Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Craig Weinberg You're on the right track, but everybody from Plato on says that the Platonic world is timeless, eternal. And nonextended or spaceless (nonlocal). Leibniz's world of monads satisfies these requirements. But there is more, there is the Supreme Monad, which experiences all. And IS the All. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:53:09 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Craig On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are one, which IMHO I agree with. Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps mistakenly, associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived experience. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule IMHO Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Volume 46, Issue 3, 2003 Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and Lived-Experience Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010 Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beitr?e zur Philosophie begins the critique of technological thinking that would centrally characterize his later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the critique of machination in Beitr?e connects its arising to the predominance of 'lived-experience' ( Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for the possibility of a pre-delineated, rule-based metaphysical understanding of the world. In this essay I explore this connection. The unity of machination and lived-experience becomes intelligible when both are traced to their common root in the primordial Greek attitude of techne , originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of nature. But with this common root revealed, the basic connection between machination and lived-experience also emerges as an important development of one of the deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the Beitr?e 's analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes to discover a way of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant basic assumption of self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the modern picture of the autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set over against a pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual confrontation. In the final section, I investigate an important and illuminating parallel to Heidegger's result: the consideration of the relationship between experience and technological ways of thinking that forms the basis of the late Wittgenstein's famous rule-following considerations. everything-list Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WEvmwMTgZdoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some platonists and mystics often asserts. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps I am misguided, but I thought that comp was moreorless a mechanical model of brain and man activity. I obviously need to peruse your main idea . Do you have a link ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 09:56:27 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some platonists and mystics often asserts. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
Hi Roger Clough, Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps I am misguided, but I thought that comp was moreorless a mechanical model of brain and man activity. Not really. Comp is the hypothesis that there is a level of description of my brain or body such that I can be emulated by a computer simulating my brain (or body) at that level of description. Comp is neutral on the level. It might be a very low level like if we needed to simulate the entire solar system at the level of string theory, or very high, like if we were the result of the information processing done by the neurons in our skull. Comp entails that NO machine can ever be sure about its substitution level (the level where we survive through the digital emulation), and so comp cannot be used normatively: if we are machine, we cannot know which machine we are, and thus saying yes to the digitalist doctor for an artificial brain demands some act of faith. It is a theological sort of belief in reincarnation, even if technological. It is theotechnology, if you want. No one can imposes this to some other. Then I show that comp leads to Plato, and refute Aristotle metaphysics. There are no ontological physical universe. the physical universe emerges from a gluing property of machines or number's dream. The physical universe appears to be a tiny facet of reality. The proof is constructive and show how to derive physics from machine's dream theory (itself belonging to arithmetic); but of course this leads to open problems in arithmetic. What has been solved so far explains already most of the quantum aspect of reality, qualitatively and quantitatively. The approach explains also why from the number's points of view, quanta and qualia differentiate. The work is mainly a complete translation of a part of the 'mind-body problem' into a 'belief in matter problem' in pure arithmetic. I obviously need to peruse your main idea . Do you have a link ? The more simple to read in english is probably the sane04: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html best, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 09:56:27 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se. Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th century. I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some platonists and mystics often asserts. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32 Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep
Re: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:53:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg You're on the right track, but everybody from Plato on says that the Platonic world is timeless, eternal. And nonextended or spaceless (nonlocal). Leibniz's world of monads satisfies these requirements. But there is more, there is the Supreme Monad, which experiences all. And IS the All. Hegel and Spinoza have the Totality, Kabbala has Ein Sof, There's the Tao, Jung's collective unconscious, there's Om, Brahman, Logos, Urgrund, Urbild, first potency, ground of being, the Absolute, synthetic a prori, etc. I call it the Totality-Singularity or just Everythingness. It's what there is when we aren't existing as a spatiotemporally partitioned subset. It is by definition nonlocal and a-temporal as there is nothing to constrain its access to all experiences. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-30, 13:53:09 *Subject:* Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis) I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Craig On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are one, which IMHO I agree with. Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps mistakenly, associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived experience. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule IMHO Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Volume 46http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sinq20?open=46#vol_46, Issue 3 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sinq20/46/3, 2003 Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and Lived-Experience Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010 Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beitr锟�e zur Philosophie begins the critique of technological thinking that would centrally characterize his later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the critique of machination in Beitr锟�e connects its arising to the predominance of 'lived-experience' ( Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for the possibility of a pre-delineated, rule-based metaphysical understanding of the world. In this essay I explore this connection. The unity of machination and lived-experience becomes intelligible when both are traced to their common root in the primordial Greek attitude of techne , originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of nature. But with this common root revealed, the basic connection between machination and lived-experience also emerges as an important development of one of the deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the Beitr锟�e 's analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes to discover a way of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant basic assumption of self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the modern picture of the autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set over against a pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual confrontation. In the final section, I investigate an important and illuminating parallel to Heidegger's result: the consideration of the relationship between experience and technological ways of thinking that forms the basis of the late Wittgenstein's famous rule-following considerations. everything-list Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Craig On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are one, which IMHO I agree with. Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps mistakenly, associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived experience. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule IMHO Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Volume 46http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sinq20?open=46#vol_46, Issue 3 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sinq20/46/3, 2003 Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and Lived-Experience Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010 Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beiträge zur Philosophie begins the critique of technological thinking that would centrally characterize his later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the critique of machination in Beiträge connects its arising to the predominance of 'lived-experience' ( Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for the possibility of a pre-delineated, rule-based metaphysical understanding of the world. In this essay I explore this connection. The unity of machination and lived-experience becomes intelligible when both are traced to their common root in the primordial Greek attitude of techne , originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of nature. But with this common root revealed, the basic connection between machination and lived-experience also emerges as an important development of one of the deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the Beiträge 's analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes to discover a way of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant basic assumption of self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the modern picture of the autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set over against a pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual confrontation. In the final section, I investigate an important and illuminating parallel to Heidegger's result: the consideration of the relationship between experience and technological ways of thinking that forms the basis of the late Wittgenstein's famous rule-following considerations. everything-list Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 8/30/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WEvmwMTgZdoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but experience. Hi Craig, I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space. I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the integration of external world events. For example, if you had a dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that were from your spacetime experience. I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime. Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and irrelevant. Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience. Agreed. The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations. Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick. In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are the subject of the experience. Exactly! If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, realms come from thought. Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization. Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
