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.


"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

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!


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/

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!
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to