Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:35:06 -0500
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: complexity chaos - Philosophy of Reality


Eric/All,

This message is a return to our conversation and my message of 2/03/04, which makes it very long.
I will list, briefly, a philosophical basis for thoughts you questioned, and expand on it in a aubsequent message.

Philosophy of reality.

I.  Scientific reality and natural law.
II.  Political and Economic Institutions
III  Community and Self
IV Religion, Ideology and Aesthics
V. Nature's Intelligence and Human Intelligence. 


Hugh

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: hbone 
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:57 PM
  Subject: Re: complexity chaos





    Eric,

    I'll comment on your remarks, beginning with "body", "self", "mind", and "abstraction" then going to your complete message below where my comments
    are marked **.

    Bateson, Derrida, Lyotard denied "self" as a result of the then-popular fad of "deconstruction",  

    Deconstruction, in my understanding, is a method and manner of speaking,  describing, in copious detail, the influences that make a human organism the physical and mental "being" it "self-perceives".

    That statement attributes meaning to the word "deconstruction", by referring to
    human acts that made the word part of language.


    Abstractions can be names for groups:  a flock, a covey, a pride.   When such a group is seen, heard, pointed out, it is particular and real, not an abstraction.  By analogy, there are "chairs", or concretely, "a chair".

    I could say:  "Deconstruction" caused Bateson et. al. to each perceive his 
    respective brain/body/mind as interrelated transforms devoid of "self".

    The abstract term, "deconstruction", I imagine as comprising all the words, texts, utterances, thoughts, on deconstruction that ever were in the "minds" of Bates and others who preceded him, as well as those who lived after he wrote.  

    Bateson, et. al. deny their selfhood, but let's grant them bodies and minds, individual life-histories, communication with parents, families, friends, colleagues, communities.   Assume their lives and memories contain all they have read, seen, heard, done, communicated, prior to the instant of writing.  Each wrote from a life-history of particular experience.  Much of that experience can be recollected - much is beyond recall.  What we know most certainly is what we personally experience.


    When a recognized philosopher writes today:  "Deconstruction near the end
    of the 20th century freed humanity from the mistaken notion of  "self",
     s/he attributes agency to an abstraction.

    On the other hand, the writings of Bateson, inevitably result from personal
    experience, and he has convinced you that  self and selves do not
    exist, and you value and believe his assertion as "true".

    If  I studied the Bateson writngs you have studied, I would value the particular experience he offered, and,
    (1) believe or dis-believe what he has written.
    (2) would have more confidence in what he wrote than I have in
    (3) a statement:  that :  "deconstruction destroyed the self".

    In that statement, "deconstruction" is reification of all instances of all the thoughts and writings of all the philosophers who have embraced the idea symbolized by the word

    Of course, like other humans, Bateson might be insincere, deliberately lying, honestly mistaken etc.  
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Eric wrote,

    > Hugh,
    >
    > Sorry about the last posting. I was in a hurry and sent it out without
    > proofreading it.  I'm surprised you could even understand it.
    >
    > When I mentioned contemporary biology, I was referring to the fact that
    > science is no longer speaking of a living brain acting in isolation,

    **When you are alone and thinking your brain is acting in isolation.

    > as you  are doing. It tends to speak of immanent mind embedded with the
    > reflexive circuitry of an environment.  

    **Yes.  Without support of  body/organs, food, space, air, warmth, no life, no mind, no thought.   A dictionary meaning of immanent is  "a mental act, solely within the mind", although I think the word is often used with religious or spiritual connotations, a "feeling" that God in you human minds with or without their 
    desire or knowledge.
      
     > Even though his theories are fairly dated now, Gregory Bateson is still
    > very good on this topic. He points out that when we talk about a man
    > chopping down a tree, we are referring to a total system of
    > tree-eyes-brain-muscles-act-stroke-tree.  As Bateson points out, "what
    > is transmitted around the circuit is transforms of differences...a
    > difference which makes a difference is an idea or unit of information.
    > But this is not how the average Occidental man sees the event sequence
    > of tree felling. HE says, "I cut down the tree" and he even believes
    > that there is a delimited agent, the "self" which performed a delimited
    > "purposive" action upon a delimited object."
    **Some Occidentals still alive have chopped down trees, some have performed a purposive action by exploring a delimited object known as the "Moon".  Others remotely direct cameras which send images of Mars to Earth.  Speak of these interactions of organism with environment as a Batesonian, Derridean or Lyotardian in terms you borrow from Bates.  I think the events did and do happen, and find the language of Bates, adds complexity without necessity.  

    I ask the question you asked me:  What value, if any, do you see in such descriptions, how would you interpret them within the framework of your philosophy?  

    I sense a hint to replace old-fashioned "selves" with auras, presences, rappings and tappings, mystic, ethereal non-human emanations, transformations, origins of "thought".

     Where are the turbanned madames, "mediums" of yore, the Ouija boards, the be-whiskered prophets on steles?   
      
    > By insisting upon a reductionist view that locates everything in a
    > living brain

    **Everything is not in living brains, but thoughts are.  The words you read
    were in my brain and are now in yours.  Thoughts are represented as artifacts on this screen, become "real" when sensed  by humans who have learned to read
    the words.

    > and refusing to recognize abstraction, I think your theory
    > has much in common with what Bateson is calling the typical Occidental
    > view. This view makes it difficult to perceive the new kind of
    > biological view Bateson is endorsing.

    **We live in a world of objects and transforms.  The body processes,
    circulation, respiration, digestion, etc. are a life-time of transforms that reach
    consciousness as pleasure, when needs are fulfilled, or pain when organs are injured, diseased, or malfunction.

    Consciousness is awareness of the contents of our "minds", i.e.
    self-awareness is life,  no awareness is sleep, coma, death.

    > Interpreting an organism as transforms of difference acting upon a
    > system shares much in common with Derrida's difference, Lyotard's
    > differend, and Deleuze virtual differences.
    >
    > As I understand your theory, you seem to implicitly refuse these
    > concepts because you see them as abstractions and seem to favor instead,
    > the older view of humanity as embedded in the agency of living brains.

    **Human brains, human intelligence, operates with perceptions of objects, information, transforms, differences, discrimination, acceptance, rejection.
    "Humanity" as species-intelligence is not the same as "humanity" as ethics.
    If either kind of humanity is not embedded in living brains, where does it exist?

    Disembodied thoughts, do not hover outside bodies like gnats in the dark seeking bodies to bite.

    > My question to you is this. What value, if any, do you see in such
    > concepts and how would you interpret them within the framework of the
    > philosophical system you are proposing?

    **I am not proposing a philosophical system.  I am merely pointing to
    the living, self-perceiving organism and its brain, as the site of consciousness, imagination, judgement, the receiver of sense data,  the communicator of concepts.

    regards,
    Hugh






--- 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
---