"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:
HELMUT >”… knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink”
There is a difference. My reference to assimitating is in the context of knowing how to be, which revolves around the question “what is the correct way to be?” Groupthink revolves around the assertion “this is the correct way of being because my friends are doing the same thing.” Reality is very complex, and assimitation/imitation saves us the effort and expense of having to reinvent the wheel. Knowing how to be is the reason that role models are so important… which, as you suggest, revolves around curiosity and “why” questions, not the assertion of “because” answers – the latter characterizes groupthink. A behavior becomes groupthink when it is accepted unconditionally, without questioning it, just because everyone else is going along with it.
Or, to put all this another way… you might choose Jesus as a role model if you are looking for a best answer to the question being, but you might choose a movie star for a role model if you have decided that popularity is the answer to the questioning of being. Both relate to assimitation/imitation and knowing how to be, but we can clearly distinguish the latter as groupthink, with its emphasis on personal need.
Regards, sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 12:06 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen,
you earlier wrote, that knowing how to be is replication of behaviour, and a synthesis of assuming and imitating. I dont see the difference between that and NPCish groupthink:
Replication of behaviour to me seems exactly what you wrote about groupthink: A degenerated firstness, just taking observed behaviour (former thirdness) for firstness again, without regarding other firstness influences. Association and habituation without something new that would mediate.
Though (for culture, knowing how to be) a habit (replication of behaviour) may also be the habit of revising habits. But for me the root of this critical behaviour does not originate from culture, but from precultural references, like human nature, possible to be observed at any child from any culture (curiosity, inquiring "why"-questions...).
Best, Helmut
08. Dezember 2018 um 07:54 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:
HELMUT >”groupthink is quite identical with culture”
This is a category error. The characteristics that govern groupthink need to be distinguished from the principles that govern culture. Culture relates to pragmatism, knowing how to be, Heideggers Dasein. Groupthink describes something different. Some cultures are more predisposed to groupthink than others, and NO culture is exempt. My own humble estimation is that the problem of groupthink revolves around some kind of failure of firstness, in the mediation of secondness and thirdness. Reflexive and automaton-like behavior can take place with emphasis on secondness and thirdness (association and habituation) and the muting or degeneration of firstness, perhaps as a product of fear and the need to belong. Both the Left and the Right in politics are capable of groupthink.
Paul Joseph Watson nails the groupthink of the left in his video on NPC-bots:
https://youtu.be/M0aienuCBdg
And we are all too familiar with the iconic groupthink of the right:
https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/jubilant-crowd-salutes-nazi-leader-adolf-hitler-nachrichtenfoto/81512242
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:10 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen,
As I see it, groupthink is quite identical with culture. Noncultural references would be e.g. species-think (the ways all humans think, like wanting to take part, be noticed, be treated justly), organism-think-and reactions (e.g. the awarenesses and instincts of handling organism-specific problems like having to eat), and universal reactions like the constraints that the natural laws provide. Noncultural references have their roots in precontemporary-cultural ancient times, but of course are integrated into contemporary cultures. If some trait is the same in all existing cultures, it is likely, that this trait is a non-, meaning pre-cultural reference. E.g., that parents dont eat their children, Id say, is a mammal-trait, and also a bird-trait, not an animal-trait, as some animals eat some of their children, as I vaguely recall. Problem solving of mimetic desire may be a universal value: The Pauli-principle. Values are means to solve problem-patterns, or to avoid their expressions. I think it is valuable to analyse values regarding from which time scale aka taxonomical node they origin. My suspicion is, that many values are being assigned to one or the other culture, but for real stem from much earlier, much more general origins. This is the point of my opposition against culturalism/ overestimation of culture. Intention is to help deescalate culture clashes.
Best, Helmut
06. Dezember 2018 um 11:20 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
HELMUT >”"This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references.”
Are you allowing yourself to be swayed by universal logic’s illusion of objectivity? Today’s pure reason of “universal logic” relies on materialistic comforts to be realized. A fix for every disease, a relief for every inconvenience. Pressures for survival are absent, and therefore courage is not required. The question is, is this “comfortable” state of mind sustainable? Can a cultural narrative that successfully averts the challenges of survival really apprehend the limits that test the self? Previous eras were dumbed down by their superstitions and prejudices, but they never had the opportunity to indulge in today’s scale of lazy, indulgent groupthink, because ultimately their superstitions and prejudices had to be tested against the realities of survival.
So despite all this complexity in the “pure reason” of this information age, why is our groupthink dumbing us down? How can a people know so much, yet be so ignorant? It is because we are having everything defined for us. We are having our thinking served up for us on a platter. We are being told what to believe. Fake news and social media do our thinking for us. We don't have to think for ourselves, we have no need for courage or individualism. Ours is a smug, sanctimonious morality that judges harshly those that do not conform to our narrow, cognitively dissonant boundaries… diversity is good, but diverse opinion that is politically incorrect is bad. Compare this with before the 20th century or the industrial revolution. People may once have led simpler lives, but there comes a point in their less materialistic lives, closer to the coalface, where they have to confront their limitations and access their courage and individualism, in order to survive. Witchburnings have limited currency when famines or floods hit. But in this hi-tech era with solutions to every problem, we are exempt from being tested, and our unchallenged groupthink is making our cultures stupider than hatfulls of bricks.
BOTTOM LINE - This indulgent groupthink of contemporary culture, with its logos masquerading as objectivity, is not sustainable. And people don’t see it, because they are governed by their subjective assumptions. Today’s “pure reason of universal logic” is a lazy indulgence that exempts us from being tested at the boundaries, and thus it has failed to overcome its fat, well-fed illusions governed by subjectivity. If one believes in reincarnation, then a straight line to hell is the most likely trajectory of this cultural narrative. Today’s neck-beard playing computer games may reappear elsewhere digging for yams in a desert, eking out their existence as a hunter-gatherer.
Regards,
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 6:17 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Stephen, list,
I see your points, and agree that culture, knowing how to be, and imitation are important. But I think, that for knowing how to be threre are other references besides culture too. Cultural evolution, historically, takes place in a certain, relatively small time scale. Human traits also come from much more ancient evolutional achievements like humans, mammals, vertebrates, nervous animals, organisms, universal natural laws. I dont think that we disagree out of principle, we just emphasize differently: My point is, that somebody who feels that the culture s*he lives in sucks, and wants to get out of it, can do that, like you said, press the restart-button "This is the first day of the rest of my life", and can therefore rely on noncultural references, like humanism based on panhuman traits, universal logic (like Kant´s pure reason), or so. Therefore I am trying to emphasize these noncultural references. But I think, what you wrote about niches and subcultures is very helpful. E.g. in Albania on one hand there is the blood revenge culture, but on the other hand there also is the "Besa", which moderates it, and has saved many Jews from the Germans during the Nazi-Regime in WW2. I think, the "Besa" is somehow scaffolding on non-, or precultural habits or laws. So i think, the scaffold-metaphor "one thing is put on the former" is too simple, because there are these different time scales.
Best, helmut
02. Dezember 2018 um 12:13 Uhr
"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:
I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up in a dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its own bullshit (actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by definition, but the most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst… but I digress). Suspended within a no-man’s land without sensible truths to anchor to, I had to formulate my own interpretations from scratch. Eastern religions such as Buddhism often refer to the importance of letting go of assumptions and definitions, as part of spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of spiritual practice, this was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter of survival, it was not a condition that I chose.
What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They don’t get it, that all that they ever have are assumptions. Imitation is actually the wrong word… a more precise phrase is “knowing how to be”. It’s about the replication of behavior… taking your culture’s assumptions for granted. Maybe we need a new word that synthesizes assuming with imitating. Assimitating maybe? Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with that… assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how to be”. First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture to belong to. Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the assumptions of their chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits. One can move across niches, and one must choose one to belong to, but limits must be observed. Niche boundaries do not necessarily appear strict to those observing them, however, because they assume that this is “just” the way that reality is. Observing niche boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance (testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for followers. But no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For those that fail to observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too far with their courage, and there are sizeable numbers of both, their lot is often disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis or schizophrenia.
So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve mentioned before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought. A society of people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to thought. Metaphors from chaos theory are informative. Role models as attractors. Boundary conditions. Initial conditions. A culture comprised of subcultures (niches) is still a unity. The farthest niches from one another, within a culture, are still fundamentally united in their sharing of the assumptions that matter (pragmatism). Assimitation within a culture is integral to pragmatism, because it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter. Assumptions are habits… thirdness.
Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my attention of late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon meaning, and the initial conditions… first experiences… are important because of this. You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to change your world-view with the affirmative “this is the first day of the rest of my life.” But it also goes much deeper than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city streets of my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering things about myself). It begins with mother's nurturing… nay, it begins in the womb… there are several examples of the latter referenced in my paper Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and Mind-body Unity.
Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions, mafias, etc. That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between groupthink and healthy culture? One clue lies in the moral individualism of Christianity, its relationship to courage, and Jesus as a role model (I’m not a Christian, but I respect why Christianity was effective). Groupthink is a feature of fear and cowardice, and it sticks like glue, turning people into unquestioning NPC-bots yearning for social approval and the need to belong. Particularly relevant to today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and “fun” cultures are obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent “freedoms” and indulgences, are contained within strictly self-enforced limits revolving around social approval.
Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d just like to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that all problems stem from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream from assimitation (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is where all the problems begin, because that’s where all choices begin.
Regards, sj
no woo
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases, famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed.
Stephen, Edwina, list,
I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective.
So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris).
Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed.
Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism.
Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too.
With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of intentional systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has emerged and evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more complex it is, the more, and the more complex (like humans) the agents it relies on are, the more too.
So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies, mafias, and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory imho would be to show this danger, and so to help prevent it.
So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system should be kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible, for not being able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs and wishes). This dogma is in accord with democratic achievements like separation of powers, civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, religion..., mobility (travel, work, and habitation freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition against right-wing people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and excessive (intransparent) dataism.
Best, Helmut
29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion."
Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory.
This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most important point... the relationship between human behavior and culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism.
sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
I think this is an important distinction.
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their environment and others?
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative to change - but - it does.
Edwina
On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Dear members,
In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing
out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:
The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann
Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently
of the humans engaging it.
2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:
This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.
DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.
The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3
By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.
WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?
There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement.
So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so
I'm going to say it loud and proud:
DNA entanglement. It's a thing.
Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
no woo
REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT:
Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of
Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal
(Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor
(JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13))
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art
00002
Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com:
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception
(beginning at 344 seconds):
https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s
Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004).
Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A.
Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings
of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
