sense of ultimate knowledge. It has nothing to do with getting the measurement of the speed of light down to the correct scale. It has everything to do with the nature of reasoning itself.

 

Questions for you: Do you believe an intellectual comprehension is of higher truth than an existential one? If so, then has the world been blind without the knowledge of the sciences? If not, then how does one discover a truth that doesn't come from empirical research? Is all truth empirical? And those that don't know 'facts' don't experience truth?

[Rev R]

Can you source this article please, Legion?

[Legion]

Antlerman, I intend no disrespect here, but I can't continue this with you. I feel like you're not answering my questions. I wish you the best in life. I hope your curiosity is satisfied.

 

Rev, this article was posted by Judith Rosen on the one of the Rosen mailing lists.

 

Deva, Valk, I may try to address your posts later. I'm glad you posted in here.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I intend no disrespect here, but I can't continue this with you. I feel like you're not answering my questions. I wish you the best in life. I hope your curiosity is satisfied.

 

Rev, this article was posted by Judith Rosen on the one of the Rosen mailing lists.

 

Deva, Valk, I may try to address your posts later. I'm glad you posted in here.

Really? Seriously? Maybe you could try rephrasing the questions to get to what you want to hear? It's an exchange of questions to create a discussion in the hope of fleshing out where we don't understand. What didn't I answer? To my knowledge I have been answering you to the point we are. I said in point, "But like atomism, or the 'particle chasers', systems theorists also reduce the world into an 'objective' understanding that excludes the subjective."

 

Let me give you some food for thought to hopefully provoke actual discussion: subjective causation and objective causation. Do you understand a difference? If you can't have a discussion with me about this topic, than who can you? I mean no offense, but really. It's not much of a discussion if its only all agreements. I actually do agree a great deal with it, but there are limits and flaws I see to think this approach will yield a full enough understanding of "life itself" to adequately answer the question.

[Legion]

What didn't I answer?

Let me go back and see if I missed it. Okay? I might have. My body is tired.

[Antlerman]

What didn't I answer?

Let me go back and see if I missed it. Okay? I might have. My body is tired.

OK, fair enough...

[Legion]

What makes you believe Judith is being reductionistic?

 

Do you make a distinction between "truth" and "understanding"? If so, how?

 

Maybe I am failing to see it Antlerman, but I did not detect an answer to these questions. I will be happy to try and answer your questions to me, but only upon the condition that you answer mine. Is that unreasonable?

[Antlerman]

What makes you believe Judith is being reductionistic?

 

Answer:

But like atomism, or the 'particle chasers', systems theorists also reduce the world into an 'objective' understanding that excludes the subjective. It makes the world an "it" out there that if the mechanics can be analyzed sufficiently, in the case of complexity theories taking into account the emergent properties of dynamics of the systems, rather than imagining it's all contained in just the atom itself, then the world can be understood and even predicted. Instead of in the atom, it's in the nature of the systems. It remains an "it" outside the "I" or the "We".

 

Do you make a distinction between "truth" and "understanding"? If so, how?

 

Answer:

I make a distinction between knowing intellectually and knowing relationally. Same word, entirely different experience of knowing. Same with truth and understanding.

 

Maybe I am failing to see it Antlerman, but I did not detect an answer to these questions.

I did answer and those are answers. What is it about the answer you don't understand?

 

I was asking some questions in addition to this to help explain what I mean. Perhaps that would help, such as looking at the difference between subjective causality and objective causality. It's reductionist in the sense it looks at everything as reduced to the systems of nature, that everything can be accounted for in "third-person, monological it language".

 

I will be happy to try and answer your questions to me, but only upon the condition that you answer mine. Is that unreasonable?

Certainly. If you need me to clarify my answers I gave I can, but I do believe answering my question about, "How do you understand what it is to be an Eskimo? What would be the proper approach? What then from that approach would be your walk-away understanding?", would help to explain my point. As Hannibal Lecter said, "Quid Pro Quo."

[Guest Valk0010]

Paraphrasing Richard Dawkins I believe, he said something to the effect of that consciousness as we know it today and self, evolved into what we know of it today because we kept evolving even though progressively we didn't need to just simply survive. So we got what amount to being a thing we didn't need to survive, but became useful. That is probably a real crappy paraphrase but anyway on to my point.

 

What if self is just a random occurrence of our biology we attach meaning to because we simply exist, and that we are allowed to by design control, so we can respond to outside environment and survive?