I decided this was a silly message to send, but my curiosity about how you react, got the better of me, so I am sending it anyhow, scrapping it at this point seems wasteful. I guess the lesson is that to many far out half baked ideas are spam, and bearing your humanity ought be done with digression. -------------------------------------------- I must thank Maria, Carl, Elizabeth, etc. for helping me grow. I love you guys no matter what you think of me. I might be learning, at least I have not been admonished for spam again lately. If I have spammed philosophers here, please continue to be forthright. I cannot grow without honest feedback. The last thing I want to do is spam anyone, it hurts good when I get the proper animal response, a slap in my face.
WE become greater, and perpetuate a memeon of existence that might die if we did not promote it. All that exists in time is that which is thus perpetuated exhibiting memory. What is not repeated does not exist objectively yet. Sometimes I am slow and it may take many slaps before I learn. But like a chicken, it is most certain that I will learn, even drain bamage can be overcome. "dematerializing value of neural alienation" seemed at first to be a compliment, in the context of combating one sided truth, but this is considered spam. It is my natural tendency to affirmatively accept a stroke memeon to perpetuate, preferring la la land to reality of the slap memeon. She might have just said antisocial but what fun would that be. I might have missed the point that my communication failed totally. It seems clear now I missed that I simply shared a disruptive meme, which can be good or bad depending on its final outcome. What Carl calls overly dramatic, I just don't get it. So I can expect my key blunder lies here. In order to play act one first needs to learn how to act in a social community. I have been made aware I have this disability but have not yet learned how to fix that in the realm of philosophy. In my animal life, I have more than overcome the disability in most ways, with just an occasional major faux-pas. Do not humor me, I am a real masochist, and will laugh privately at many of your responses, but someday the desired behavior will be favored in my habits such that I synergize in my ecology. I could not be any happier, what I hope for is growth, and only pain in equal measure balance to my happiness instantiates maximal growth in a controlled ecology. I can laugh at myself because I do not feel threatened, I feel blessed by providence in more ways than I can dream of. For animals, what does not kill us, reinforces us and makes us stronger, and so it is for philosophers as well. Tell me how I have spammed you. (duck:) What do you think my problem is? Why don't I get it. If you are silent and allow me to bask in the illusion I have overcome my difficulty, you may thus be encouraging more spam. I feel something. that this is spam because it is unsolicited because no spam warning has been given since, and ther has been zero encouragement to pursue it further. It is again about me, I am being selfish. Why should I involve the whole universe in dealing with my problems. I must say there are a lot of habits of thought I have yet to master. I play the fool. I find comfort in eccentricity, taking heart that someone needs to say these things even if they are not ready for prime time they deserve to be repeated, if for nothing else, a learning exercise, that may benefit others, but may be considered spam. I am premature, as I have not yet fully applied what might be learned from the thoughtful feedback I already received, I am excited by the perception of my recent clarity about how the nature of information is the information of nature, as usual, now as the direct link between epistemology and phenomenology, where the memeion is the anyon, pattern or quantum arrangement is clocking by alternating inverse logic propagating the memeion logically until it meets equal and opposite logic, actualizing both participating memeions and thus perpetuating them in time as a actual event in the information ecology. A memeion may exhibit any algorithum at any relative clocking frequency but only repeats where there is a perfect analog propagating oppositely. As you can see it is still half baked. I want to do my best to make it not spam, and present it in a form worthy of an audience of philosophers. While I am still perusing other roads with other than philosophers, I tend to favor an engineering approach, in the forum of philosophy I have found much knowledge and valuable feedback I am exuberantly thankful for. Anyone have thought on what I should call the particle on universal logic of information physics, memeion, memeyon, memeon, I think my mind is made up, memeon works. Thanks, Jim http://InformationPhysics.com On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> wrote: > > I erronoisly attributed the word retrogenetic to Maria, but her words were > classier, paleanthropidic and paleonthological in her insightful and witty > criticism. If I read it enough times I might get how I might be different > but not dysfunctional :) > > Jim > > jim wrote: > >>I would need to do some homework before I could comment on Maria's > >>message. Unless I read all the references it just seems like > >>philosophical mumbo jumbo. I think she is saying some similar > >>things. > > You are an excellent example of a typology of the paleanthropidic > specimen, with an irresistible tendency to refuse the motion of a > normal dispositional evolution, but that nonetheless develops with > some ease in pithecanthropic scenarios. > > Really, the type of reflexibility, that you evidentiate, reveals a > real paleonthological vocation characterized by the slow emergence > of reflexive thinking. Indeed, after reading some of your posts, I > concluded that you provide for an interesting case of a casuistic of > unstable spatial equilibrium, determined by an organic cognitive > infrastructure, with grave disturbances of internal and external > neuropsychological rhythmicity of operative enchaining, with > periodic dissimulative oscillations, between a strange and complex > lucidity intermixed with some stumbliness without referent or > reference. > > A semiotic analysis, made to your written discourse, reveals a clear > dematerializing value of neural alienation. > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Carl Gustav <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Jim, >> > >> > It's great that you feel good and happy, have a good family life, etc…, >> > however, concerning the issue, these postings of yours come out as somewhat >> > excessive. I think that Elizabeth tried to alleviate a little, what is a >> > certain dramatising that you usually like to make when you involve yourself >> > in debates around philosophy. As we (include here most of the group), know >> > very well from other discussions within other groups. >> >> Thank you Carl. My retrogenetic (Maria's term for my thinking) >> sociality necessitates external revaluation of my writing. I suppose >> medication might curb my excessive compulsive nature at the risk of >> becoming very dull as I have seen with many creative people I know. >> Redundancy and personalization are flaws I can comprehend may be >> excessive, but how this is over dramatatisation may exceed my >> comprehension in my subhuman mammalian social realm. I don't know if >> I can get it. This may be a negative viewpoint where the positive >> might be more constructive but has not been productive either thus >> far. >> >> I can understand the taboo of my vision that this will be considered a >> dark age of philosophy in the wake of Godel when philosophy failed to >> provide an objective means of distinguishing fact from fantasy in an >> era of relative and incomplete truth. I am not making an exaggeration >> or dramatization about it, I am simply stating my view. Simply >> stating the positive alone appearently simply fails to motivate change >> or any comment at all, and stating the negative only brings >> nonsubstansive criticism. I do not know how to express the importance >> I see in the mission of philisophy in this time. >> >> For me, UFO's, creationism, scientism, rampant sophism etc., are >> merely the tip of the iceberg of nonsensical scientific theory and >> truth in every area of human endeavorer that has become subjective and >> a popularity contest in reaction to philosophy that is in denial of >> the need to accept that the law of the excluded middle stands >> contradicted and the need to redefine objectivity with respect to >> relative truth where there is no preferred cognitive context. >> >> I guess if I am wrong then I can be said to have been over dramatic. >> But if this is true than I do not think I can make it more palitable. >> Perhaps you can enlighten my how I am wrong. >> >> I wish only to participate in the eminent renaissance in philosophy, >> and am perhaps a bit too impatient. It seems to me to be too soon for >> philosophy to admit that it is always both right and wrong. It is not >> an indictment against philosophy or just a withness crying "stop the >> madness", I want to work on the problem, I think we have the answers >> already, but there can be no exposition of quantum truth without >> discovering how we are wrong where each thesis gives light to the >> antithesis in an independent context and there is no preferred >> context.. >> >> Thanks again, >> >> Jim >> > --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > From: Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: [cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy] Re: About spam >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 9:27 PM >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Elizabeth Marckley >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Oh Jim! >> >> >> >> You cannot go on writing such things, you are making me very sad, your >> > sadness is felt in your writing, you are in need of some kind of therapy. >> > Philosophy is disturbing you to a such an extent, that your suffering makes >> > me >> > sad. Your pain is felt in your writing (sniff, sniff, buhaaa, buhaaa…) >> > >> > Dearest Elizabeth, >> > >> > Never fret over my happiness. My life may be pathetic but I am too >> > stupid to know it. For me, its a wonderful life. I live passionately >> > and reasonably, with gusto. Here is the slide show, >> > http://www.whitescarver.com/gallery/slideshow.php?mode=applet&set_albumName=JimsArchive >> > And the musical score to go along with it, >> > http://www.geocities.com/eugenef_86303/MIDI/bizcarto.mid >> > It is such a great life its disgusting. I'm happier than a pig in >> > shit. I am well loved, just not liked. I even created a website one >> > day not long ago, http://WeAreGreat.org >> > >> > Thanks for the song. Don't worry, be happy for me. >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4 >> > >> > Love, >> > >> > Jim >> > http://InformationPhysics.com >> >> Take joy in this song: >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbvcp480Y4 >> >> >> >> --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> >> >> Subject: [cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy] Re: About spam >> >> To: [email protected], >> > [email protected] >> >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 8:39 AM >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Maria Odete Madeira >> >> <maria_odete_ [email protected] >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > This is the referent: >> >> > >> >> > "It seems most philosophers fantasize about notions of truth >> > that are >> >> > not actual and consider that the only real truth is according the the >> >> > legacy of human discourse and what has become common sense. They >> >> > choose to consider only incomplete truth isolated in some particular >> >> > logical context employing the false notion of the excluded middle. >> >> > They consider the quantum illogical when is is clearly perfect logic >> >> > which contradicts our classical incomplete notion of truth." >> >> >> >> My apologies to the group for posting what is deemed inappropriate >> >> material. I have struggled to understand how it could be categorized >> >> as spam, I am not too bright sometimes. >> >> >> >> > It is not worth losing time over this, when there is so much being >> > put in the group that could be commented and discussed. >> >> >> >> Again my apologies for venting my frustration in this group. My dad >> >> told me a long time ago I won't get anywhere telling people they are >> >> stupid. Who do I think I am, Socrates? >> >> >> >> > This is spam. It is nothing about nothing. It has nothing to do with >> > philosophy, science, or whatever. It is just a Freudian release of a >> > personal >> > problem against a word "philosophy" , it is not a criticism against a >> > discipline, not an argument, it is simply nothing. >> >> >> >> Is it wrong to be honest and say what we truly believe? I guess so. >> >> Part of my social handicap that has hurt people I love is that I blurt >> >> out the truth, because it is what it is, in the hopes of helping >> >> rather than hurting, truth is not always in my best interest, or that >> >> of my loved ones and society. >> >> >> >> I first learned that Socrates was right about me. That my categorical >> >> imperatives were delusional and the there is always tension between >> >> the thesis and antithesis and there is no categorical imperative until >> >> the end of time, which never comes. Nobody can predict future >> >> effects, and all knowledge is generalization that tells of the >> >> ordinary rather than the extraordinary and the black swan will always >> >> emerge. >> >> >> >> What I learned about myself I found applied to other people, we are >> >> all stupid in our absolute beliefs. I stupidly allowed my remarks >> >> here to be interpreted as an attack specifically against philosophers, >> >> of which I am one. I suppose I do hold philosophers to a higher >> >> standard of truth than other people and have a frustration with >> >> philosophers I do not have with people in general. My view is that >> >> the philosophers must lead Science 2.0 so that we have Medicine 2.0 >> >> and Ethics 2.0. It is simply the pendulum swinging from uniformity to >> >> diversity as quantum, optical, neural network, and evolutionary models >> >> replace the straw frame legacy notions of truth. >> >> >> >> It seems this is only acutely important to me. And inflicting on >> >> others is indeed spam. >> >> >> >> I do wish someone could tell me, for example, why proof by >> >> contradiction does not require proof of decidability, in the light of >> >> undecidable questions. If I could overcome my ignorance of this >> >> perhaps I would feel less need to lash out at philosophy. >> >> >> >> Such is the nature of truth that there is another side to everything. >> >> Though we are stupid, for believing one sided truth, my experience is >> >> that we never believe anything for silly reasons and there is a great >> >> truth lurking in every belief. We are stupid for intelligent reasons >> >> that are generally not conscious. And while we do not know what we >> >> think we know, it turns out that we know a lot of what we think we >> >> don't know. >> >> >> >> Thank you for being tolerant. I will try to work more positively in the >> > future. >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cosmology, Mathematics and Philosophy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
