EricS/DaveW
Meanwhile, the program of living, including all its events of
choosing, is not contained within the formal system. Alongside the
formal system, the program of living as it is realized is yet-another
thing in the world, of a different kind.
This is downright poetic.
It echoes Schweitzer's "I am life that wills to live, in the midst of
life that wills to live." which I tend to generalize to "Life is that
which wills to live amongst that which wills to live".
And Schopenhauer's "Life is a language in which certain truths are
conveyed to us; if we could learn them in some other way, we should not
live." Many things you reference related to language reminds me of
Schopenhauer's proto-thoughts from another era in his "The World as Will
and Representation"
I appreciated your acknowledgement of DaveWs willingness ability to
articulate-in/defer-to an analytic language or stylization of expression
while holding true to his inner experience which is of a different
kind. (as I understood it). I attribute "effing the ineffable" to
him, though that may be my projection. I find it brilliant.
In this split between the ultra-rational and the mystic I am more an
agnostic than anything, not convinced of either having primacy but
rather finding them both persuasive in their own domains and useful even
to myself as I wander between them or walk a fine line just one side or
the other noticing the other-other as phantasms dancing just beyond some
veil. Perhaps having my corpus callosum split would help me return to
the naive but perhaps more natural state implied by Julian Jayne's
"Bicameral Mind" concept (recently re-introduced here by Jochen, tyvm).
I can't say that the meta-cognitive dissonance the co-munnication causes
me much distress but I suspect that it is a source of a lot of my
correspondents disconcert with some of my method/madness seeming
conflations? Let the muddle proceed...
In a sociospiritual domain, what you say about "choice" resonates with
my own experience of probability vs possibility. Life is that which
seeks to exploit probabilities to explore possibilities more efficiently
(amongst other systems following the same program)?
this is getting deep and layered as it always does when I attempt to
/eff the ineffable/ ... but the central theme of emergence appears to be
the generalization of this?
Glen, if he has been able to wade this deep in my mumbled musings, has
tried (I believe) to raise something like this when he has railed
against (or merely questioned) the use of the term "levels" to talk (I
think) about emergence? it is all tied in with the semiotics of
affordances as well? Guerin has endured this question from me before...
Mumble,
- Steve
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
