maximize the asymmetry in agency which is achieved by strengthening one's own while weakening that of the opponent
for - adjacency - war - interbrain - self/other gestalt - dualism
maximize the asymmetry in agency which is achieved by strengthening one's own while weakening that of the opponent
for - adjacency - war - interbrain - self/other gestalt - dualism
James’s idea is that to identify a pure mental phenomenon without any physical attachments, or to identify a pure physical phenomenon without any mental references, is impossible. Just as all mental events refer, directly or obliquely, to a body, so all physical phenomena require an appeal to sentience or cognition if they are to be identified or known at all.
What Bohm perceived 40 years ago has since been magnified. To be freefrom the constraints of fragmentary worldviews, it is necessary to see how thelanguage we use, especially the father tongue, is deeply enmeshed with andexpressive of a fragmentary worldview
for - adjacency - question - Daivd Bohm - language - separation - dualism - question - is it at all possible to use language AND have a non fragmentary worldview? - If by fragmentary we mean dualistic, then I do not see how it is even possible.
Consider the consequences of remaining stuck using language that assumesand hence sustains a state of radical differentiation. Jung describes how thedevelopment of consciousness contributed to the corresponding radical dif-ferentiation within language:
for - quote - adjacency - Carl Jung - consciousness - language - dualism - loss of holism
Rosen emphasizes that, if Being surpasses the split between sub-ject and object (as brought out by phenomenology), we cannot meaningfullyexpress Being through a form of writing that implicitly enforces this split.
for - language - intrinsically dualistic - adjacency - Deep Humanity individual / collective gestalt - language's dualistic nature - adjacency - Rosen - language dualism
comment - Rosen points out the dualistic nature of language - Like individual living organisms, each word, like each individual organism, splits reality into an inner and an outer - Deep Humanity terminology of the individual / collective gestalt suggests that even though an individual is visibly separate from others, it is nonetheless connected to others invisibly in numerous ways - The visible individual is always only a part of the greater individual / collective gestalt - The individual / collective gestalt terminology applies equally to words as it does to living individuals
NO! You didn't get me because (changes Framing to another Framed and draws another arrow outside the bigger box, connecting to it) what's outside here still is… what is framing that? You cannot have this… You can't have it as a focal object. It is mysterious. It is phenomenologically mysterious. James pointed to this in a wonderful distinction between the I and the Me (I: Me).
for - adjacency - I-me relationship - William James - subject-object dualism - experience vs conceptualisation of experience - finger pointing to the moon - subject / I am phenomenologically mysterious - Indyweb annotation vs Innotation - object-of-study focal shift - definition - potential vs kinetic adjacencies
adjacency - between - I-me relationship - William James - subject-object dualism - the eye cannot see itself - self consciousness - experience vs conceptualisation of experience - Indyweb annotation vs Innotation - object-of-study focal shift - definition potential adjacencies - definition kinetic adjacencies - adjacency relationship - William James's I-me relationship is about the paradox of self consciousness - modern humans distinguish themselves through excelling in cognitive abilities - but what happens when we turn this cognitive abilities onto ourselves? - Self consciousness is what results - reasoning about the reasoner - Just as the eye cannot truly see itself, the reasoner who reasons about him/her self cannot really do so because the "I" is NOT really the same as the "me" - the subject is not the object, - the act of framing is not the frame - the qualia is NOT the same as the idea that represents the qualia - the moon is not the finger pointing to the moon - hence the I, the act of framing the subject is phenomenologically mysterious - In contrast, in indyweb, we can replace annotation with Innotation, an inline version of annotation - This is because of the recursive nature of learning of ideas - When we digest an idea, that has an externalised (re)presentation, and it triggers the emergence of a new idea, - We can capture the newly inspired idea a an inline Innotation instead of a side bar annotation. - The reason why we would do this is because this is more homeomorphic to how knowledge context switches its role - from an active new insight - to an existing cultural artefact / object that can be digested by another mind - The difference is the idea - as a spontaneous emergent, embodied, enactive real-time , LIVING experience, which then becomes, post experience, an idea that is - a DEAD cultural artefact that is ready to be digested and potentially evoke a new strong LIVING response in another consciousness - The idea as a linguistically constructed cultural artefact is DEAD - until it interacts with another consciousness, - and at such time, the cultural artefact can deliver upon itz intended promise and potential, and trigger a LIVING learned experience. - Innotation converts the once LIVING experience of the idea at the moment of birth / Inception to the form of existing, timebound knowledge test to do the same in the future, when new minds may stumble upon it - Learning from linguistic cultural artefacts is thus - the act of conversion of - potential adjacencies into - kinetic adjacencies
blah. i prefer the dynamics of dualism:<br /> when im sad, i reinforce my sadness, until i get bored from being sad,<br /> and i automatically flip to happiness, until i get bored from being happy.<br /> up, down, up, down... dualism says: we need both sides, like we need both hands, feet, eyes, ...
I think spiritual is wrong I don't like the term spiritual because it because it def it's kind of spirit and it's an alchemical term where matter is the opposite
for - the word "spiritual" - creates dualism - John Churchill
The notion of pure altruism attempts to create a dichotomy between the self and others, implying that true selflessness is possible. Yet, in reality, individuals exist within a web of relationships and mutual dependencies.
for - adjacency - pure altruism - selflessness - self / other dualism - individual / collective gestalt - Deep Humanity - biological limitations - evolutionary limitations
adjacency - between - pure altruism - selflessness - self / other dualism - individual / collective gestalt - Deep Humanity - biological limitations - evolutionary limitations - adjacency relationship - From an evolutionary and biological perspective, - the individual organism is district from other organisms and the environment - The individual is defined by a separating boundary and it must exchange energy and materials with it's environment as a necessary condition of survival. It must - receive and input nutrients inputs and - transmit, output and eliminate waste byproducts - The word 'selfless' is a polar abstraction. No individual can be 100% selfless or it would be an act of self-annihilation, a self-destructive act of denying 100% of all inputs necessary for its own survival - Existing as a living, individual organism requires some degree of individual self care - At the same time, the process of sexual reproduction, - in contrast to asexual reproduction - involves two organisms with sperm and egg, and is inherently social - In multi cellular organisms with highly complex social behaviours - such as our species - there is a strong learned component of concern for other as well - Pure selflessness is as rare as pure selfishness - Most of us have degrees of self care and degrees of care for others - Self and other are intertwingled, hence the Deep Humanity terms: - individual / collective gestalt - self / other gestalt
I see it as much more fluid and I see the boundary between self and world as something that can change all the time.
for - self / other dualism - fluidity of - examples - Michael Levin
self / other dualism - fluidity of - examples - Michael Levin - The self and its consciousness changes for a human INTERbeCOMing throughout its life: - during development as an embryo - cancer - metamorphosis
something external to it, something that takes it up in a dy-namic that is originally alien to it.
The description of the ontological dualism that is happening
It illustrates, in a strikingmanner, the ontological dualism that can, without a doubt, beconsidered the basic assumption of Lacanian psychoanalysis.°This ontological dualism is related to the fact that Lacan thinksof language and the body as originally external to each other.
This presents something about language and the body being external to one another? The duality and the contrast between language and bodily expression?
the organism has that ability already the reason is simply 00:17:41 because it could use the chance events that occur in his molecular mechanisms there's where the creativity comes from then the question is what what emerges from that do you want to keep and what do you want to reject
for - key insight - eliminating cartesian dualism in biology - creativity - multi-scale explanation
key insight - eliminating cartesian dualism in biology - Noble advances a radical and simple explanation to explain how<br /> - higher level organisms and cellular mechanisms make the decisions that inform the genetic switches which decision path to make - The higher level system takes advantage of the random events in molecular mechanisms and chooses the ones that are most fit - This has the potential to explain creativity at all living scales, up to human consciousness itself!
this dualism probably isn’t right given today’s complexities
for - progress trap - post comment - LinkedIn - Ralph Thurn article - progress trap - adjacency - progress trap - maladaptive - attention - focus of attention - cultural evolution - duality - dualism - dualistic
adjacency - between - progress - progress trap - maladaptive - cultural evolution - attention - focus of attention - Exploring this statement further, it isn't just that it is our dualistic thinking applied here is a problem - but that it is the very nature of human analytic reasoning coupled with our innate ability to focus our attention which requires a deep unpacking - For to focus on an object of attention - is something we can only accomplish by defocusing on everything else - Indeed, it is the very act of attention on the one, that is inextricably accompanied by the act of inattention of the many - Our body, and that of many other organisms is evolutionarily designed - to focus our attention in our field of view on emergent phenomena that is salient to our survival - The nature of reductionist-type research - which is to say, most research - is that we continue applying this evolved adaptive behavior, even though cultural evolution (ie. progress) has accelerated exponentially to such an extent - that this same biologically evolved behavior has become maladaptive in the context of modernity
The Symbolosphere, Conceptualiztion, Language and Neo-Dualism
for - symbolosphere - origins - definition - symbolosphere - definition - physiosphere - definition - neo-dualism - Robert K. Logan - John H. Schumann
origins - symbolosphere - John H. Schumann introduces the complimentary notions of
definition - symbolopshere - the non-physical world of symbolic relationships that includes all its thoughts and communication processes such as language
definition - physiosphere - the physical world, including the human brain.
definition - neo-dualism - a way pragmatic form of dualism that distinguishes mind and brain in the current understanding of neuroscience that is unable to provide an adequate explanation connecting the two.
An idea at the heart of capitalism is that owners of capital should aim to increase the capital they personally own and the profit they make from it.
for: capitalism - heart of, adjacency - capitalism - self - othering - societal aspiration
adjacency between
for: empathy, self other dualism, symbolosphere, Deep Humanity, DH, othering, What is it like to be a bat?, Thomas Nagel, ingroup outgroup
date: Oct 1974
comment
NOTE - references - for references to any words used in this annotation which you don't understand, please use the tool in the following link to search all of Stop Reset Go's annotations. Chances are that any words you do not understand are explored in our other annotations. Go to the link below and type the word in the "ANY" field to find the annotator's contextual understanding, salience and use of any words used here
https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true
Because if we do not work on our humanity, our humanity will work on us.
for: Deep Humanity, self-other dualism, othering, transformative empathy
comment
date: May 12, 2022
abstract
comment
The dualism of scientific materialism and its one-person psychologies are arguably complicit in much of the psychological and social damage we are now recognising.
for: dualism, dualism - psychology, unintended consequences, unintended consequences - dualism in psychology, progress trap, progress trap - dualism in psychology
paraphrase
question
his model of the psyche was firmly rooted in the Cartesian-empiricist philosophy that continues to dominate the scientific worldview. The most basic commitment of this model is the idea that we are discrete individual entities opposed to an objective, neutral world that exists independently of us.
If the metaphysical foundations of our society tell us we have no soul, how on earth are we going to imbue soul into AI? Four hundred years after Descartes and Hobbs, our scientific methods and cultural stories are still heavily influenced by their ideas.
Key observation - If the metaphysical foundations of our society tell us we have no soul, - how are we going to imbue soul into AI? - Four hundred years after Descartes and Hobbs, - our scientific methods and cultural stories are still heavily influenced by their ideas.
He began a process that would move past merely separating mind and matter, and toward a worldview that saw only matter as real. A contemporary of Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, went further and suggested that thinking arose from small mechanical processes happening in the brain. In doing so, Vervaeke points out, he was laying the ground for artificial intelligence:…what Hobbes is doing is killing the human soul! And of course that’s going to exacerbate the cultural narcissism, because if we no longer have souls, then finding our uniqueness and our true self, the self that we’re going to be true to, becomes extremely paradoxical and problematic. If you don’t have a soul, what is it to be true to your true self? And what is it that makes you utterly unique and special from the rest of the purposeless, meaningless cosmos?
Quote - Descartes created the mind / body dualism - Thomas Hobbes reduced consciousness to physicalism - by claiming that thinking was an epi-phenomena of atomic interactions
there's a second kind of cognitive illusion this first cognitive illusion as i've suggested is thematized both in buddhist philosophy and in western philosophy but the second 00:07:06 kind of illusion i find not thematized so much in the west though in some quarters it is some but not all but very much stabilized in in buddhist philosophy and that is the superimposition of subject object 00:07:19 duality um and when we do that um we take the nature of our experience to be primordially structured as subject standing outside of the world viewing an 00:07:31 object now we always know we know that on the slightest bit of reflection that that's crazy that we are biological organisms embedded in a physical world and that 00:07:43 all of our experience is the result of that embodied embedded and embedded experience in the world it's still however almost irresistible to have that kind of image of ourselves as wittgenstein put it as like the eye 00:07:56 to the visual field that we stand outside of the world as pure subject with everything else taken as object and that reflexive taking of experience that way is a very profound kind of cognitive 00:08:09 illusion one that is extremely hard to shake to overcome illusion though we first have to come to know that illusion better you need to know your enemy in 00:08:21 order to defeat your enemy and so i'm going to spend a lot of time trying to acquaint us with the nature of these illusions that is to say if we want to avoid a pointless trek through the desert uh for 00:08:34 water we'd better know that what we're seeing is a mirage and not an oasis when we become aware of that fact then we're able to redirect ourselves in the right uh in the right direction
Jay talks about the depth of the second cognitive illusion, thematized in Buddhism but not so much in Western philosophy - the illusion of a self with respect to other.
4E (Embedded, Embodied, Enactive, Extended) Cognition is based on an intuitive idea that we know from very simple experience - you and I are part of the world. We have bodies that are embedded in reality.
We have a reflexive and profoundly entrenched embrace of dualism - that we are NOT of this world, but stand apart from it. This cognitive illusion is EXTREMELY hard to penetrate.
The Western archive is characterised by two types of knowledge organisation that are foreign to Indigenous knowledges: Firstly it is based on a strong sense of dualism; the use of oppositional categories such as man/woman; man (human)/nature; mind/matter; spirit/materiality, which again is expressed in time differentiated into past/present/future. Secondly knowledge is objectified; it is knowledge about, not with, and it is highly segmented into different areas of knowledge speciality that are in turn reflected in the education system and the professions and areas of government responsibility.
If this notion of human existence as a unity of participation in both perishing and non-perishing reality sounds odd to modern ears, it is mainly because philosophical and scientific–and consequently popular–thought during the last few centuries has been busy constructing a very different image of the human person. The image of participation has been changed and simplified into an image of two entities: a body, and a mind inside the body that has intelligence and ideas. This is the image that eventually came out of Descartes and Hobbes and other early modem thinkers, and wound up as a portrayal of human beings as mental entities encased in physical entities: a mind-thing imprisoned in a body–thing. Now a mind-thing imprisoned in a body-thing cannot experience participation in the ground of reality. Why not? Because it is imprisoned, isolated in the head. It can only have ideas about it and “project” them out onto reality. What becomes, then of the non-perishing dimension of meaning? Accepting the modem image, we could have faith that we have a relation to non-perishing reality only through first conceiving of a non-perishing reality–let us call it “God”–in the isolation of our bodily-encased minds, and then projecting that conception onto a “beyond” of things, and finally engaging in the desperate procedure of believing that it is real and that we have a connection with it in spite of not knowing anything of the kind. In other words, as long as self-understanding is dominated by this modem image, human consciousness cannot make sense of its own experience of immediate participation in a non-perishing ground of reality. And therefore, it cannot really make sense of its moral striving–since what is the point of the struggle for goodness if goodness is nothing more than temporary private opinion? Thus the modem image of human nature short-circuits the Socratic and Kierkegaardian understanding of existence, and leaves us with the familiar contemporary mess of radical moral relativism. This modern image of human existence is tenacious, though–partly because it is so closely connected to the modem view of what real knowing is, a view that enjoys an almost unassailable status. It might be summarized with extreme brevity as follows. If the mind is a thing encased in the physical body that only knows reality through the mediation, through the channeling, of the physical senses, any valid knowing has to validate itself through the presence of the relevant sense data. And this means that all true knowing is the type of knowing involved in the natural sciences, where empirical verification must take place through quantifiable data. Data that cannot be mathematically measured, such as the data consciousness discovers in its own activity and awareness–for example moral insight–can never be a matter of knowing, merely of opinion. How could the Socratic experience of discovering that the moral autonomy of the soul involves a non-perishing dimension of meaning ever be verified, if the data of sense, quantifiable data, are the only relevant data for affirming truth? The life of Socrates–an exemplary model for over two millennia of the moral liberation of the soul through the catharsis of practicing death–is, in this view, a life based on nothing more substantial than a private irrational belief. So to sum up: what has happened is that the enthronement by modem philosophy and science of an image of human nature as a thingly mind entrapped in a thingly body, has made all symbolizations of a non-perishing dimension of reality non-credible to many people–particularly to the intelligentsia, who emphasize their modem credentials by presenting themselves as the cultured despisers of religion. And, of course, one of the reasons why this modem image is so popular and so resistant to critique is what it appears to promise. If we go back to the founding texts of modernity, to the writings of Descartes, of Bacon, of Hobbes, we find a great optimism. If there is no participation in a mysterious origin of non-perishing meaning, there is no mystery essential to human existence. If there is no such participation, then all knowledge originates only in human consciousness itself. And if there is no primal mystery, and if all meaning is of human creation, we can hope one day to bring nature, human society, and history fully under human control. In his last book, Escape from Evil, Becker wrote: “Hubris means forgetting where the real source of power lies and imagining that it is in oneself (37).” I would suggest that imagining that notions of a non-perishing dimension of meaning are the pure creations of an isolated human consciousness, entails a forgetting of where the real source of consciousness lies: in the experienced mysterious ground of consciousness, which grants us the quite rational opportunity of a free and loving commitment to an enduring dimension of meaning. Of course, in some sense, human awareness of the non-perishing mystery in which it participates remains alive and well, because people keep striving to be moral, and they keep asking questions about that experience. Human questioning will always keep uncovering the eternal dimension of meaning, keep introducing people to the Socratic catharsis, and keep leading people to what Becker called a life of courageous self-realization. But they can be helped to do so by promoting insights like those of Becker on the choice between denying death or facing up to mortality. Like Becker in his chapter on Kierkegaard in The Denial Of Death, what I’ve tried to show is that the problem does not lie in the notion of human participation in imperishable reality. Rather, where the problem lies is in the self-comforting delusion that one possesses eternal meaning, and especially in the measures people take to defend their feeling of righteous invulnerability, especially through aggression. Authentic faith, by contrast, affirms enduring meaning in the context of an open if anxious acceptance of mortality. And so one must conclude that there are two opposites to authentic faith. One is the dogmatic clinging to an immortality project; and the other is the equally dogmatic insistence that enduring meaning is an illusion. Both of these are denials of our real human situation, making up two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
The essay closes with a critique of the subject / object mind / body framework that now dominates modernity. Socrates, Kierkigaard and Becker's claims, when seen through the lens of Cartesian modernity, are relegated to the margins. materialism denies any legitimacy to such claims. Recent 4E cognition is an attempt to push back on this. Hughes notes that:
"In his last book, Escape from Evil, Becker wrote: “Hubris means forgetting where the real source of power lies and imagining that it is in oneself (37).” "
so in this essay i'm going to explore the what i take to be the very most profound illusions diagnosed in the buddhist tradition and one and the most difficult to overcome and the primary one will be the illusion 00:08:58 that we have immediate access and vertical access to our own experience that we have a direct first-person access to our own minds that gives us our minds just as they are that the duality between subject and object that 00:09:11 structures our understanding is primordial this is the illusion that we're subject standing over and against the world rather than um interdependent beings in the world that's the conviction that we might know 00:09:24 the external world only through the mediation of our sensory and cognitive faculties but that we know the world only in virtue of immediate access to the outputs of those faculties
Jay sums it up nicely. - the compelling illusion that we are subject standing in opposition to object instead of interdependent.
What happens in Indonesia when a textile manufacturer illegally dumps dye waste!
This is an example of the manufacturer / consumer dualism created by the Industrial Revolution. Since manufacturers have become a separate layer that no longer exist as part of the community, as artisans once did, along with globalized capitalism, the consumer does not know the life history of the product being consumed. The sensory bubble limits what a consumer can directly know.
One answer is to promote a trend back to local and artisan production. Relocalizing production can empower consumers to inspect producers of the products they consume, holding them accountable.
Another answer is to develop globalized trust networks of producers who are truly ethical.
Cosmolocal production has networks by the commons nature can promote such values.
This is the vision of OP Sapiens Star—that human’s evolution is not finished, and that the hyperthreat provides the impetus for a quantum leap into a new way of being. Through achieving a galactically significant mission—saving Earth’s ecological integrity—the Homo sapiens species “stars” within the universe. Humans go from being a menace and fighting one another to being heroic, creative, and tolerant.
This can be interpreted as an instantiation of the hero's journey, in the context of research that combines evolution with ecology as in the research paper: Major Evolutionary Transitions and the Roles of Facilitation and Information in Ecosystem Transformations (Robin et al., 2021).From this lens, cumulative cultural evolution (CCE) was first made possible through spoken language, then accelerated through written language. The authors claim that another Major System Transition (MST).is emerging, which they posit to be abiotic in nature involving Artificial Intelligence.
Faced with a self-induced civilization-scale threat, we may ask whether a major cultural evolution may be necessary to avoid catastrophe and whether it may constitute another MST. Could a rapid higher level global understanding of the epistemological dualism of self and other which undergirds normative alienation, othering and conflict, both with others of our own species, of other species and with the planetary system itself play a major role in the transition?
For Plessner, the living boundary is both a liminal zone that mediates between organism and the outer medium, itself being neither, and yet also an enactively self-defining and enforcing circumference and outer-limit. The organism moves outward in the expansion and assimilation of its liminal zone and moves inward, taking the outer within, re-establishing itself and reasserting its perimeter. The living boundary already introduces a subject-object status that prefigures for Plessner the overcoming of dualisms between inner and outer, interiority and exteriority. The living boundary is an on-going enactment of an exteriority that it defines and yet also reaches into and assimilates and of an interiority that is both sustained and transformed. The motive force of the dynamic living state is this double aspectivity of its existence and the dialectical tension which drives it forward.
Plessner defines the interiority and exteriority condition of a living organism, giving a biological context for the hard problem of consciousness.
But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observe that we pride ourselves on the opposite quality—we would fain be quiet and patient; this is the manly part, and the other which delighted us in the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman.
herefore, the university's curricular philosophy or "study methods" will have a profound effect on both the individual and society.
Robert Yagelski basically makes this argument, citing Cartesian dualism as a major factor in why we're destroying our planet. In ignoring the interconnectivity of all things, we fail to understand the myriad effects our actions have on the (natural) world around us.
On the persistence of unicorns
bodies
While Locke is no doubt influenced by Cartesian dualism, which seems based upon the frequency of bodily failure, he seems to reject this idea (that the body is naturally or frequently in error).
See chapter 4 of Dalia Judovitz's The Culture of the Body: Genealogies of Modernity.
She closely reads Descartes' Meditations on the First Philosophy with special attention to the theological turn in Descartes' ontology. She spends the chapter considering how his claims that "the existence of God and the distinction between the mind and the body" are "underlain by the haunting invocation and recurrent appearance of errant, spectral, and mechanical bodies" (83).
the living prin-ciple of perception and of action
Hmm, with Campbell's four stages of persuasion, it seems that Rhetoric moves across this division, first informing the subject, then moving them to action. It's the delivery mechanism of logic, the information superhighway, if you will.
Analogous to this, there arc two things in every discourse which principally claim our aucntion, the sense and the expression; or in other words, the thought and the symbol by •. J. which ii is communicated.
I was having a hard time making sense of this analogy. This passage on the next page clarified it a bit:
Now, if it be by the sense or soul of the dis-course that rhetoric holds of logic, or the art of thinking and reasoning, it is by the expression or body of the discourse that she holds of grammar, or the art or conveying our thoughts in the words of a particular language. The observation of one analogy naturally suggests another. As the soul is or heavenly extraction and the body of earthly, so the sense of the discourse ought to have its source in the invariable nature of truth and right. whereas the expression can derive its energy only from the arbitrary conventions of men, sources as unlike, or rather as widely different, as the breath of the Almighty and the dust of the earth.
In contemplating a human creature, the most nat-ural division of the subject is the common divi-sion into soul and body
Here's that dualism Nathaniel forewarned us about . . .