Well, I understand, John, and you arrive at amazingly interesting
conclusions when applied for biology.
But to start with there are no infinities anywhere in nature. Just
enormities and then bad mathematics that hasn't figured out what enormities
are on top of that. Theological concepts like infinity and immortality are
better left outside of physics. You see, it was always controversial
(especially in India where this was invented) to add zero and the infinity
sign to mathematics.
Because if mathematics would truly represent reality none of them would
have been added since none of them exist in nature.
Ever since the addition of zero and infinity mathematics has been its own
game and the mistake of most of 20th century failed physics was to not see
this blind spot.
Therefore the boyish attempt to force the circle of physics into the square
of mathematics rather than the other way around.
Which with the revival of causality ahead of us will be exposed and broken.
Also none of "the laws of physics" exist before The Big Bang, not even
Newton's Third Law of Motion, unless you talk about logical tautologies
(which certainly are no laws at all).
The habits of nature are rather the result of their cause which is The Big
Bang itself (and later emergences for chemistry, biology etc). And it is
when you look for a cause to The Big Bang (and its lack of space) that you
arrive at the strangeness of hypertime (for example as that which connects
The Universe to previous or parallel universes).
The why of why The Universe then operates the way it does is
evolutionarily. It is that rare universe that happened to turn out stable
for as long as it has to for example allow for biology to develop. Very
likely the vast vast (enormous) examples of alternative ontic universes
collapse long before ours has. No wonder the field of evolutionary
cosmology was invented by the very same physicist (Lee Smolin) who inspired
me toward the time vs hypertime hypothesis. Smolin's real genius lies in
only spending time on background-independent ideas. It has done wonders for
his theories. Check him out.
Our current work is to see if the two time dimension time model is
compatible with quantum information theory. It is massive and fiendishly
hard work. But for my part I work with some absolutely eminent physicists
and mathematicians. I'm just a humble little philosopher who refuses to
jump to metaphysical narratives before we may credibly do so.
You're not going to find God in The Big Bang either.
Best intentions
Alexander

Den tors 31 jan. 2019 kl 14:49 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:

> The Singularity is an infinite density and temperature that existed ~ 13.8
> billion years ago. I had hypothesized that it gave rise to homeostasis as a
> result of Newton's Third Law of Motion as way of providing a mechanistic
> basis for that Principle of Physiology since there was precedent for the
> other two (Schrodinger and Mitchell). I was looking for what may have given
> rise to homeostasis as a way of explaining why matter exists. There may be
> 'no need for pre-programmed determination' but I was trying to see what the
> serial pre-determination approach that got me back to the unicell would
> predict occurred previously to explain the First Principles of Physiology.
> So for example, in his book "Emergence Everywhere' Harold Morowitz explains
> how the electron balances the energy of the proton in a hydrogen
> atom.....where does that derive from. I took the opportunity to exploit the
> serial pre-adaptation approach to find the source of that property of
> physics using the biologic model of evolution. I think that other such
> properties of physics might similarly be discovered using that approach.
> With the Best of intentions (WBI), John
>


> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:02 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear John
>>
>> Wait wait... What is the difference between The Singularity and The Big
>> Bang here?
>> And why would homeostasis - which is temporary and local and certainly
>> not permanent and universal - have anything to do with The Big Bang per se?
>> If anything is the opposite of The Big Bang and "was bound to happen" as
>> its result it would be The Big Crunch or The Big Rip.
>> Matter is energy is information. No need for any pre-programmed
>> determination within The Big Bang for that to be the case.
>> You can just light a fire and observe it to discover that this is the
>> case.
>>
>> Best
>> Alexander
>>
>> Den tors 31 jan. 2019 kl 07:12 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> The way that I got to the question of why those micelles formed in the
>>> first place was by extention of the serial pre-adaptation premise I had
>>> followed beginning with the lung (my area of expertise and research, so I
>>> had a sense of how that 'arc' might have formed). So the question was 'what
>>> pre-adaptation would have been the 'template' for the unicell? It seemed
>>> that the Singularity was a logical answer, so then I started thinking about
>>> the forward progression from the Singularity to the Big Bang, etc, etc.
>>> Then the question arose as to why homeostasis came about because I had
>>> never thought about or read anywhere about its origins. And it occurred to
>>> me that since homeostasis acts to maintain biological systems, and can be
>>> thought of in the context of balanced chemical equations, that homeostasis
>>> arose as the 'equal and opposite reaction' to the Big Bang, because without
>>> such a reaction there would be no matter, only energy. I know that's highly
>>> speculative, but my sense is that the biology may offer a model for that
>>> hypothetical if in fact it is derivative of the Singularity/Big Bang. With
>>> the best of intentions....jst
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:53 PM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear John
>>>> Yes, I see your (brilliant) point indeed.
>>>> And since my philosophy starts with the sociont (or "the tribe" as I'm
>>>> neither an individualist nor a collectivist), the sociont has a far far
>>>> longer lifespan than a mere (in)dividual.
>>>> Quick question though: In what way does homeostasis represent the
>>>> opposite of The Big Bang? I would think The Big Crunch to be the (possible)
>>>> opposite of The Big Bang.
>>>> Is homeostasis rather not an emergence coming out of The Big Bang?
>>>> Best intentions
>>>> Alexander
>>>>
>>>> Den tors 31 jan. 2019 kl 00:09 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>>> So my definition of the First Principles of Physiology came out of my
>>>>> reverse-engineering of gas-exchange/lung evolution. Based on the close fit
>>>>> between lipids and oxygenation, from lung surfactant being necessary at
>>>>> birth for survival all the way back to cholesterol in the phospholipid
>>>>> bilayer of the cell membrane in early eukaryotic evolution in vertebrates.
>>>>> The three Principles are negative entropy (stolen from Schrodinger),
>>>>> chemiosmosis (the most primitive form of bioenergy), and homeostasis (as
>>>>> the manifestation of the equal and opposite reaction to the Big Bang,
>>>>> without which there would be no matter in the Cosmos). Honestly, I prefer
>>>>> to base my thoughts on biologic principles on such an experimental
>>>>> reduction in order to avoid teleology/tautology. The answers seem to be
>>>>> 'cleaner' that way. Do libido and mortido apply to all organisms? Libido
>>>>> references reproduction, but I'm not sure that that's as important as
>>>>> epigenetic inheritance, which is contingent on offspring acting as
>>>>> phenotypic agents. But there are organisms like Turitopsis dorneii, a jelly
>>>>> fish, that is thought to be immortal because under stress it reverts to its
>>>>> juvenile phenotype......I think that that's an anthropomorphism because the
>>>>> organism has figured out another way of gaining epigenetic marks from its
>>>>> environment, if you see my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the Best of Intentions, John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:49 PM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, John, you would love to hear that our philosophy is actually a
>>>>>> dialectics between libido and mortido. Yes, yang and yin as a Freudian
>>>>>> cosmology if anything.
>>>>>> So in that deeper sense the word will always be out on whether libido
>>>>>> or mortido wins. But to the living organism itself is unthinkable that
>>>>>> libido will not prevail. That is essentially what "will" is.
>>>>>> And for full logical closure we have simply made birth the great
>>>>>> trauma which as such must be denied (you can not get back into the womb any
>>>>>> more than you can relive the past) which turns into the first and beautiful
>>>>>> denial in life. Wanting to die becomes I want to live and libido is the
>>>>>> result. Constantly driven by mortido as its motor. Libido as consciousness
>>>>>> and mortido as subconsciousness. Freud's death drive (and will to life) put
>>>>>> in their proper places.
>>>>>> Any chance you can summarize your take on The First Principles of
>>>>>> Physiology? Where do you place contingency, ironically the only thing that
>>>>>> truly seems necessary.
>>>>>> Best intentions
>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Den tis 29 jan. 2019 kl 16:05 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will reply in [brackets] as if we were conversing.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely, yes!
>>>>>>> Which is why philosophers are preoccupied with will (Schopenhauer
>>>>>>> and Nietzsche) and not with choice (which is a banality except for ethical
>>>>>>> implications).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Yea, I don't see 'choice' as commensurate with 'fight or flight',
>>>>>>> for example. And I get the part about choice and ethics]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evolution within an environment of limited resources (such as a
>>>>>>> planet) will foster will since that which wants to die dies out and that
>>>>>>> which wants to live makes the effort to survive and becomes more abundant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Well I go back to my pet hypothesis that there is a set of First
>>>>>>> Principles of Physiology that set life in motion, like 'ab urbe condita'
>>>>>>> founding of life. In that sense, the time delay for 'choice' seems
>>>>>>> inconsistent, if you get my meaning....Will seems in keeping with that
>>>>>>> sense of existentialism]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Psychoanalysis then enriches the philosophy of will into drives and
>>>>>>> desires and that is where ambiguity and deception (or seduction and
>>>>>>> manipulation) comes into the picture. You now also successfully see the
>>>>>>> same thing in non-human nature too. Makes perfect sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I think that Consciousness is pervasive among living organisms.
>>>>>>> Helmut Platner studies paramecia. In one of his papers he shows that if you
>>>>>>> put a drop of glucose in the water, the paramecium will go towards the
>>>>>>> sugar, it's calcium fluxes increasing within it just like a calcium flux
>>>>>>> would when I see 'sugar'. Consciousness is the organification of Cosmology,
>>>>>>> and all life complies with that Principle of Principles IMHO. A paramecium
>>>>>>> doesn't have to know that it knows- that's left to us, and we shouldn't
>>>>>>> abuse the privilege. The paramecium's consciousness is suited for its
>>>>>>> Niche, but don't think less of it...sounds to me like Wm Blake's 'The Lamb'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                      The Lamb
>>>>>>> By William Blake
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.poetryfoundation.org_poets_william-2Dblake&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aT3wIgRVJwljFLgmQEQGSjxnYREQyXentW3vOlH4Xkw&s=D5iBZuf1XMGJNvDjJwgNmavH79QG9arVZQCmRysYJ1I&e=>
>>>>>>> Little Lamb who made thee
>>>>>>>          Dost thou know who made thee
>>>>>>> Gave thee life & bid thee feed.
>>>>>>> By the stream & o'er the mead;
>>>>>>> Gave thee clothing of delight,
>>>>>>> Softest clothing wooly bright;
>>>>>>> Gave thee such a tender voice,
>>>>>>> Making all the vales rejoice!
>>>>>>>          Little Lamb who made thee
>>>>>>>          Dost thou know who made thee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Little Lamb I'll tell thee,
>>>>>>>          Little Lamb I'll tell thee!
>>>>>>> He is called by thy name,
>>>>>>> For he calls himself a Lamb:
>>>>>>> He is meek & he is mild,
>>>>>>> He became a little child:
>>>>>>> I a child & thou a lamb,
>>>>>>> We are called by his name.
>>>>>>>          Little Lamb God bless thee.
>>>>>>>          Little Lamb God bless thee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  But paramecium instead of lamb, and Nature instead of God.....]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We even work with instinct (the animalistic), drive (the
>>>>>>> mechanical), desire (the human) and transcendence (the sacred) in our work
>>>>>>> in what we call a dialectics of libido and mortido (essentially a
>>>>>>> psychoanalytical approach to yang and yin).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [And I think that those aspects of our psyche are clearer once you
>>>>>>> strip away the 'deceptions' that we've formulated to cope with our
>>>>>>> ambiguous existence]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  But freedom has very little or nothing to do with this. Awareness
>>>>>>> does though. So psychoanalysis works only with awareness and never with
>>>>>>> freedom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I've come to a different conclusion, based on the homologies
>>>>>>> between Quantum Mechanics and The First Principles of Physiology. In that
>>>>>>> frame, both the physics and the physiology are both deterministic and
>>>>>>> probabilistic, and it's the latter that confers 'freedom'. I think that
>>>>>>> aspect of our being comes into play as we evolve away from David Bohm's
>>>>>>> Explicate Order (closer to the ambiguity) towards the Implicate Order
>>>>>>> ('Truth'), which is what science provides us, if we have the Will to do so.
>>>>>>> In my own case, 50 years of chasing my intellectual tail led me to this
>>>>>>> sentence through science. So for example, I think we have to 'control' an
>>>>>>> experiment because we intuitively understand what Bohm says about our
>>>>>>> subjective senses filtering out the Implicate Order....if we were to exist
>>>>>>> in the Implicate Order, we wouldn't have to control experiments, if that
>>>>>>> makes sense. I deliberately chose science over philosophy because I wanted
>>>>>>> to have the opportunity to test ideas using technology, rather than making
>>>>>>> stuff up whole cloth, which seems rather self-servingly narcissistic. But
>>>>>>> here I am, 50 years hence, philosophizing! But with the 'lens' of my
>>>>>>> science to guide me to you and have this discussion.... I personally think
>>>>>>> I am closer to the Implicate as a result of that experience...do you?]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Freedom stays with choice but has no role connected to will, unless
>>>>>>> you still base your idea of justice on Christian moralism and good versus
>>>>>>> evil. I don't. I'm definitely beyond and evil. Out ethics is an existential
>>>>>>> approach to smartness versus stupidity, prolonging and extending libido
>>>>>>> over mortido since mortido finally wins anyway (death). We like survival,
>>>>>>> not immortality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I assume that all of the above is the consequence of cellular
>>>>>>> cooperativity. In the battle between bacteria and us, when the prokaryotes
>>>>>>> devised biofilms and Quorum Sensing, pseudo-multicellular traits, our
>>>>>>> forebears the eukaryotes copes by cooperating with one another, to this
>>>>>>> day. So good/evil are manifestations of that cooperativity that has allowed
>>>>>>> us to exist and florish....it's in our DNA. The 'evil' of doing otherwise
>>>>>>> has largely been winnowed down to a few bad players like Ebola and Hitler,
>>>>>>> but in IMHO they are outliers that will be dealt with by the prevailing
>>>>>>> understanding that cooperation with one another and with the environment
>>>>>>> are necessary. Unless we cave in to our narcissistic ways and follow the
>>>>>>> hawkers of AI and CRISPR, in which case I firmly believe we are screwed
>>>>>>> because that's not how we got to this stage of evolution. As I said in the
>>>>>>> 'Central Theory of Biology' paper (see attached), it was the selection
>>>>>>> pressure for adaptation to land, evolving lungs from swim bladders as a
>>>>>>> derivative of skeletal calcification by Parathyroid Hormone-related Protein
>>>>>>> that set the wheels of endothermy in motion. The upshot was bipedalism,
>>>>>>> freeing the forelimbs for flight in birds and tool making and texting in
>>>>>>> hominins. That, in turn put selection pressure on the CNS to further evolve
>>>>>>> in order to coordinate all of the new fangled special effects derivative of
>>>>>>> standing up-right and chucking spears (to cut to the chase). But that also
>>>>>>> entailed the neuroticism that we are burdened with, IMHO. When I wrote that
>>>>>>> Central Theory paper the thing that compelled me to publish it was the
>>>>>>> realization that meditation is the flip side of endothermy, etc etc. And
>>>>>>> when I extrapolate from meditation, I can 'see' why body temperature drops
>>>>>>> as a 'reverse evolution', and that perhaps we become more in touch with our
>>>>>>> gut-brain, which was the pre-adaptation of the brain-brain (see Nicholas
>>>>>>> Holland's paper on the skin-brain if you care to (Holland ND. Early central
>>>>>>> nervous system evolution: an era of skin brains? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003
>>>>>>> Aug;4(8):617-27.) and btw, the interrelationship between skin and brain is
>>>>>>> why, for example, all neurodegenerative diseases have skin homologues.
>>>>>>> These insights to skin as the source of all physiologic traits as the
>>>>>>> homologue of the cell membrane was the impetus for "Evolution, the Logic of
>>>>>>> Biology" (see attached).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [And I don't think that mortido 'wins out'. That's how we see the
>>>>>>> life cycle from the perspective of the adult phenotype as the be-all and
>>>>>>> end-all. But from the epigenetic inheritance perspective, it is the zygote
>>>>>>> that is the primary selection pressure, generating offspring to collect
>>>>>>> epigenetic marks, which are brought back to the parent organism by the
>>>>>>> 'phenotype as agent', the epigenetic marks changing the DNA of the egg and
>>>>>>> sperm, aided by meiosis for the selection of marks relevant to the
>>>>>>> 'history' of the organism, modifying the development of the embryo to
>>>>>>> detect the future (changed) environment accordingly in order to survive and
>>>>>>> thrive. That on-going productive relationship between the organism and its
>>>>>>> environment is our immortality. Moreover, our microbiome may also be
>>>>>>> immortal in the sense that when we die it returns to the ground, enters the
>>>>>>> aquafer, is assimilated by plants and animals and is thus passed on to
>>>>>>> other organisms within our respective ecosystems. BTW, there is evidence
>>>>>>> that our microbiome remains intact after we are buried...it's called the
>>>>>>> necrobiome. This way of thinking about means and ends is, IMHO, helpful
>>>>>>> because it acts as a foil to the prevailing attitude in society that we
>>>>>>> recognize our mortality, and the fear of death compels us to engulf our
>>>>>>> surroundings in order to be 'too big to fail'....facetiousness
>>>>>>> notwithstanding. And of course that's fueled by the Physicists telling us
>>>>>>> that we're only here by chance based on Anthropic Principle, when in
>>>>>>> reality we are not 'in' this place, we are 'of' this place, literally. So
>>>>>>> instead of the Big Chill, it should be the Big Thrill! If only...... ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll stop so you can respond, if you wish....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:01 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely, yes!
>>>>>>>> Which is why philosophers are preoccupied with will (Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>> and Nietzsche) and not with choice (which is a banality except for ethical
>>>>>>>> implications).
>>>>>>>> Evolution within an environment of limited resources (such as a
>>>>>>>> planet) will foster will since that which wants to die dies out and that
>>>>>>>> which wants to live makes the effort to survive and becomes more abundant.
>>>>>>>> Psychoanalysis then enriches the philosophy of will into drives and
>>>>>>>> desires and that is where ambiguity and deception (or seduction and
>>>>>>>> manipulation) comes into the picture. You now also successfully see the
>>>>>>>> same thing in non-human nature too. Makes perfect sense.
>>>>>>>> We even work with instinct (the animalistic), drive (the
>>>>>>>> mechanical), desire (the human) and transcendence (the sacred) in our work
>>>>>>>> in what we call a dialectics of libido and mortido (essentially a
>>>>>>>> psychoanalytical approach to yang and yin). But freedom has very little or
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with this. Awareness does though. So psychoanalysis works
>>>>>>>> only with awareness and never with freedom.
>>>>>>>> Freedom stays with choice but has no role connected to will, unless
>>>>>>>> you still base your idea of justice on Christian moralism and good versus
>>>>>>>> evil. I don't. I'm definitely beyond and evil. Out ethics is an existential
>>>>>>>> approach to smartness versus stupidity, prolonging and extending libido
>>>>>>>> over mortido since mortido finally wins anyway (death). We like survival,
>>>>>>>> not immortality.
>>>>>>>> Best intentions
>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Den mån 28 jan. 2019 kl 15:32 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand the argument/logic. But with all due respect, my
>>>>>>>>> concern is that by starting after the fact with cultural norms and
>>>>>>>>> practices, the ontology and epistemology of 'Free Will' gets distorted by
>>>>>>>>> the fact that life exists within the boundaries of ambiguity and deception,
>>>>>>>>> as I have expressed the human condition from my perspective as a scientist.
>>>>>>>>> That is to say, there are homologies between Quantum Mechanics and The
>>>>>>>>> First Principles of Physiology, perhaps the most significant being the
>>>>>>>>> Pauli Exclusion Principle, which assigns the 4 variables for electron spin.
>>>>>>>>> The first three are deterministic, whereas the fourth is probabilistic. In
>>>>>>>>> that sense, there are 'degrees of freedom', so is that Will or Choice? For
>>>>>>>>> me, Will connotes a force of nature that is more consistent with physics
>>>>>>>>> than Choice does.Your thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:49 AM Alexander Bard <
>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes!
>>>>>>>>>> Will is will. Or rather will is libido (the will to live in
>>>>>>>>>> Latin) and its opposite is mortido (the will to will nothing, or the will
>>>>>>>>>> to live as if dead).
>>>>>>>>>> But we are not free from this will and this will can not un-will
>>>>>>>>>> itself. So the whole concept of "free will" was just logical nonsense from
>>>>>>>>>> the very beginning.
>>>>>>>>>> But it has served the Abrahamic religions well since each person
>>>>>>>>>> can be accused of willing freedom too much instead of willing submission.
>>>>>>>>>> So it is a religio-judicial concept to be able to judge people
>>>>>>>>>> both for intentions and behaviors.
>>>>>>>>>> But choice can certainly be free which is why what we do and its
>>>>>>>>>> consequences become an integrated part of our self-identity. Flashes of
>>>>>>>>>> self-moments in different near-worlds chained together to constitute our
>>>>>>>>>> historicized selves.
>>>>>>>>>> So we should speak of free choice and not of free will.
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Den sön 27 jan. 2019 kl 18:49 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Brilliantly articulated, Alexander. The more I learn of your
>>>>>>>>>>> language system and vision the more I am loving it and seeing its beauty
>>>>>>>>>>> and depth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Re Free Will, clearly no philosophically libertarian  free will
>>>>>>>>>>> for me. But there is a self-consciousness system that regulates and
>>>>>>>>>>> legitimizes choices that I identify as my “named personhood,” i.e., “Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>> decided to reply to this email, because he deemed it justifiable.”
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With warmth,
>>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 27, 2019 12:09 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Matter, Life, Mind, Culture, Meta-Culture (was:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Inner Senses of the Human Psyche)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My approach was to go back and check when factuality actually
>>>>>>>>>>> served a purpose in language (language was certainly more poetry, power and
>>>>>>>>>>> manipulation than factuallty at first (yes "shit-testing"is way older and
>>>>>>>>>>> much more widespread than "fact-checking"). And there are two areas where
>>>>>>>>>>> factuality has a value that gives it an excuse to require its extra needed
>>>>>>>>>>> energy and effort, and those areas are the social orientation through an
>>>>>>>>>>> unknown landscape (hunting and warfare being the two most obvious) plus as
>>>>>>>>>>> the wisdom of the elders (what is a rite of passage in front on the elders
>>>>>>>>>>> if not one huge goodbye to childhood fantasies and fairytales and a brutal
>>>>>>>>>>> existential acceptance of hardcore reality).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The proper justification of values must then develop from either
>>>>>>>>>>> of these two sources, certainly not from fantasies and fairytales (as
>>>>>>>>>>> today's confused and paranoid social justice warriors with their
>>>>>>>>>>> narcissistic over-emotionality claim). The right values are then simply the
>>>>>>>>>>> offspring of fully understanding factuality and its value and then allowing
>>>>>>>>>>> for humanness and not perfection to color that understanding (otherwise all
>>>>>>>>>>> laws would be zero tolerance, and death penalties galore whenever that zero
>>>>>>>>>>> tolerance is broken, like a North Korean Platonism). As for digital I call
>>>>>>>>>>> such a development of ethics "the ethics of interactivity" and refer to it
>>>>>>>>>>> back as life-stage development application toward "a contributive role with
>>>>>>>>>>> an existential experience" within "the sociont" (or the original nomadic
>>>>>>>>>>> tribe in all its contemporary expressions). Meaning I add "strategy" to
>>>>>>>>>>> your call for a "wisdom" of "ethics".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Needless to add perhaps, there is no Christian-style "free will"
>>>>>>>>>>> in our model. But why should there be? Freedom and will have after all
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with each other (unless you desperately want to keep a
>>>>>>>>>>> balancing karma or judgment day in your moralism). But there are choices
>>>>>>>>>>> recognized as such. Which means the sociont can agree on policies that with
>>>>>>>>>>> some creative plasticity fosters the sociont in certain directions (like
>>>>>>>>>>> makes it move as a whole when food is scarce or enemies get closer). Values
>>>>>>>>>>> built on human archetypes and the communication in between them. There you
>>>>>>>>>>> go, the ethics if interactivity can then both "make socio-biological sense"
>>>>>>>>>>> to people and also be applicable on an increasingly digital future. But
>>>>>>>>>>> forget about pacifism if you go for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best intentions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1