|
Blog 23.02 |
Holonism is dead wrong. That a grain is a heap (space) or a seed is a tree (time) is not a conversion, namely across levels of resolution from the position of an observer. That it is such a conversion, is euphemism atomically affirming and perpetuating the errors existence and agency as a deconstructed or analyzed God-existence (error first tier converted to second tier as if it explains things deeper) and the psyche as a deconstructed or analyzed soul. The explanation observer or system is the conversion of the cancer that is the mayhem, into metastasis, i.e., by terminal denial of what everything is, namely definition (word). The explanation by first and second tier analysis or deconstruction of word (not individually but as such) is the terminal minimization, demonization and denial of everything—which criticism is exactly not the point that word is everything, as it would be if existence were the point, but is the point that EVERYTHING IS WORD. The idea that defining word with awesome or awful speechlessness beyond word 1) on the basis of some mysterious yet indefinable context underlying it, 2) is moving forward together, all connected to each other, or 3) takes a village to raise a mindful (observing) child is not infinity meta, it is metastasis. Synergetics is cybernetics, i.e., artificial intelligence. Roland Mann “<not a conversion> Yes, because you believe in some kind of action to explain definition, as if whatever the image (icon) or association (index) is, it is beyond symbol. The point is that icon and index are symbol and that symbol is the end of the explanation. “The world” is an inversion of that. So, “normal” and “natural” are both chronically systematic subversions of symbol. “The world,” i.e., “existence” sport (by the “transformational” fun and farce of useful fallacy, self-deception and mental disorder blamed on humans) exactly the same problematics (the noun “problem” deep-converted to its supposed systemic qualities) as “reality.” “BACKGROUND” About until the end of 2015 I was against conservative agency in favor of a self-organizational system-cosmology of dynamic fluid, and already excluding “the observer” in the sense that it is agentive... and that missing variables are responsible for unexplained quantum causality as it is for any causality. It was about that time that I concluded that it is wrong that any of the musician, the instrument or the music does each other, including itself. I was certainly up in arms about the destruction of the planet in terms of the error of agency as such as responsible for the delusion of egoistic (dualistic) action by not only so-called free will but even more, so-called volition. WHAT ABOUT NOW? Now my conclusion is that socialism or communism, as the ultimate idea that the world can be engineered volitionally or by many orders worse than that, systematically by observational feedback, is sheer horror, because the explanation “the world” (existence) is utter error. Roland Mann, not a conversion I don't agree with that. because you believe in some kind of action to explain definition No, that's not it. Action is a causation argument, and not relevant to the problem. Is the problem of continuity not like every other ontological problem one of integration? In other words the integration of derivative events? Not dynamic, but nevertheless kinematic, e.g. with observers? ‘Nature’ is the error Continuity, observer and system are like every other word, word, but also the presumption of being, which is nonword. The necessity to explain it further than that it is word, is the error, "existence." So, early on I did try and see the world in terms of complete determinism, a kinematic determinism, i.e., without force, power or control (causality), but instead in terms of the scientific concept self-organization, which could be seen as system, short of any process, and even short of things like conversion. When Terrence Deacon was working on Incomplete Nature, he agreed with my sentiment that the world is not teleological. In reading the book, I came to the conclusion that anything whole is not the same thing as when it is part of some other whole. That conclusion was before 2015 (2012), so maybe I underestimated how far back it all started. I was critical of the book, about the idea that anything is incomplete. |