From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:32:58 EDT Subject: Ouzo or Ousia? Thoughts in a Greek Fish & Chip Shop. Fish and Chips. Leaving aside the mention of 'existence,' which to me is an abstraction which doesn't exist, and believing as I do that only existents like these chips lying in their newspaper winding-cloth bathed in sodium and vinegar, exist - not the existence of the existents, I must point out that I was never under the misapprehension that Heisenberg was proposing a chaotic universe, but rather drawing attention to the way in which certain philosophers of a transcendentalist leaning seized upon Heisenberg's conclusions and have attempted to use them as an argument against the scientific explanation of the primacy of the naturalness and explicability of the physical laws of nature, as opposed to a creationist stance whereby some superior individual [depending on the particular religion] is held responsible as a prime mover. I don't see the connection between Heisenberg's principle and "chaos." 'Chaos' and for that matter 'order' are also anthropocentric concepts, which for me are in the same categories as 'Being' and 'Essence' and 'Properties' and 'Nothing' and much else of the transcendentalist trumpery we inherited from certain Greeks. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is anthropocentric -- claiming that WE cannot know both a subatomic particle's location and momentum at the same TIME. It says nothing about the nature of the universe, only the nature of how WE can or cannot know the universe through observation -- that is, it speaks to the nature, and the limits, of the human mind. Hitherto I had assumed, because of the various graphical representations of the phenomena, that the haphazard behaviour of the electrons was a fact of actuality, and when the particles are fired from the nozzle of the electron-gun it is impossible to predict which way they will fly because of the existential perverseness in the behaviour of the electrons, not the cognitive inadequacy as an existential modality of US in our observational role. I have always rejected the religious notion of 'matter' being created out of nothing, [ex nihilo.] I must point out however that as to such an existent being classified as 'belonging' to a certain 'type,' that these are anthropocentric categorisations, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual existent - which simply exists in the way it exists. In other words it is only a thing of a particular type for us, and not for itself or for something else. When I say that 'fortuitousness, indefiniteness, and randomness at the quantum level is merely a reflection of what goes on at the macro-level,' I do not mean that the trillions upon trillions of atoms that constitute our Gesamtsumme [total sum] are specifically involved or actually affect in an interventionist manner either communally or individually the chance occurrences of a macro object, [say a human being,] but rather that behavioural perturbation appears to happen and be mirrored at all entitic levels, from the entities that inhabit the micro world of quantum physics, through the medium sized [on the human index of such things] objects that we interact with on a human scale, right up to the titanic world of huge stars and constellations and galaxies. The so-called free radicals or reactive species of oxygen, nitrogen or chlorine. Superoxide, hydroxyl ions, hydrogen peroxide, and nitric oxide are examples of free radicals. These are atoms or molecules with an unpaired electron. Free radicals are naturally occurring and an important part of biological functions such as immunity, inflammation, growth and repair. Free radicals can have negative effects when they damage proteins, lipids and nucleic acids. They are normally held in balance in biological systems by antioxidant defence mechanisms. Environmental insults, infections, smoking, radiation and sunlight can also cause the formation of free radicals. Is not the aberrant behaviour of such particles at the sub atomic level and their deleterious effect on body cells an extension of their effects into or upon the macrocosm of which they form a part, for the diffusion of their effect upon the entity of which they are members of the composite is certainly observable as a breast tumour or some such malignant neoplasm? The very term 'free radicals' suggests a species of particle that does not observe the common rules of the majority, although it may well be observing the rules of its own molecular gooseberry-on-a-date kind as it goes about the human body seeking an electronic partner and wreaking all kinds of damage in the process. Do you think perhaps that free radicals are part of the mechanism of change, of progression, of degradation, of modification? If such things are the result of purposeful planning is 'God' to be blamed for planning the cancer that Mother Teresa rejoiced in? I am prompted to ask what are our purposes here on this list? Surely the pursuit of knowledge? Why should a consideration of Heisenberg's notions or any other physicist or scientist be excluded from our discussions of philosophy - particularly the ontological aspects of what exists - why diid '312589' speak so disparagingly of science? If the transcendentalists persist in dragging in the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty every time the naturalist mentions the physical laws of nature, what are we to answer? If we respond by saying that the philosophical implications of such principles of physics to philosophy are really foolishly applied will they not accuse us of sidestepping the issue? What if we countered by saying that the philosophical implications of such principles of unfounded faith or religion or 'soul' or devil worship or whatever are really foolishly applied to philosophy? For me 'Being, Existence, Presence, Chaos, Identity, Property, Essence, are meaningless universalistic articulations - acceptable as convenient terms in the bar-room or the bus queue, but completely risible idealisms not to be taken seriously during philosophical discussion. On a list devoted to theology or flying saucers yes. In my book the only things that exist are the things that are things - objects that cast a shadow so to speak, the entities that exist, and that which is present. That is not to say that I refuse to discuss such old fashioned concepts as quaint, interesting historical remnants for purposes of entertainment and relaxation, for it is only by understanding such transcendentalisms that one can understand the metaphysical notions that lead people to crash aircraft into buildings full of people, Protestants to shoot Catholics by the hundreds in Northern Ireland and vice versa, for idealistic Nazis to gas, shoot and burn six million people, and for idealistic Communists to send millions to a freezing death in Siberia because their transcendental views of individual politics happen not to coincide with the transcendental faith of the Communists in the overarching superiority of the state.. For me 'ideas' and the so-called 'mind' and so-called 'consciousness' or the 'self' are simply activities of the brain-meat, existential modalities of the embodied brain. There is no: 'realm of ideas' or 'mind or 'consciousness' but rather a specialised form of behaviour of those existent cells buried in the brain-meat which we call neurons. Varieties of the 'self' are included by some in an non-conscious world, e.g. the computer that is in most cars these days is aware of the engine and the state of many of its 'responsibilities' e.g. engine speed, temperature etc., but there is no 'self' of the computer and there never will be, no matter how far computers are improved. Richard Dawkins was ALMOST there when he said in The Selfish Gene: 'Consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.' Personally I don't believe that consciousness exists but only 'that which is conscious' - it is not the 'dancing' that exists - but the dancer. Therefore I would re-jig Dawkins' apophthegm thus: 'That which is conscious becomes conscious when the body-brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.' To transcend is to move apart from the ordinary range of human experience or the activity of understanding, beyond, above and outside of the banausic range of human participation in a body-brain event or neuronal understanding. Part of the ordinary range of human experience or understanding is the activity of thinking, and the word 'thought' is an abstract way that we refer to this mode of the brain-meat which we call the 'thinking mode.' The brain-meat cannot 'transcend' its own existential modalities, any more than a so-called 'soul' can rise to heaven upon the death of its earthy 'host.' The word 'essence' is a 'cop-out' word that merely allows the user to avoid facing some ontological difficulty squarely. It simply means the 'isnesses' of an entity, the indispensable quality or element identifying a thing or determining its character; fundamental nature or inherent characteristics. [[Middle English via Old French from Latin essentia, from esse 'be'] It can easily be seen that the quality or element identifying a thing or determining its character; fundamental nature or inherent characteristics is only indispensable to US as the determiners, the characterisers, the qualifiers, and the identifiers and has absolutely zilch connected to the entity undergoing such anthropocentric attribution. Being a green frog rather than a white frog is not some 'property' of 'greenness' that 'belongs' to the frog, but simply one of the ways [existential modes] in which the frog exists or its particular particles are associated in the composition of its Gesamtsumme. A green frog certainly exists - but the essence of 'greenness' no more exists than the property' of 'baldness' exists as part of the 'essence' of the bald man. The green frog - Yes. The Bald man - Yes! 'Greenness and Baldness - No! The ideating man - Yes! Ideas - No! For the record, I do not hold that our brain activity of thinking is linear but rather reticulate. There are certain brain processes [processes = ways of existential behaviour] which force linear or analogue brain activity when one is thinking logically, but even then the neuronal network is casting around the nets of cognitve entanglement to encompass elements of lateral thinking to reinforce or supervene upon the one track mind. I believe, that the existential modality of the embodied-brain - embrained-body is undoubtedly NOT linear in its operational mode, but on the contrary weblike, having accessible cognitive interstices resembling a reticulum does not as far as I can see prove the existence of some higher dimension, but merely the totally understandable bifurcate model which can be seen in basic biology? Please elaborate I am intrigued as to why reticulation = the transendental? How do we 'see' these 'intangible' soul-like isnesses? And what has 'morality got to do with it? Are folk who do not accept the existence of these old fashioned concepts of 'soul' and essences' etc., mmoral or in need of some 'moral guidance' from those who believe such things? And who or what 'purposed us to be 'governed' by such weird notions. Surely an acorn is not 'purposed' to be an oak IT IS AN OAK in its early existential stage. Why on earth do we need a concept of 'purpose' to comment upon the developmental stages in the growth of an oak tree? It is subjected to the same laws of physics that we were addressing earlier. Existing as what we humans [the English-speaking ones] call an 'oak tree' is simply the form that that particular entity has developed as being suitable in order to take advantage of the available niche or vacancy in the natural environment of certain areas of the world. I don't see where 'purpose' enters into it at all? Do you think that somewhere, perhaps in the sky, whirling around like the 'forms' of Plato's fantasies - tumbling around like the pack of playing cards in the court scene from 'Alice in Wonderland' there are 'plans' for 'oaks trees' or 'fruit flies'? Reesa: It is easy to understand that the rules by which we see the necessity of the truths in physical reality (if I stick my hand in fire I am burned,) are reflected in the transcendent realm as well, though beyond any measure we can discern. Perhaps there is a transcendental fire into which I can put my hand to make me see these potty 'truths?' I know that in the past religionists were very fond of forcing peoples' hands and often their whole bodies into the flames to make them believe such antiquated ideas and dangerous anti-human notions. Most Heideggerian notions are notions of faith rather than philosophy and cannot be defined, and I fail to see why it [the ideas] should be automatically elevated to some sort of 'moral imperative' rather than caste as simply ideas which are beyond explanation in the English [or any] language. As the English language is said to be [amongst others] one of the most descriptive forms of communication, and adverbially and adjectivally one of the richest languages in the world, then it seems to me that it is the fault of the addressor's ideas, which are at fault - not the language of the addressees. Cheers, Jud. <A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A> Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY. <A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- This message may have contained attachments which were removed. Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005