RE: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> Alexander Povolotsky
> Sent: Saturday, 19 March 2005 10:26 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge
> ?
>
>
> Folks,
>
> This discussion clearly turned "itself" into one more trivial
> "battle" between "materialism" and "subjective idealism" (Chris,
> Rob). Differences between those two philosophical views are
> "irreconcilable" ...
They are when you look behind the expressions and into the possible meanings
derivable from differentiating/integrating ;-) - they are in fact parts of
the same 'thing' ;-)
A common 'problem' with conscious individuals is that due to the sense of
awareness so they think their consciousness is 'the whole' - unware that
there is a lot that goes on unconsciously - they work as such from the
particular unaware of the development from the general. It is not their
fault - the development of our species has spaned hundreds of thousands of
years and most of that in ignorance of 'in here' ;-) With the development
consciousness has come this notion its 'independence' from speciesness -
wrong. It is a PART of the speciesness and there is a LOT under the hood
that has not been taken into consideration re understanding our nature in
toto.
As the development of our species moves into consciousness and mediation so
it gets into issues of exchange and we move into a competitive context - and
with that differentiating focus so there is an emphasis on pushing things
away to assert self - and this covers ideas etc. - the differentiating, the
XOR activity, is precise due to its 'competitive' nature but is also
fragmenting and so makes us blind to the integration 'beneath' our
expressions.
As such, the idealist/materialist dichotomy emerges in the realm of exchange
as 'competitive', +1/-1, guassian distributions dominate. If we turn down
the energy we find that this competitiveness is but a LEVEL of a hierarchy
that maps the idealist as coming out of the materialist - YANG comes out of
YIN, aristocratic out of egalitarian - we get into discovering a spectrum
mapping the local to the universal, and so the organic by vague to the
mechanistic but crisp.
If you focus on small world network development you will find that work in
that area is in fact uncovering this 'duality' as more of a development
process akin to the manner in which a catapillar 'walks'.
As such the GROUP is undifferentiated, aka totally integrated. Out of that
group comes 'something', an energy expression, be it of a charismatic
individual or an idea - with its establishment so it 'attracts' the rest,
either as followers or as competitors or as copiers; IOW we see the
'aristocratic' emerge from the 'egalitarian'. the dynamics, the competitive,
manner of the aristocratic cannnot break free of the egalitarian, in fact it
attracts, becomes dependent, until swamped by 'little aristocrats' ;-) ---
and so a dynamic develops moving from egalitarian to aristocratic to
egalitarian etc etc but beneath this particular expression is a general an
underlying focus on moving towards the universal.
For more on the dynamics see my section on history in my draft "Language of
the Vague" - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf
> such battle already goes on for centuries
> and it can not be obviously "resolved" "once and forever" within
> this list -
Through IDM it can be thoroughly analysed and understood better - with all
variations mapped simply by recursing idealism/materialism ;-) THAT can be
VERY productive in that we gain insight into something we have been ignorant
of - the full spectrum of our being.
Chris.