Hello

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Hello

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:47 pm

Plato's Rock wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:29 pm

That's a Western take on it. In the West, we like our Buddhism tame. We like it to affirm the individual, not issue in his/her absorption into eternal cosmic oneness. We like it to give us, as individuals, some kind of spiritual "peace," but never to challenge our individuality.
..., so would a western take on Samsara be equivalent to "plato's cave allegory"? If so, I'll reference the thought I alluded to in my first post now; If being in the cave is meant to represent a lower state of awareness, and being on the outside is meant to represent a higher state. Does it make sense that the "outside cave" is still a box (read as a cave)? We just simply constrain ourselves to a bigger cave now called the Universe with multiple fires (suns) within it.
Well, for Plato, "the real world" meant the realm of higher forms, where real wisdom of the ultimate nature of things was, not merely the physical universe. For him, the visible universe was "the cave." The ones who "get out of" the cave are philosophers, because they alone grasp the illusory nature of "cave" things, and the reality of the "higher world" of truth.

I'm not saying I believe that: I'm just pointing out that he did.
True about etymological origins, but "nothing" also doesn't exist in Nature. As far as I know, Nature abhors a vacuum, and fills it with anything/everything. Is this state of "nothingness" merely a logical error for our minds? Or something like a "Trashbin"? I mean at the most basic level, the only question/reality is, "Do you wish to Exist, or not?". And even Buddhists die/commit suicide for a cause external to them.
For the Buddhist, the realm of actual "things," the physical world, is an illusion. The whole discipline of meditation is to realize that it is not real, that nothing exists as distinct from the Great Oneness. Once is enlightened to this Oneness by mental disciplines that produce a rejection of the realm of "things." Nirvana is the state in which this is realized and actualized, through the elimination of distinct identity ("thingness," if you will). It is compared both to the blowing out of a candle and to the dissipation of a drop of water in an ocean. The "self" is liquidated and disappears when it attains Nirvana. It is no longer a "thing" anymore...in fact, it really never was a "thing." That was maya, or illusion.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Hello

Post by Plato's Rock » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:19 pm

In both cases, the "non-things" that are aimed at are being subsumed into a "Greater thing". The Candle being blown out, the water into the ocean. Starting with the lit flame of the candle, there's multiple ways to approach it. Quantum Mechanically, it's just an excitation state that eventually will just reach a resting point. It's a release of energy, and not really at individual entity to begin with. The "flame is a non-thing already" because it is dependent upon the nature of the wick being excited. And exciting other elements around it.

The water drop into the ocean, how many molecules of H2O are there in a single drop of water? How many in an Ocean?

In both cases it seems to me at least, that such thought leads to an infinite recursion, or an infinite regress. Circular logic, and a loop. The Eternal Recurrence of Nietzschean thought. And to me, on some level, that is unsatisfying.

I've somehow turned Plato's Cave into a metaphor about being caught in one's own awareness over the visible world. And a sort of illusion about one's own "mind". Not sure how though. After all, if everything is an illusion, including ourselves, who are we to say if there is a "real world" of actual things that needs to be attained? Why not simply call the world that we seem to cohabit real enough?

Why take such endgoals/purposes of Meditation as the "great answer"? Why not use them as starting points instead? Say, and condition myself through my rhetoric to realize that "I've already attained Nirvana", in essence. That this is no longer "Samsara", but merely the higher worlds?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4208
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Hello

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:55 pm

Plato's Rock wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:19 pm
In both cases, the "non-things" that are aimed at are being subsumed into a "Greater thing". The Candle being blown out, the water into the ocean.
I'm not advocating their view. I'm just telling you what they say about it. I'm no Buddhist.
The Eternal Recurrence of Nietzschean thought. And to me, on some level, that is unsatisfying.
Mathematically impossible, the ER. It seems to me it was one of Nietzsche's more obvious errors.

In an infinite universe, there would, by definition, always be an infinite number of "other ways" things could always be. So there would be no incentive for even one thing to "recur," let alone an "eternal" return to the same state. Rather, there'd be infinite chances against any one outcome recurring -- ever.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:41 am

Visuals rest on more than just formlines (but want to congratulate you for knowing this much). I'm designing a untraviolet camera, so pay a lot of attention to the last two century's work on the evolution of display screens, as well as art in general, though not from the same perspective of a artist, as my motivations differ.

Most of science till relatively recently, as well as art, falls within a range of visual information that obligate carnivores use. It is a use of kenetic, relative space that uses abstractions to highlight the learning process.

The actual turn to Chemistry is a bit off in the historical record, when holding this in mind. It didn't just shake off alchemy one day, with a pronouncement of a periodic table. It started much earlier, the text I usually mark is the ultimate of the realm of kenetic space, visualized and abstracted..... a medieval German artillery text called Bellifortis. Only copy I've come across in full is in the Library of Congress, and it came from a (large) reprinting.

Lemme see if the internet has anything on it:

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php? ... type=topic

It does, but it mistakes a aspect of it's descent, I consider Heron of Byzantium as more important, as he was the first to pioneer mechanical 3-D drawlings to illustrate siege weapons, it developed out of Byzantine/Catholic conceptions of heavenly art, idealizing heavenly images on a more perfect plane, which is closer to the Platonic images you mentioned. That's a side issue, but one good to know for this discussion.

The main issue is, Bellifortis started the trend of blasting shit to smithereens while slapping mathematical symbols hopefully relevant, meant to mean something next to it. I by no means presume these late medieval gunners to have a great grasp on monadology, or alchemy. They grasped the need for abstract notation, as well as written text, but it was a novelty in both cases, so drew the images first (undoubtedly a great many were illiterate) then slapped down a written explanation after wards to narrate the images, and the symbols came from wherever they could track down knowledge, be it alchemical or astrological. Clear they tried to make it meaningful, just I can't get all what was meant, and know of no one who does.

This is a few centuries of castle smashing, from Heron of Byzantium creating 3-D mechanical art, to Bellifortis, exploring the imaginary to the abstract..... a lot of people died in between, and afterwards.

You fast foreward to a Monadologist like Boscovich, in his Natural Philosophy:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Expla ... =Boscovich

(That hurts, I used to have that very edition, gave it to a friend, worth $500 now)

He evolved to the position of blowing shit up in labs to figure out how movement worked, by launching projectiles, any projectile, at high speed, and observing how the action smashed together. The theory of physics then differed from now (not as much as we like to claim) in that matter was made up of monads, and they existed in only one spot, in one direction, in fixed space. Obviously chemistry would operate differently under that scheme than today. You might also not that today we continue on this tradition in CERN labs, and pretty much any field of particle physics that inform how much this or that element or sub atomic element works.... it is essentially the same method and mental apparatus connected together in the mind that bushmen use to throw spears at prey, as well as when cats stalk their prey. It is all that obligate carnivore mode of thinking. You don't need to think in this format if you are a herbivore just browsing, their eyes aren't set up to see three dimensional, their pacts operate under different principles over that of predators, their response to conflict as well.

In Antiquity, we had one case of a aggressive Research and Development program to make machines of war in the west, and that was in Syracuse when they faced off against the Romans, and Archimedes was the final statement on this long term exploration of geometry and the mechanical arts. The Greeks didn't much value this sort of innovation, and the romans while embracing it, didn't systematize it.... they were more net importers of ideas. Easy to accept a new idea, slow to develop it themselves. (No need to touch open him, but look into Heron of Alexandria as a side internet, NOT the same as Heron of Byzantium). Only group more obsessed than Syracuse with developing weapons from the ancient world would be the Mohists of China, who formed a military along lines not to dissimilar to the Knights of Malta, founded not on the protection of a state but a idea/creed. Both sought to expand ethics in actuality, and not the boundaries of petty states. Rhodes defended Christianity, Mohists the defenseless at prey of predators. This is NOT the mindset of a Obligate Predator, but something more. It is a level of strategic thinking most societies don't advanced to. West only got it systematically post WW2, with the formation of NATO. We had to begin redefining the cause and justification of war. Throwing yourself in the path of a onslaught isn't quite on par with obligatory predatorial thinking. On the one hand, you must be the ultimate predator, but your motivations differ, and this requires intergration other forms of thinking. For example, a multinational military state isn't going to be able to hold to a single doctrine of orthodox military affairs, they will play off each other's politics. Usually this destroys international alliances. NATO is a abberation because it can more completely reduce and recycle abstract thinking, making Orthodox thinking unorthodox and reversing it in a manner we couldn't do earlier. The late romans, early Byzantines could, but we stopped doing it, save for a occasional Machiavellian thinker. Wasn't till recently that old methodology remerged. It has it's foundations in the interpretation of maps, of space.... not of mass smashing into mass.

To go back to early alchemy, that inspired for example the Islamic field of Astrology, you'll need to head back to Catholic/Coptic monastic texts. I found one completely by accident searching on a completely different topic.

Let me see if I recall that monks/bishop's name, started with a N I believe.


(My iPad is heating up, will make this two posts, don't reply till I finish)

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:19 am

Ah shit, just made a awkward discover in John of Nikiu, I'm pretty certain it is where I was reading about it, but found something completely unintended when looking over chapter XVIII with King Sabacon of India and Egypt (no such person existed in India or Egypt).... looks like a short summary of Yu the Great, from China.... which makes this a Magi (Zoroastrian) text that John took for making his early history of the world from.... which just complicates my work on Sardanapulas and Emperor Zhou of the Shang.... I wasn't expecting it in this text as I didn't know what to look for when I first read this.

Anyway, this text is important for two reasons for a understanding of Alchemy. If you look at chapters 6 on Hermes the Silver and Metal Smith, as well as 10 for Hephaestus and 11 Tobel, you'll notice a pattern of mythological heroes associated with technological triumphs. This methodology is first recorded (well, the oldest we have attested to, not the oldest source) from St. Eusebius, who mentions in a attack, the supposed phonecian historian Sanchuniathon. Eusebius was quite skeptical:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanchuniathon

This mythological structure of his work was "deciphered" from "phonecial ruins" by Philo of Byblos, that already had fell apart by this era. The work itself is a earlier working of the Cosmology of Taautus, which clearly is Mesopotamian..... but has no obvious relation to the works I've read involving the MES or the later Babylonian concepts of astrology. Thing is, these Cosmologies pop up ALOT in antiquity afterwards, as most of the Gods and Heros from antiquity pop up on these lists, as well as ironically in Zhou China as well (Zoroastrians originally come from Xinjiang, a lot of myths and historical figures got imported, Aristotle and Confucius for example build some of their theory of ethics on the exact sam role models).

Oh, Im working up threw Chapter XXI, so haven't hit it yet.... but this text (pretty sure it is this text) also talks about Alchemy, and the origins not just with Hermes, but also through Dual and Monistic thought..... which means it comes from Aristotle and Theophrastus in particular. I just can't find it yet from the obvious distraction I have..... it preserves two traditions of periodical science.

As you know, Aristotle and Theophrastus did a lot to lay the foundations of physical science, and much of what would become alchemy has a direct growth out of this, especially in regards to Newton's experiments to find why some chemical reactions mirrored life in terms of growth visually.

Be really damn great if I could find it though, I'll post it once I find it, but it nearly midnight.

Now..... let's see where I am..... Okay, thentransmission of the Mesopotamian and "Phonecian/Ugarite" myths to the Romans, the older historians who correspond to them (ask if you need them) and the Theophrastus link..... okay, we can skip back a few generations to North Africa.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martianus_Capella

"The Marriage of Philology and Mercury" was a early pioneering work in the eventual divisions of Liberal and Mechanial arts. He was a theorist living in Roman North Africa, and was absolutely bizarre. You'll notice a lot of Capella's ideas premeditated alchemical art. I recommend doing google image searches, some of the figures are the same as what leaps out of alchemical texts. Our university system evolved out of this chaos, and today people still mock the hard sciences from the soft ones, and despise liberal art degrees.... it is a pedagogical division of knowledge that sits at the root of knowledge, and alchemy grew out of this in it's most defining (surviving) form in the west. I've spent hours starring at some of the bizarre illustrations trying to figure out what the hell was going on in North Africa at this time. Was a bastion of Latin civilization at the time, but some other bizarre shit was going on, and the Latin west ironically became a great preserver of it. Our modern analytic mind is a direct survivor of this tradition, it made us who we are today.

As to the origins of Astrology, I can't say. I know it has a lot of influence from much earlier antiquity, from Iraq especially, several thousand years prior, wouldn't be surprised if we can someday trace it back to Gobekli Tepe (12,000 years ago) as some aspects of astrological symbols are 6,000. I know Antioch had a fairly advanced system in the 3rd century, and that the city of Alexandria had a astrologist called Paul, who's book made it to India, where it survives intact, a near clone of western astrology, just more "advanced". Both Astrology and Alchemy had medical connections, and no doctor in these eras would of ignored either, and it stayed this way till well into the Renaissance, I was reading online from the bastion of atheism in the Middle Ages a medical text from the university of Balogna, mostly dealt with associating heavenly movements with symptoms, so you know when to do certain actions.

Francis Bacon himself knew of Alchemy, and defended the practitioners as they (paraphrase from a distant memory) mostly practiced Alchemy not for the pursuit of magic or sorcery, or even the pursuit of gold, but for a betterment of a understanding of the self.

Of course, many alchemists tried to make specific elements, especially gold, and were essential to the medieval economy, especially medicine and metal work. I can't always read their damned texts, but they pioneered procedures on methodological change of substances, through applications like heat, mixing chemically with other elements/compounds, and fermenting stuff.... long, long after most people would of thrown that stinky stuff out.

There was a lot of exploration of drug use. I remember years back one alchemist found a formula that is you put it on paper, it allowed you to see angels. He was looking for the Philosophers Stone, but found instead what I recall him naming it something akin to the philosophorum angelicium. They got excited for much the same reasons that motivated the Byzantines to create a spiritual, heavenly art that would create a more perfect, Platonic heavenly realm.... that lead to Heron of Byzantium making the first 3 Dimensional mechanical drawlings.

Alchemists did this through a methodological and abstract mathematics, compound by compound, in order to discover the origins of life, create wealth, receive wisdom, see angles and perhaps even god. They were introverted drug users..... just like the window licking Jungians exploring these texts today.

I'm going to jump back into John of Nikiu again tomorrow, I've been meaning to track down that alchemical quote for some time. I remember a Arab history pointing to it as well. I thought it was a 9thn Century work, but I certainly read this work, so must be it. Gotta figure out where the Magi history stub of it ends. He sourced from many different authors.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:28 am

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_XVyMZlF8

Clip from the movie "The Holy Mountain". Everyone was high in the movie, made to take LSD. It takes you on a generic bullshit alchemical journey.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:26 am

Oh, if you really want to get into the really early genesis of it, it is in the underworld cult of Ishtar (not the Mes though, that wouldn't be incorporated into Alchemy till much later, not fully till the 19th century in fact).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ishtar.htm

The text of her husband dying, being sent into the underworld isn't apparently on the net (went searching for it a year ago, gone) but this gives you some insight into it:

http://www.lost-history.com/dumuzi.php

In the text, which is fragmentary, he is weeping, sailing to his sister to stay away, as he is dying, and is so thirsty, and she wouldn't want any of his fate. She uses Lapis Lazuli in some manner to bring him back. He arises with a different skin from the dead.

That link explores some of the later mutations of his myths that communities of converts mixed with Christian myths. You gotta remember, Christians didn't lose the old myths, or histories (pseudo-Clementine literature is full of instances of this, from the Arab era) just because they converted. A lot of old myths crept into the myths that Alchemy derives it's images from.

In Ishtar's era, chemical processes didn't have known properties, outside of beer making and using fire in very basic ways. However, amulets of things like Lapis Lazuli could aid in healing people, even bringing them back from the dead, or control the weather. It is the earliest era of this, and the earliest era of Roman and Greek Alchemy as we know it would of had these myths equally distant to them as Romans are to us, and some seems to of been continued on, though the sources long gone.

The scene of this underworld transformation is memorialized today in the alchemical transformation of Leto II in Children of Dune, when he is imprisoned in Jacarutu, forced to take the spice (waters of life) and forced to transmute it in this desert underworld in a near lethal trance over several days. If fails to kill him, and he emerges a man with a different skin. The spice is the same color as Lapis Lazuli, and his sister Ghanima is Geshinanna from the Sumerian myths. Frank Herbert was a Jungian, and investigated a lot of history. I'm a big Dune fan, so know this. It is the only point of our modern pop culture that covers this original point of alchemy, but like I said, the medieval alchemist wouldn't of known, it would of been the Roman era one who might of remembered concepts, and pushing back to earlier eras, the emphasis on method would change direction. The history and method of what you can call "the science" leaped all over the place, and never was stable. Chemistry as it stands today might not exist in 1,000 years. How it will look in 5,000 years may even be more radically different, in ways we view as absolutely bizarre.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=klp2nr-ZUmA

That's the scene when Leto rises from the dead, using James McAvoy, heavily borrowed. Frank Herbert was a little into drugs.

I'm not a fan of alchemy, just keep coming up against this stuff when researching other stuff. Don't confuse me with one.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:31 pm

Plato's Rock wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:09 am
Hi,
I've been doing "lay" philosophy for a couple of years, and am now looking to hone my edge further. One of the thoughts I've been entertaining lately is the idea that Plato's Cave Allegory falls apart in a relativistic situation, but I'm not sure if it's relevant anymore.

I also think Nihilism is self-contradictory (semi-irrational) because it is a meaning that annihilates meaning (whatever position held), and thus annihilates it's own meaning over time. Thus it is a useful tool, but not meant to be a permanent mindset.
Plato's Allegory of the Cave does not fall apart under a relativistic situation; it is the greatest example of a relativistic situation in which material reality is in a continual state of movement as the "shadow world". Relativity has accurately predicted dark matter and dark wholes and in many respects is perfectly familiar with the nature of the shadow world.

Take away the word "shadow" and replace it with particulate and you see a similar image where particulate are continually cycling through each other in a constant stream of perpetual movement as relation.

Plato's Allegory is about the inherent temporal nature of matter cycling through itself to form the "shadows" we observe today. This relativistic understanding of the universe, grounded in a strict material only form of definition, inevitably leads to a form of nihilism as "relativity" is the observation of negative space...or space that is in continually flux towards a zero dimensionality.

What you have to understand about the ancients breaks down to perspective, they were not wrong any more than we are "wrong" today, but rather they perceived existence in a different manner, and in doing so ordered it differently.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Hello

Post by Plato's Rock » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:11 pm

A lot to respond to. My interest was piqued when you mentioned that a lot of science until recently was based off of "carnivore perception". Is there a way to challenge this as a concept? I know most Herbivores have their eyes wider spaced so they can see a larger vista, and more than likely have a little better sense of "motion" per "eye" compared to a carnivore (speculation). Have to think that it matters more to them if they see motion over a predator. How does this affect us in the modern world? We ourselves, can see motion better out of the side of our eyes than straight ahead, so one has to wonder when they're going down the interstate..., and how would this insight impact something like an automated vehicle? Would it be better to design them like "herbivores"?

Same with the systematic thought you mentioned (Nato), is there a way to take that ability and run with it? If there's a point? And to tie that in with mention of the preservation of two periodic sciences. I'm going to make an assumption that there are different ways to pursue science, and what is considered science. Thus is there a way to construct a meta-paradigm of "scientific methods" to help alleviate the tension/conflict between doctrines? A sort of science of science making? I think, for instance, that psychology could be considered a "hard science" if they started probing the psyches of other species more. Get more empiricism instead of trying to relate it all to humans. See how, and what makes the differences.

This is starting to drill down to why I'm interested alchemy. I've been venturing into it from two angles myself. One from the chemical perspective, and the other from the psychological perspective (I've read some Jung too). I'm mainly interested in the thought processes that went behind the explorations. I could trouble with making the compounds, but that's not what really interests me at the moment. Not to mention in the current climate of the "War on Terrorism", if I inadvertently came up with explosive (and/or harsh drug) compounds, I'd probably be looking at prison time. Especially, it if I experimented in my "backyard" so to speak.

One of the things that bubbled off of one of your links was this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_memory which is in my interest because it ties in with a sort of "bettering the self" which sounds cliche, but with all the problems of stuff like Alzheimer disease, and dementia one has to think/wonder if a part of the problem is just a lack of rigorous conditioning? Sure a person learns a lot in their younger days (k-12) education, but a lot of people simply stop after a set age. Don't bother reading, and/or digging into deeper topics.

Overall, thank you for your response, and time dedicated to looking up some rabbits for me to chase. I appreciate it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:31 pm
What you have to understand about the ancients breaks down to perspective, they were not wrong any more than we are "wrong" today, but rather they perceived existence in a different manner, and in doing so ordered it differently.
That's about always the case isn't it?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hello

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:13 pm

Plato's Rock wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:11 pm
A lot to respond to. My interest was piqued when you mentioned that a lot of science until recently was based off of "carnivore perception". Is there a way to challenge this as a concept? I know most Herbivores have their eyes wider spaced so they can see a larger vista, and more than likely have a little better sense of "motion" per "eye" compared to a carnivore (speculation). Have to think that it matters more to them if they see motion over a predator. How does this affect us in the modern world? We ourselves, can see motion better out of the side of our eyes than straight ahead, so one has to wonder when they're going down the interstate..., and how would this insight impact something like an automated vehicle? Would it be better to design them like "herbivores"?

Same with the systematic thought you mentioned (Nato), is there a way to take that ability and run with it? If there's a point? And to tie that in with mention of the preservation of two periodic sciences. I'm going to make an assumption that there are different ways to pursue science, and what is considered science. Thus is there a way to construct a meta-paradigm of "scientific methods" to help alleviate the tension/conflict between doctrines? A sort of science of science making? I think, for instance, that psychology could be considered a "hard science" if they started probing the psyches of other species more. Get more empiricism instead of trying to relate it all to humans. See how, and what makes the differences.

This is starting to drill down to why I'm interested alchemy. I've been venturing into it from two angles myself. One from the chemical perspective, and the other from the psychological perspective (I've read some Jung too). I'm mainly interested in the thought processes that went behind the explorations. I could trouble with making the compounds, but that's not what really interests me at the moment. Not to mention in the current climate of the "War on Terrorism", if I inadvertently came up with explosive (and/or harsh drug) compounds, I'd probably be looking at prison time. Especially, it if I experimented in my "backyard" so to speak.

One of the things that bubbled off of one of your links was this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_memory which is in my interest because it ties in with a sort of "bettering the self" which sounds cliche, but with all the problems of stuff like Alzheimer disease, and dementia one has to think/wonder if a part of the problem is just a lack of rigorous conditioning? Sure a person learns a lot in their younger days (k-12) education, but a lot of people simply stop after a set age. Don't bother reading, and/or digging into deeper topics.

Overall, thank you for your response, and time dedicated to looking up some rabbits for me to chase. I appreciate it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:31 pm
What you have to understand about the ancients breaks down to perspective, they were not wrong any more than we are "wrong" today, but rather they perceived existence in a different manner, and in doing so ordered it differently.
That's about always the case isn't it?
Yes, the question occurs as to how, not if, we are able to synthesize the two perspectives.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:11 am

I don't think it is infinite the number of ways a unmodified human mind can do science, quite low actually. Notice I was doing parallels of thinking styles between different kinds of animals. Means my viewpoint is that large mammals have a few options, but not many.... but more than we will initially presume. Not all needs to use the Hypothosis pursued via a methodology, ending with a derived conclusion..... heck, most doesn't do that in the first place, think it is a game of jumping to conclusions, edging the bet on picking experiments known to result in success, nobody wants to constantly fail in tests. Few employers want to fund that. We usually know how it is turn out in advance, and publish bullshit papers not really peer reviewed, and full of bullshit. Our current model of science little mayches up to the actuality of what we tend to actually do. A hypothosis in and of itself sends up red signals, we aren't testing blindly, but ideologically, and it is damn hard to define all the possible variables that can challenge a world view.

But I do believe we can produce biological, chemical, and mathematical AIs able to do science differently than we do. I remember, for example, a mold that can find the most direct path through mazes. Squids and Octopus are too much like us, being predators that hunt and strike in a directed space, but they do have some differences.

A autistic kid is going to learn through tactile touch first, not visual, but haptic and visual touch is very similar..... not 100%..... I took up in part locksmithing to explore the paradox of seeing and feeling, but that's still a thing predators do to attack the area infront of them, and rip up something struggling against them. I know my math differs from the pure mathematics Feynman used when he was working the manhatten project, picking locks for the mathematical problems locks pose.

I don't think becoming a vegetarian changes the mindset, or a farmer. A little, but not that much. Our concept of self and property increases dramatically over that of hunter and gathers, or warring chimps, but not too much. You can take a Indian from Ohio during the colonial period, stick him in a city, with effort, he will adjust, and vice versa, a White in a Indian community will adjust. You can't force a dramatically different system of city and social planning on them though..... we tried getting tribes in central Ohio to adopt city planning, they didn't quite get the rows with roads, they would look around, sink a house in the middle of the road. Not stupid, the individual can grasp it, but the group processing Extroverted Sensing wasn't there. People are resistant to dramatic cultural change usually.

Why out institutions are sluggish, and last for centuries, and linger on long after they should die. We hold onto contradictory ideas, and see the problems faster in others than ourselves, and don't always grasp the pragmatism why some hold on.

Lon term, I'm worried about the death of anything resembling science. I'm not talking about the human utopia turned dystopia from the Animatrix, I'm talking about a best case scenario of us figuring every need, solving it to the point of completion (we always stop a theory prematurely, thinking it is solved, only to find later new angles and problems exist) and realizing we don't need society, help, ethics, politics, etc. We don't invest in learning or giving a damn anymore. I'm not talking about the contentment of Nietzsche's last man, but rather a self absorbed asshole who thinks he is the Ubermensch, when he is utterly undeserving of this.... and the desire to push farther ceases to exist, given science will do it's own work. A chip in our head, a AI, some smart bacteria, whatever.... and so a fundamental aspect in our society dies, and our society dies, and the apparent knowledge something wrong dies. The need to maintain a science, it is important. Preferably something more effective than say, Astrology.... most useless science ever.

Yes, smarter man can out perform me. Machines can, AI, etc.... but will we be pulling our load? It be terrible if we design our system too well, that the AI never kills us, keeps us going till infinity, not even allowing us to biologically die off, but keeps our stupid species of self assured apathetics going, millions, billions of years from now, a bunch of self content socially secure slobbering fools who long ago lost language.

We need to be able to keep pushing foreward, even if everything else around us outpaces us. The salve of science may not always be in the grand theories, how physics work, but rather on how to live a worthy life, one that makes humanity worth while, despite the changes of epoches. A low hum science going forever in the background, searching for rediscover long after the last discovery has long since been known, finding it's way though the darkness of the universe.

I have theorized in the past that basic theories of personality, while produced from mental networks, are not bound by the mental networks. Something completely alien, like a basic evolving security system's AI, can evolve in a manner similar to a ISTP, if the security system was video camera based. Both are observant rule learners, logical. It wouldn't have a brain made of cells, lobes, vessels, blood. But something similar would pop up. How alien can consciousness get ultimately, how likely is it to evolve in parallel?

Size and Logistics rules us. Our cells need materials, we seek them out in our environment. Our cities, our economies, are a reflection of cellular needs. Is there a symmetry? Perhaps, but not always. We guess at a lot, and mortality is still wicked high in every human settlement. We don't much have a grasp on our own inner workings. What if a intelligence species existed 1 micron tall? What is a intelligence species existed the size of a star, like Solaris, or a galaxy, how will it think?

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:05 am

Oh, as to the art of memory, yes, I use it.

My own particular style isn't just the logical systems you see to test ideas, but also the use of space. You might of noticed I was pulling that stuff out fast, a bit chaotically, but could group by class similarities from a global perspective, going forewards and backwards in time, seeing philosophers and movements developing in different states, states rising and falling, around the globe. It is like placing your finger on the globe, and going foreward and backwards in time, seeing the maps and people morph. I've been dabbling with doing a history of early philosophers, they usually start with Thales, but I wouldn't. I would start much earlier, and wouldn't touch on Greece till much later. A lot of systems would mix. I've been influenced a bit from looking at John Malalas, his work on history. It is a lay history, not too good in terms of accuracy, though sometimes great.... he mixes a lot of schools of thought regarding how history and biography should be written.

So I try to do this when I learn a new philosophical system, I work out the mental networks, what type of thinker they are, what kind of ideas, however alien the culture, relate through time. So I can leap much, much faster than earlier philosophers can across boundaries and make connections they can't. I currently have a friend in Shanghai looking up Chinese sources on the Great Yu connection I found earlier. This isn't the first instance of this happening. I find a lot of fragments and lost texts this way. The best Assyriologists and Sinologist miss stuff I pick up instantly, but it is because I furthered developed the art of memory that guys like Cicero pioneered on how to use imaginary visual space, the contradictions and nuances. People in the future will out think me as well.

I recommend looking into it. I find trying to memorize speeches as pointless as I can just improvise off of bullet points. It was a method for doing it in ancient times. If you ever get into the TV show Chanakya (don't rush, it might not be your cup of tea, unless you like history, state craft, thinkers like Machiavelli) you'll hear a method of memorization used in ancient India as part of the long, long title for every episode of the series. It is a good historical drama, I liked listening to it, it defies a lot of our conceptions on how oral rhetoric vs written rhetorical methods work. They used to program students to hold texts and repeat, and once you can do that, it is a simple matter to modify it, examine it like a written text. I myself use some written methods of the Cenobite in learning important texts.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Hello

Post by Plato's Rock » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:59 am

Prying into worldviews is fun though, albeit a dangerous past-time of mine. Personally, I think there's a volume of cognitive space that is allotted to human style "thinking". How big, or the "dimensions" I can't say at all, but I think on some level it boils down to the individual completely. We each have a track record, and personality when it comes to acquiring information (along with retaining it...etc). For the most part it's in a "normal human domain", but there are "abnormalities" like when it comes to people diagnosed with mental conditions. Autism, Down Syndrome, Schizophrenia...etc. Who's to say that those conditions aren't different branches of the human mind/entity into different psyche spaces. It is dangerous, but ideological to assume that the current population is "normal", and everyone should fit within said mold. It's kinda like a quieter version of eugenics.

And I've been prying into my own worldview just as much as I dig into others. Not through drug usage, but a series of questions and thought experiments. For instance, there's those old expressions of "The blind leading the blind, and in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king". I don't know where the two expressions originate from, but about seven years ago it lead me to a thought process of; "How can I tell if I'm not blind? That I'm not effectively like Helen Keller? Blind, Mute, and Deaf?" A person can't, they're always in the seat of their own consciousness, and they're suspended above an abyss of "culture/society". Ie; you don't question the underpinnings of "Why/How/What?" unless you want some form of "trouble"...which I didn't know until recently. You don't call the "Emperor", or anyone out on their "Nakedness"....apparently, but there again. One doesn't know that taboo until it happens.

I agree with your sentiment, that there should always be a desire to at least push in some direction, and have science of some sorts. And with that pushing there is often a counter push. A sort of, "we're ALL charlatans, so don't you question anyone else". After all we're but actors playing upon the stage, and those that know what they're doing. Or even act like they know what's up are the dangerous ones.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hello

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:44 am

It is good to think such things. I admit to being blind in many respects. I sit in a privledge position in most personality typing systems, higher IQ, fastest problem solving in general, etc. But it comes with cognitive blind spots, entire areas of mind that sits on the edge of my consciousness, I don't really control, it just acts.... and I'll often will be stumped with it, or give in and try to coordinate with it.

I'm self diagnosed from a very early age into adult hood (well into the Army) with Ideo-Kenetic Aparaxia, as well as OCD. These are like, two absurdly opposite sources of chaos in the mind, effecting opposite sides of the mind.

When I was young, I was a klutz, but it wasn't until I was in the Army in basic with a drill Sargent screaming in my face I figured out something was wrong. I could clearly hear the scream, I could mime the words, but couldn't quite make out what was being said, and if I guessed, guessed wrong usually. They thought I was mentally tarded. It wasn't until they saw me run (being a loner in West Virginia builds massive calves) that they changed my mind, as well as my grasp on military history. Constantly told I fucked up, should of gone officer. In hind sight, I fucked up in not going AWOL, if I could to it over again, I wouldn't.

But I did, and I did in time get better in guessing what was being said, in observing those around me, and guessing. People thought I had hearing problems, but I could hear literally everything. I just couldn't connect commands to activities.

Took me a long time to make connections between how my mind processed information with military breakdown of command, when a unit isn't able to process what it is sensing, how to coordinate it, and respond. Gave me a very important insight to how units act as a coherent entity, and why fear and confusion so easily break formations, as well as anger, excitement, ambition. Allowed me to structure a system of what I would now identify as vices and virtues, and work out how it effects the technology and tactics that form a unit in any given era.

That's my OCD focus I harnessed. Doing that.... day and night, in bouts of non ceasing isomnia that wouldn't let me rest. Absolute torment at times, contained inside. Once I saw how other thinkers, like Napoleon dealt with these processing pains, spending days on a problem, with maps on the floor, stacks of papers with reports, working painstaking, I knew I wasn't alone. Others did this as well. Not a whole lot a lower enlisted man could do, so Imjust continued my study of military history, reading strategy works, studying myself and others. I integrated much better till I got injured, then went through the trashchute of sorts, repeatedly getting reinjured. Allowed me to study other aspects of administrative organization. It didn't end happily for me, was stretched out for years, but I did a lot of good things, and don't have a obvious regret in my actions, that I could of known about in advance. Had I known human nature better sooner, could of saved myself and others who got hurt by the system a lot of pain.

I'm largely focused on the study of statecraft and ethics, still a strong background in world events, as well as military history and history in general. It took me a long time to learn how to link various aspects of my mind together. I've always been self taught, thanks to the supreme neglect of my rotten mother. I learn, I grow, I seek better knowledge of myself and others. I try not to be spiteful, recognizing it is often a rot in society turning men violent and cruel to one another.

It was a long road. Some aspects of mind I know exist, I see it in others, still wait for me. I'm not willing to embrace them, in fear I'll lose who I am. It isn't bad at all.

Many systems exist for expansion/linking of cognitive systems. The oldest is the system of the muses, started out as 3, then 9. This became the basis for the Hermes Trismegistus cult during it's Alexandrian period (the cult it brutally ancient and widespread, and still around in southern India). Also the eventual basis for the Jewish Zohar, the Serifot in particular. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot

Patanjali is likely parallel with the origin of the muses, but much more advanced:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali

Alot of modern theories are built out of these. I can often translate modern syndromes shorthand in these networks.

It is fine to go, explore, learn systems. I certainly did, but I also strongly recommend you stick to your own cultural core, and add to it. No need to rush off to some Tendai monastery, only to discover your own culture had similar thinkers who nailed areas of thought you felt was only existent in a foreign land. I used to be a Cynic philosopher before becoming a Stoic, and always held to the Citizen of the world idea. I should be able to grasp any era, any societies form of thinking, but given my body and character if of this, I should learn the ideas and methods of my own the most. So, I never had a chemistry class in my life, I studied every alternate periodic table out there. We have a lot by the way, sure you are aware. I started applying myself to a study of the history of physics, since I've never been exposed to them in school, beyond a 4th grade science class. I'm always interested in finding a little known work. I rarely have anyone to talk to about them. Silence, maybe the wind is the only thing I can share my knowledge with. A lot of time, I just watch things, how systems work, how people act and react. I also poke around in biographies, trying to figure how my thoughts pop up in others, how fragmented I am in thinking processes to them, how much farther I can think, and vice versa. I find myself struggling with secondary sources, seeing their thought processes intrude, and it makes me question the art of writing history, the underlining philosophy. I also look a lot into history books in general, if I can find one form a little known era and place in translation, I get excited and delve inside. My thoughts linger over places no longer remembered, seeing in people today parallel activities. World managed to carry on somehow. I find that fascinating. Truely fascinating. I always feel the trials of tomorrow will end me, I will die, but the world will carry on. In these silent moments, I think of a silent God as well, looking with fuller knowledge, marveling. I don't always know how things will play out, but I study systems, and so study him as well. Sometimes he is the only one I can talk to.

I try to figure out practical applications of philosophy. Most philosophy, especially pedagogy, has a inherent altruistic bend to it. Yes, many get paid for it, some abuse it, but it is still individuals teaching individuals. Even the vile Nketzschean, seeking to destroy themselves and enslave others, read a Nietzsche preaching selfishness and power, for ultimately altruistic reasons. He thinks he is working for the best, for a world beyond himself. So I keep that in mind, in the middle of a long history I can observe behind me, a wide present, and a future ever longer, stretching off into the distance, trying to figure out how to make it effective, real, useful, a active force on the world, while still letting men be free and good. It isn't always obvious, and the results isn't always spectacular.

Someone like me is already introverted and introspective enough, going through the whole alchemical journey would be a joke. I'm not inherently opposed to it. Just, given my cognitive makeup, I must look elsewhere. I set out for different shores, as others arrive here. This is how it should be in a healthy society, with many kinds of thinkers, who have different strengths and weaknesses of mind and lifestyle. I don't want to build it into a holistic beautiful meaning.... life can be utterly cruel, we can destroy so many long establish, good and wonderful things in a instant. Society is often swing between extremes, and every household has felt the pain and joys of these impacts. Some people fail, some societies fail. But the future is something that must always be kept ahead. I'm opposed to that which threatens that certainty. I can accept my mortality, but not the end of time. So practical philosophy flows out of these concerns, and my actions often look simple and unheroic, sluggish.... or extreme and maniac, forceful and violent. It is a balance of my nature against perceived necessity, more than the necessity of just the self. I respect myself, but need more than just that. I can't find self validity in a invalid world, something should always be going foreward, progress can never fully stall, we should always have a restless spirit stirring somewhere, pondering, ready to unleash upon the world for better and for worst, but hopefully the better for most.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: Hello

Post by Plato's Rock » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:47 pm

I've been diagnosed with Schizophrenia if that matters at all. Been dealing with that diagnosis for about 7 years now. A little after I started posing "thought experiments" to myself, and questioning why I thought/acted the way I did. Along with questioning why society is set up the way it is. First questions were; "Why do we celebrate Columbus Day, and why is it a Federal Holiday where the civil servants get it off, but no one else does? Not students, and other personal?

I was going off to become an aerospace engineer, and an overall rocket scientist in Alabama (went to UAH) for a year. Had a psychotic break due to about a year of social isolation (I'm from Minnesota). Along with various incidents like car accidents (3 of them in a year), campus shooting narrowly avoided, and other stressful shenanigans. Ended up not sleeping (insomnia), and what may be equivalent to a case of PTSD.

A lot of it probably is due and thanks to a childhood where we were pretty much raised "like marines". If one of you fucks up, all of you get punished. And everything has to be done absolutely right the first time. No yelling, no screaming, no crying, no speaking louder than a whisper (essentially). No hiccuping, burping, or any other "child" behaviors essentially. If not, you're getting yelled/screamed at (almost like a DI would), and having to move and re-stack a cord of wood everytime there's a foul up, or you're "not busy enough". And no incompetency!

I guess that would almost imply that I've had ~20 years of "civilian basic". Although things have changed since then, but only because I've been pushing back. So I don't know, you seem like a cool guy and you know a lot.

I'm still trying to find my niche in life, and find a gainful way to participate/give back to society. And still pick brains because I don't know how to interact (still always don't) in civil society because of an overly authoritarian childhood. I almost, keyword almost, enlisted in the Marines about a year ago thinking, "Hey it may be like home, but simpler". Had the recruitment papers, and was actively being recruited for O.C.S, and "promised" a position as a V-22 pilot. And then just simply decided, no. It's too odd to be getting an email that's half blacked over with watermarks, and to be missing about half of the recruitment package.

...in addition to the mental health stuff. I realized that it wasn't meant for me. I can respect anyone who does it though, just not for me.

If you want to talk physics, chemistry, or science anytime, I'd be game for it. I'd also be interested in hearing your thoughts about unit cohesion (morale, and the like).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests