Member 688
3 entries
10120 views

 RSS
Contributor to project:
The great enhancement debate
Antoine McGhee (M, 27)
Tallahassee, US
Immortal since Dec 12, 2007
Uplinks: 0, Generation 2
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Antoine’s favorites
    From meganmay
    an i take cialis with...
    From Wildcat
    POLYTOPIA (the emergence...
    From Wildcat
    Polytopia- The WHY ? (part...
    From notthisbody
    Towards a Polytopia
    From Wildcat
    A Polytopian existence
    Antoine’s project
    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    I was barely awake while all this was running through my head so it may seem like I'm rambling or not making any sense, forgive me. I just felt out I had to get this out of my head though and figured I'd share it with the people here and maybe get some other opinions.

    Life is subject and seen differently through the
    eyes of each individual. A writer like Shakespeare
    would agree that our world is but a stage and our
    life one big play. It has it's begining and it's end.

    In Shakespeare's own words:

    "All the world's a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players;
    they have their exits and their entrances;
    and one man in his time plays many parts;
    his acts being seven ages.

    A hustling man or a gambler would say life is like a
    dice game and we should let the dice fly and let them
    land where they may. We only live once, so why not take
    chances and leave things up to probability.

    But a comedian would tell you life is but a joke and
    that we're all just waiting on the punchline.

    How do you all see it? Do you agree with the above or is there something else you see?
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    The discovery of an organizational hyper-structure whose hierarchical contour defies our normal abstracting ability - (and yet can be detected by a colossal metaabstraction reported by Plato and surnamed by him Noesis) is a matter of unparalleled importance, for this hyper-structure seems able progressively more and more to subsume its environment, suggesting purpose and sentience.

    It is not a thing among things nor even an organism among organisms, but, rather, implies by both its existence and unavailability to our normal cognition and perception the very real possibility of :

    (1) orders of reality at a level of structural and
    organizational complexity unknown to us; and

    (2) life or at least purpose, growth and intelligence at these
    levels.

    Regarded this way, such levels and such structures cannot be defined by philosophical or theological terms but have to do with entities and their behavior that no human language system encompasses. That the spatiotemporal universe of multiplicity (physical things in time and space governed by causation) is in fact subsumed by at least one higher level of volitionally-imposed organization—and that such a structure is aware of us whereas we are not only not aware of it but normally unable to be aware of it—if this can be made the subject of indubitable observations it would lie beyond any discovery in the prior history of man.

    Paradoxically, early Greek thinkers (scientist-philosophers, since these two areas had not as yet split apart) dimly perceived such levels but in no way possessed a vocabulary to depict what they saw. In point of fact the universe may not at all resemble what our normal senses—and cognition—profess; thus we may stand at the threshold of discoveries of unique magnitude, the fathoming of which may require a literal evolution of our species—and this may indeed be taking place.

    Thus even to know this hyper-structure is to cease to be human, and yet such knowledge—not faith, not revelation, but the utilization of pure intellect—is possible.

    I argue, then, that man as a species may be coming to an end, subsumed by a higher level of organizational complexity; and a new species may be volving out of him.

    I argue, finally, that the hyper-structure is to some degree actively involved in promoting this, since it is an evolutionary process in which it is involved. As pure form without substantiality—able to organize within its own structure—it is a meta-entity in the truest sense, and poses a vast, urgent mystery deserved [sic] of our profoundest attention.
    (11 September 1981)

    The following line of reasoning is correct. In 2-74 I experienced anamnesis. In 3-74 noesis set in. I saw not only the Forms but Pythagoras’ kosmos (which is the same thing). Further, I am correct that by noesis you can comprehend the Logos (and universe as pre-existent ideas in the mind of God: Erigena’s second hypostatis of God, “that which is created and creates").

    So Pythagoras to Plato to Philo to St. John; the Logos that I saw is the Cosmic Christ. So my final conclusions in my exegesis are correct and my 9-11-81
    summation is correct. This is man’s original noein restored. This was a line of thinking requiring much and difficult research. Only when I discovered that
    Philo’s Logos is the kosmos noetos—the place of the Forms—did I realize what no one realizes today: the Logos—structure of reality and agent of creation—is available via the hyper-abstraction called by Plato noesis, and due to anamnesis. This knowledge did not come readily or easily!

    The “not 2 mothers once but 1 mother twice” is the correct analysis of my meta-abstraction and it is Plato’s noesis. It has to do with cognitive recognition—
    hence anamnesis.

    What it all boils down to as being is the rational structure of creation seen by means of a meta-abstraction and itself seen as an abstraction.

    But we really don’t have words to depict this rational structure of creation—although “Forms” and “kosmos” and “Logos” and “Torah” and “pre-existent ideas” are used. It is (as Robert Galbreath says) other. It is an intelligible apperception known through noesis alone.

    And it is unitary and not substantial but structural. Nor does it involve space, time and causation, but, to be sentient and volitional and to be—or to process—information. Further, it is mind or has mind.

    (12 September 1981)

    It seems a small thing to say, but I say; The agent of creation (Logos or Forms, whatever called) is at the same time the abstract structure of creation. Although normally unavailable to our cognition and perception, this structure—and hence the agent of creation—can be known by the colossal meta-abstraction that Plato surnamed Noesis, which is a purely intellectual act not based on revelation or faith but, rather, on what Plato called anamnesis, which is a form of recognition: hence itself an abstraction, a “seeing” in the sense that a person “sees” that if one cow plus one cow equals two cows, one plus one equals two under all circumstances.

    If one can comprehend that the agent of creation (the Logos) is the abstract structure of creation, then one can understand why it is believed by Philo that indeed an intermediary existed between God and creation in His act of bringing creation about. This Logos (in terms of Greek philosophy) is kosmos noetos, the intelligible world of t he Forms; in terms of Hebrew thought it is Hagia Sophia, Holy Wisdom, identified by Christian thinkers with Christ (the Wisdom-World entity of the Fourth Gospel). Thus Philo homologizes Greek and Hebrew thought, linking Plato’s Forms and Hagia Sophia, as well as the Word of God (dabhar).

    To repeat: the abstract structural (nonsubstantial) basis of reality is also the agent of creation of reality, for from it stems that which we term “reality”: plural physical objects in space and time, controlled by causal laws. It is this agent of creation that Philo surnamed Logos and which we identify with both Christ and Hagia Sophia (the wisdom of God). This is what I saw, as total insubstantial abstract structure.

    (12 September 1981)

    If the abstract structure of reality is the agent of creation, then is not it self-causing? This is a definition of Prime Mover Unmoved; I am saying that when reality is viewed—not as a multiplicity of physical objects in space and time governed by causality—but as insubstantial abstract unified structure (Pythagoras’ kosmos, perhaps; the Forms, perhaps; Philo’s logos, perhaps; Torah, perhaps; or some other name not known to us: pre-existent ideas, etc.)—it is its own cause.

    And yet I have not used the term God or even suggested a cause lying outside reality; for the abstract structure is not outside reality (like potter to pot, artisan to artifact); this insubstantial abstract structure is reality properly conceived; this is conceived by reason of a colossal meta-abstraction in which reality is, so-to-speak, hollowed out so that its intelligible basis is apprehended.

    This is at least one level up in the hierarchy of ontology. But it is not God. Here, multiplicity gives way to unity, to what perhaps can be called a field. The field is self-perturbing; it initiates its own causes internally; it is not acted on from outside. This does not quite sound like theology or even, perhaps, philosophy (although it does resemble Pythagoras’ idea of kosmos, but the early Greek thinkers were as much scientists as philosophers or anything else).

    Then the “perturbation in the reality field” refers to a perturbation in physical, substantial reality—plural objects in space and time governed by causation, emanating from the abstract structure that is both basis of reality and the agent of its creation. Nothing lies beyond this abstract hyper-structure known by the meta-abstracting of Noesis. There is no reason to posit a higher, more real ontological level, since the insubstantial abstract structure is self-causing and initiates its own changes internally; there is nothing that nets upon it from outside it.

    Yet this is not quite pantheism or hylozoism; a sharp distinction is made between physical reality (plural objects in space and time governed by causation) and the abstract structure—only the latter is self-causing—so it is no hylozoism; and no deity is posited, so this is not pantheism.

    It is (to repeat) something like, the kosmos of Pythagoras, if it is like anything we know of at all. Where it differs from Plato’s theory of the Forms (as true reality) is that instead of positing a loose aggregation (the Forms) it posits a unified abstract structure; this would be kosmos noetos or Logos, but it would be Logos not as intermediary between God and creation since no God is posited. Perhaps it resembles the logos of the Stoics, which was immanent in creation; but their logos was substantial, which is to say, material; so it is not that either. It is a kind of Pythagorean mathematical Logos, having to do with limit, ratio and proportion (e.g. the 8x13 rectangle, the Golden Rectangle).

    This is Pythagoras, not Plato.

    (12 September 1981)

    “The agent of creation is its own structure.” This structure must not be confused with the multiplicity of physical objects in space and time governed by causation; the two are entirely different. (The structure is insubstantial, abstract, unitary and initiates its own causes internally; it is not physical and cannot be perceived by the human percept-system sensibly; it is known intelligibly, by what Plato called Noesis, which involves a certain ultimate high-order meta-abstracting.) On the other hand, it is not to be confused with God. In no way does it presume God as either itself or as lying beyond it having created or produced it. It is not an intermediary between God and physical creation. It resembles both Pythagoras’ kosmos and Aristotle’s Prime Mover Unmoved. Could it be what Spinoza calls “the attribute mind” which is parallel to the res extensae [extended forms] that we know as the physical universe, both being equal attributes of a single substantial (And identified by Spinoza as God?)

    No; because for Spinoza these are purely parallel attributes; neither in any way acts on the other and neither is primary in relationship to the other, i.e. its
    cause. I, on the other hand, posit ontology primacy to the insubstantial abstract structure, and, moreover, I believe that it fully controls the physical spatiotemporal universe as its basis and cause.

    Abstract insubstantial structure to physical universe. Music to groove.

    — Phillip K Dick
    Fri, Aug 8, 2008  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Create synapse
     
    Just my thoughts at the moment. I'll probable re-write this at a later date but for now here it is. My attempt at defining reality.

    Man shapes his own reality, every man interprets what is real to him and what isn't. Similar to how some animals can only see certain colors, or have different eye physiologies. So the world is different from each animals point of view and they would have different mentalities to the surroundings. With humans Religion, Ideologies and Surroundings are what shape each individuals perception of what is real.
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
          Cancel