Re: consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Stephen P. King]

On 9/6/2012 8:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly.  There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is
irrelevant),
I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that-  when I
look out
of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
of course weird. Or that there is only one perceiver, that being
the Supreme Monad, is not illogical.


I don't think that it sounds any weirder to say that then to say
that when we look out of our eyes, we can see is the dust from
the Big Bang. We are the totality-singularity (Supreme Monad or
everythingness, etc) subdivided as reflected capacities to
experience. The universe is nothing but a capacity to experience
and to juxtapose that capacity with itself (which is what
experience actually is).

Craig


Dear Craig,

I would only add to your illuminating remark that this
"capacity" is to both self-observe and other-observe.


Agreed!

Observation, IMHO, is nothing more that the ability to generate a
simulation. Only when there is a match between the simulations of
multiple "reflected capacities to experience" that truth obtains.


I wouldn't call it a simulation as much as a perspective-defined 
access. We actually see things directly, but what we can see is 
defined by what we are and in our case, what we are is very complex 
with many opportunities for contention between levels and self-other 
symmetries.


I think it is relativity. Just as proximity of a black hole changes 
actual temporal participation rather than simulates a change, our 
experience of our life actually changes through direct participation 
with it. Instead of simulation I would call it local identity or local 
realism, since there is no non-local identity or global realism.


Craig


Hi Craig,

The simulation idea is using an abstraction, it is not the thing 
itself. The simulation model is a start on a mathematical model of the 
*content* of Sense. It is not Sense itself.


I think the elephant in the Everything list room is the lack of a 
clear cut definition of the differences and relations between things and 
their representations, between the abstract and the concrete, a sign and 
its referent. Our ideas of  Realism needs to be updated. This YouTube 
video (in 5 parts) is a nice dramatic reading that explains the ideas 
involved:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV3ompeJ-Y 





--
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: consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Exactly.  There may a problem with this, but its seems
>> that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant), 
>> I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that-  when I look out
>> of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
>> of course weird. Or that there is only one perceiver, that being
>> the Supreme Monad, is not illogical. 
>>  
>>  
>
> I don't think that it sounds any weirder to say that then to say that when 
> we look out of our eyes, we can see is the dust from the Big Bang. We are 
> the totality-singularity (Supreme Monad or everythingness, etc) subdivided 
> as reflected capacities to experience. The universe is nothing but a 
> capacity to experience and to juxtapose that capacity with itself (which is 
> what experience actually is).
>
> Craig
>
>
> Dear Craig,
>
> I would only add to your illuminating remark that this "capacity" is 
> to both self-observe and other-observe. 
>

Agreed!
 

> Observation, IMHO, is nothing more that the ability to generate a 
> simulation. Only when there is a match between the simulations of multiple 
> "reflected capacities to experience" that truth obtains.
>

I wouldn't call it a simulation as much as a perspective-defined access. We 
actually see things directly, but what we can see is defined by what we are 
and in our case, what we are is very complex with many opportunities for 
contention between levels and self-other symmetries.

I think it is relativity. Just as proximity of a black hole changes actual 
temporal participation rather than simulates a change, our experience of 
our life actually changes through direct participation with it. Instead of 
simulation I would call it local identity or local realism, since there is 
no non-local identity or global realism.

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/-/FJJUCkeG-P8J.
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: consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Stephen P. King]

On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly.  There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant),
I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that-  when I look out
of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
of course weird. Or that there is only one perceiver, that being
the Supreme Monad, is not illogical.


I don't think that it sounds any weirder to say that then to say that 
when we look out of our eyes, we can see is the dust from the Big 
Bang. We are the totality-singularity (Supreme Monad or 
everythingness, etc) subdivided as reflected capacities to experience. 
The universe is nothing but a capacity to experience and to juxtapose 
that capacity with itself (which is what experience actually is).


Craig


Dear Craig,

I would only add to your illuminating remark that this "capacity" 
is to both self-observe and other-observe. Observation, IMHO, is nothing 
more that the ability to generate a simulation. Only when there is a 
match between the simulations of multiple "reflected capacities to 
experience" that truth obtains.


--
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: Re: consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Exactly.  There may a problem with this, but its seems
> that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant), 
> I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that-  when I look out
> of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
> of course weird. Or that there is only one perceiver, that being
> the Supreme Monad, is not illogical. 
>  
>

I don't think that it sounds any weirder to say that then to say that when 
we look out of our eyes, we can see is the dust from the Big Bang. We are 
the totality-singularity (Supreme Monad or everythingness, etc) subdivided 
as reflected capacities to experience. The universe is nothing but a 
capacity to experience and to juxtapose that capacity with itself (which is 
what experience actually is).

Craig


 
>  
>  
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
> 9/5/2012 
> 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:* 2012-09-04, 20:50:39
> *Subject:* Re: consciousness as the experiencre of time
>
>  That's what I'm saying. You can have ideal consciousness without space.
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:36 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> The experience of time is called consciousness, the simplest kind.
>>  
>>  
>> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
>> 9/4/2012 
>> 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:* 2012-09-04, 00:48:59
>> *Subject:* Re: Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything 
>> inextended".Anything outside of spacetime.
>>
>>  
>> On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:33:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything inextended".
>>> Time necessarily drops out if space drops out.
>>>
>>
>> I see the opposite. If space drops out, all you have is time. I can count 
>> to 10 in my mind without invoking any experience of space. I can listen to 
>> music for hours without conjuring any spatial dimensionality. I think that 
>> space is the orthogonal reflection of experience, and that time, is that 
>> reflection (space) reflected again back into experience a spatially 
>> conditioned a posteriori reification of experience.
>>
>> Craig
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
>>> 9/3/2012 
>>> 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:* 2012-08-31, 16:32:54
>>> *Subject:* 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
>>>> 8/31/2012 
>>>> Leibniz would say, "

Re: Re: consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Exactly.  There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant), 
I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that-  when I look out
of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
of course weird. Or that there is only one perceiver, that being
the Supreme Monad, is not illogical. 




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
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: 2012-09-04, 20:50:39
Subject: Re: consciousness as the experiencre of time


That's what I'm saying. You can have ideal consciousness without space.

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:36 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

The experience of time is called consciousness, the simplest kind.


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/4/2012 
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: 2012-09-04, 00:48:59
Subject: Re: Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything 
inextended".Anything outside of spacetime.



On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:33:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything inextended".
Time necessarily drops out if space drops out.

I see the opposite. If space drops out, all you have is time. I can count to 10 
in my mind without invoking any experience of space. I can listen to music for 
hours without conjuring any spatial dimensionality. I think that space is the 
orthogonal reflection of experience, and that time, is that reflection (space) 
reflected again back into experience a spatially conditioned a posteriori 
reification of experience.

Craig
 


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
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: 2012-08-31, 16:32:54
Subject: 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
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 co

Re: consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Craig Weinberg]

That's what I'm saying. You can have ideal consciousness without space.

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:36 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> The experience of time is called consciousness, the simplest kind.
>  
>  
> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
> 9/4/2012 
> 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:* 2012-09-04, 00:48:59
> *Subject:* Re: Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything 
> inextended".Anything outside of spacetime.
>
>  
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:33:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything inextended".
>> Time necessarily drops out if space drops out.
>>
>
> I see the opposite. If space drops out, all you have is time. I can count 
> to 10 in my mind without invoking any experience of space. I can listen to 
> music for hours without conjuring any spatial dimensionality. I think that 
> space is the orthogonal reflection of experience, and that time, is that 
> reflection (space) reflected again back into experience a spatially 
> conditioned a posteriori reification of experience.
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>   
>> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
>> 9/3/2012 
>> 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:* 2012-08-31, 16:32:54
>> *Subject:* 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
>>> 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
  
 He

consciousness as the experiencre of time

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

The experience of time is called consciousness, the simplest kind.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012 
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: 2012-09-04, 00:48:59
Subject: Re: Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything 
inextended".Anything outside of spacetime.



On Monday, September 3, 2012 8:33:34 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Personally I call the Platonic realm "anything inextended".
Time necessarily drops out if space drops out.

I see the opposite. If space drops out, all you have is time. I can count to 10 
in my mind without invoking any experience of space. I can listen to music for 
hours without conjuring any spatial dimensionality. I think that space is the 
orthogonal reflection of experience, and that time, is that reflection (space) 
reflected again back into experience a spatially conditioned a posteriori 
reification of experience.

Craig
 


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
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: 2012-08-31, 16:32:54
Subject: 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
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 ba