Actually John, the more I read it the more I feel for it.... but some seeming issues:
"there is an info-transfer into 'us' from the limitless complexity" you say information-transfer, or we can rephrase it as information processing or information reception etc. But I think "information" is a metaphor for we know not what. I take issue with this term information.... I think it is a blank cover for what is obviously "unknown". Are you not that same "information", is not your information processing machine apart of that same "informational complexity flux" according to your seeming definition..... and is not this view of "limitless complexity" kind of extremely vague and indeterminate.... it doesn't give us many attributes, characteristics, definitions, comprehensive clarifications, generalized explications, marks.... it doesn't really tell us anything, it is extremely undescriptive.... what is this "information"? can you more definitely and clearly describe it? What of this limitless complexity? any further attributes or designations? Is that not essentially a blank picture? a generic label that reveals nothing.... isn't all you are saying by that term: "incalculable distinctions".... well what of it, can you please tell us more about your inability to calculate all the distinctions you can make and all the "things" you can give a name to? " (I base it on history, comparing the > epistemic enrichment over long periods of human development) what we include > into our "mini-solipsism" about the world." Once again I want to point out that we are the world and the world is us. There are not two truly individual, separate, and independent entities. So if it is about the world it has to be about the subjective side too as apart of "one thing" (for lack of a better word), right? Furthermore, you say you base it on "history".... that is problematic no? History is not something you are in possession of in any comprehensive and complete sense.... who knows how much of history is made up of unknown happenings, unrecorded events, etc. Plus there is the field of the Philosophy of History.... where people have different views on history and how it is structured and how it moves and what it includes and what it can no and can't know and so on.... History is an extremely complex and extremely impoverished subject..... we must be very agnostic about history... rather then assume we know it all. History is a philosophical problem... perhaps we only breach the surface of it. Yes, let us be very humble in regards to our conception of history and all that could possibly entail and mean to us. Right? "So it all IS a personalized view of the 'world' (existence, > totality, wholeness, limitless complexity - you name it) unique for each of > us as the immune system, DNA, or fingerprint." I wonder why we are so interested in forming a "universal view" or "theory of everything".... to me it seems like its similar to the Ancients archetypal desire for a Cosmic Vision, the stuff of myth, like in the Bhagavad-Gita..... It seems to my mind that we are overstepping our boundaries when we have such grandiose aspirations.... we are presupposing the goal before we get their, we have some vague intimation or notion of what we're seeking.... but it may turn out to be a unrealizable dream. I don't know. It seems like we are too in our heads.... like we hallucinate the universe like a drug trip. hmm... yeah, I don't really know what exists and what doesn't exist. is existence just our ability to find or make new distinctions? Does it just have to do with finding more forces or something and figuring out how they all relate or tie together or something? Attempting some systematization of "things outside of us" and "things inside of us"? Is existence just whatever we can clearly distinguish... just a collection of names and "things" and perceptible distinctions and "qualities" and behaviors and descriptions and relationships/patterns/ discernible structures and some overview systematization of it all into a integral whole? Does it include all perceptible phenomena, including social science and the totality of human nature? When we use the word totality or wholeness.... we need to be clear about what totality or what whole... what falls under our purview..... for example..... do you mean understanding or knowing all that can be known in whatever field or possible division we can make.... such as human beings.... animals.... plants..... terrestrial phenomena.... astronomical phenomena..... subjectivity..... doesn't this kind of tyrannical total knowledge in every field or division we can make seem kind of boring or pointless or perhaps impossible.. why know it all? won't that kill it? I hope you can be clear as possible in distinguishing for us what is included in your vision of "all things"..... and give us some major categories, species, distinctions, divisions and subdivisions.... I wonder how much is all around us and in us that we are not aware of.... must this only be in terms of "forces"? and really... what difference does it make.... some project of knowing all that can be known..... it is far fetched in our lifetime. We SHARE a lot according to > cultural bases and so it becomes OUR VIEW of the world (call it: ongoing > conventional science). Expressed as *'our reality'*: it is a > *PERCEIVED*one. A figment." an incomplete one, one with many holes, one lacking great lucidity and great coherence and definitiveness.... one including within itself controversy and debate and confusion.... yes indeed. But we have to think together right? We have to communicate. We have to make our vision clear, as clear and distinct and articulate and elaborate as we can. Our thinking must be elaborated to its fullest expression and potential. >Our ideas do not restrict > Nature (the world) but gives some comfort to those who seek the "TRUTH". > How do you define Nature? Do you define it as "what preceded us"? IT would be interesting to here your definition....... ah definitions! how important they are! definition! definition! definition! So the idea here is that what can be known by us.... and I guess perhaps existence is what can be known by us..... or perhaps it is that and more..... all that can't be known by us... who knows? I wonder how much "Nature" (the object of knowledge?) is beyond our conception..... and indeed, is there a "spiritual nature"? and if so how do we make it real for ourselves and how do we expand our notion and experience of self.... perhaps we cant? Perhaps there is no "inner world"... no "inner universe".... and there is just perceptions, feelings, emotions, conceptions, reasons, instincts and will.... and "energy" or "energies" and various forces of nature, some of which are to be found in man or animals etc.... and then some more things we can obersve and try to analyze and understand a little more..... and more things we can create and develop.... but perhaps there is not much more then that we can know.... perhaps all that = the world. we need to try to clearly define knowledge/knowing and the object of knowledge and the problem of the knowner and our definitions for "world", "existence"..... and our ideas of exactly what we are after.. what are we exactly seeking, what do we want? thought thought! definitions definitions! elaboration please! clarity! So if you say there is an unlimited complexity of the totality... try to give us some parameters and horizon, some system.... for your vision of totality, some structure and definition.... and when you talk about unlimited complexity.... give us structure and vision for that too..... like for example: perhaps unlimited complexity is just a multiplication or proliferation of some limited set of discernible "things"/"laws" etc. "we may not claim to know what "everything' means, eo ipso we > cannot make theories on unknowable. " "everything" seems to me to be an understanding of the projected goal to comprehend the basic outline or system of all possible relevant knowledge in a non-social science sense...... that is what we must mean by it..... what do we variously mean by it? Lets set forth ideas/definitions. Let us attempt to think creatively/ constructively. so perhaps "everything" is the notion of the space or boundaries of all possible knowledge, including potential more metaphysical knowledge.... I don't know about that.... "I find it a game to speak even within > the "physical" segment - not only with past discoveries like electricity, > radioactivity, etc., but 'known' unknowable like gravitation, mass, matter maybe it is a game... perhaps it is a game that gives some people purpose and puts money in there pockets... for a lot of people this game is their trade. hehe. and politics too. there is politics and psychology involved in this game, and economics too... after all, a lot of scientists are just tools of political/power structures. but yes... maybe we are just fooling us selves with our pretenses to this perhaps totally overevaluated ideal of KNOWING or grasping what is not purely imaginary but is relateable and discernible and distinguishable and usable through our thought. In fact, I have no idea what we are doing and what we are after? some universal vision of all that can be envisioned.... some great conception of everything we can fit into that conception that has some kind of supposed ontological existence or something? I have no idea what we are doing?! That is why I am not into science and I am not optimist about it and about physics.... nor am I optimist about thought. for me thought is more desconstructive rather then constructive..... and thought functions better as imagination rather then as mere representation of whatever can be represented. or whatever can come across that we can name and obverse and study. or whatever we can force people to believe in because we present it as logically necessary or necessarily inferred to exist based on our ideas or whatever the hell it is! we are fools! pathetic! epistemological pessimism! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
