|
Blog 23.02 |
Ronald Green's zoom meetings — preliminary commentary
Yesterday I carefully viewed “the purpose of purpose” zoom meeting and the “to be or to not be” one three months ago, and I see why Eric Metzner is so happy to have found the group. Ronald Green, Roland's elaboration on Teddy's sense of your philosophy as related to a special relativity kind of perspectival tension or electric potential between self/other systems as efficient is a matter of surprise (stark difference) between “A is B” definitions. The invocation of function or usefulness, or subject-object paradox is dualistic redundancy. Roland Mann “Human” defines symbolically conceptual sentience. Everything seems to have purpose and all purpose is human because of word. The idea that words are insufficient (we cannot know definitions) is the ultimate horrible error of humanity demonizing all that is human. So, no new word comes from practice. Every new word comes from old words. Roland Mann Pierre Rousseau I can't quite remember what I said. What I glean from your comment is that I may have been referring to the tension around failed expectation? The concept of ‘outside’ is only referable to a conceived of future (“something might happen”), which is the imaginary territory in which I surmise your ‘mayhem’ occurs. However as the future and the past are two exactly mirrored branches of the same tree, the implication is of internal systemic tension, ie a system in disintegration, in which the conflicting behaviours mirroring conflicting futures inhibit systemic integrity. This tension is the raw material of transformation, but is analogue in nature. Roland Mann, Now I'm going to have to transcribe your words, but the answer will be later, because in viewing the latest video, I went to bed at 3.15 this morning, and was up again at 7. So after breakfast first a nap and after that while trimming and painting the house, small breaks to work on an essay on the meetings. I'll probably view the one in December on TV this evening. Ronald Green, The story that we humans are agents is the full extent of us being agents, and it is only as such that we do exist having discussions. However, it transpires utterly in terms of words (and therefore is human), including the world as if non-word, the latter being the contradiction that is the mayhem. Analogue. I do think the endlessly slippery difference-and-similarity of anything being both whole and part (holonism) is what the error existence is. What Ronald Green is saying can be said far more efficiently in terms of what it is instead of also why it is. What anything is, is by such definition (that it is something) in surprising or even shocking contrast to each other, i.e., it and the something. “A is B” and then what b is, and c, and d, etc., is not supposed to be even a dynamically fixed reality all the way down. It is by the definition “A is B” exactly what it is, with massive SYMBOLIC variation. I.e., “human.” The redundancy is that it is a discussion between agents in existence. Existence as such is just another word for reality. The word “existence” is exactly as “problematic” as the word, “reality.” It is the definition of problem. But if the insistence is that existence is the point, how about a meeting on the vastly normative “world” of “why” sentience is only in the very last step of conceptualization, symbolic and that words are therefore vastly insufficient in their referencing of their supposed not-really-reality referent, “existence?” And nevertheless that human experience is where it's at! Roland Mann: The question may be, why are things necessary? Only because of Self, and its continuity. Your so-called self hopelessly underestimates (minimizes, demonizes and denies) definition as what continuity is. The questions why and the self are tautological affirmation of word as contradiction, namely as nonword word, and then projected into humans, as if the very definition of human is not symbol (word) but some primitive and unspeakable drive. |