WanderingLands wrote:Your idea of what you have said about repetition and difference is definitely one that is true, especially when it comes to the difference between the mind and the world when the mind breaks with the world to create what would be manifested as "fantasies" or "pure imagination". I would like to add some things of what I learned, and maybe you can pick up on it and think about it, if you are interested.
Reality, for me, can be deduced as a wave, as in an interaction between humanity and nature. As soon as they completely mold their paradigm or whatever pattern, they move away from Nature and Constructive Interference (which are multiple waves interacting harmoniously), and instead define their own Reality and impose it on others, while not being open to other things (Destructive Interference). It's pretty much a concept, like aesthetics, where opposite forces work in conjunction with each other to produce thought, which manifests in a concept. One post of mine you may find interesting is "A Social Organism", found at the Political philosophy section of this forum.
Now that's what I'm talking about. Will try to get to this tomorrow. Probably spend a lot of time at work tonight thinking about it.
d63 wrote:It seems to me that what you're gravitating towards is a point made in quantum physics:
that order can only be achieved through perception.
Kind of, but not really. I have very deep suspicions about Quantum Physics. As a matter of fact, I have somewhat discussed this (particularly the alleged 'wave particle' duality) with a fellow man named Blaggard on this forum about it on my post, "Wave Structure of Matter".
Anyways, my "philosophy" is centered around the "Realist" point of view, of that this world is real. Now, I have incorporated the ideas that I have been reading from philosophers such as Giles Deleuze and G.W.F. Hegel, but I do not subscribe to the Quantum interpretation of their work, because Quantum Physics is pretty much riddled with many contradictions (goes back to the dispute between whether or not Light is wave or particle). Quantum Physics, you see, is moreso about complicating things and making up stuff (ie. Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Wormholes), that is not based around reality, since no one has ever really seen that stuff. There are much more impressive work around science that is not talked about in the Quantum Physics department, such as that of Nikola Tesla and his inventions. There's also Plasma Cosmology, more discoveries on Electromagnetism, and so on. I have few websites to direct you to that.
“Reality, for me, can be deduced as a wave, as in an interaction between humanity and nature. As soon as they completely mold their paradigm or whatever pattern, they move away from Nature and Constructive Interference (which are multiple waves interacting harmoniously), and instead define their own Reality and impose it on others, while not being open to other things (Destructive Interference). It's pretty much a concept, like aesthetics, where opposite forces work in conjunction with each other to produce thought, which manifests in a concept. One post of mine you may find interesting is "A Social Organism", found at the Political philosophy section of this forum.”
Okay:
You’re sitting in a bare room at a table drinking a cup of coffee. There is only a clock, ticking, and an open window. You reach for the coffee but suddenly a dog barks outside and you turn to the window as your hand, detached from your attention and as dumb as the heart (too dumb to resist the momentum of its trajectory ( topples the cup. You turn and watch in disgust as the dark stain crawls, in a fractal multiplicity of directions, across the table.
Now, at a superficial molar level, you can see a Newtonian chain of cause and effect through narrative: the dog happened to bark at the worst possible time; you got distracted; and, if you want to relieve yourself of accountability (see Sartre), your hand spilled the coffee. At the same time, at this level, there are still relationships of cause and effect. For instance, why didn’t the clock intervene? What was the cause for its not being a cause? And why did the window allow the sound of the bark pass through? Of course, in order to answer these questions, we would have to go through an infinite series of describing the various and multiple chains of cause and effect. In other words, to truly describe the cause and effect (or better: causes and effects) involved we would have to engage in a process similar to Derrida’s Di’ferrance in that the meaning of a statement, or the description, through cause and effect, of why the event occurred, would always be a deferred and infinite process of describing the cause/effect event before the cause/effect event -what Camus referred to as the Absurd.
But it gets even tougher for the Newtonian determinist when we work to the molecular level which they always seem to defer to when cause and effect gets sticky at the molar level or when I ask them to give me next week’s lotto numbers. In order for it to work the way they assert it does, it would have to be a barrage of particle strings (particles that, like the chain of cause and effect, engage in a serial relation of cause and effect at a micro level). Take, for instance, the hand as it hits the coffee cup. What we are suppose to see, at a molecular level, is the particles of the hand moving forward in these parallel strings that, in turn, create motion in the particle strings of the cup. But let’s follow through with this model and simplify it. Take three chains of cause and effect working in parallel and use language as a kind of stand in:
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
And let’s follow the model though to the collective effect of:
Because of this, that.
The molar effect of the molecular:
Because of this, that.
Because of this, that.
Because of this, that.
Now: note the contradiction at work here. On one hand, the Newtonian model can compress the three different causal chains into the collective: Because of this, that. But at the same time, this puts off the impression that these causal chains work in isolation –that is until they displace the trajectory of another causal chain. But it gets worse for the Newtonian when you consider the gaps that must be explained in causal terms as well. Much as the clock stayed out of the situation (for which there must be a cause)you have to explain the cause for chains of cause and effect that don’t effect another chain of cause and effect. In other words, between the three initial chains (in those spaces between the lines) there are still causal relationships working at all points within the spaces between the sentences. If everything must have a cause, then there must be cause within the very spaces left by the chains of cause and effect we can describe.
In other words, time (that is as a description of change –thank you Dr. Tallis!) must move in waves, not a barrage of particle strings. In our situation, it is as if the BwO (the Body without Organs) of time radiated from the dog outside, swept through the open window, through you, then converged in your hand to knock the cup over, then shitted in your face as it spread the dark stain across your table while the clock, and everything else in the universe, just watched.
Anyway, I’ve gone past the 500 words I like to limit myself to in these sessions. But before I go, I want to list (in cliff notes style) some the other points I want to go into:
-the possibility that your model could also be referred to as a fractal approach to causation and reality.
-the similarity of your take on reality and how we fix it to the relationship between difference and repetition.
-and how I am conditionally sympathetic to your distrust of quantum physics, but probably for different reasons than you.
Last edited by d63 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
d63 wrote:“Reality, for me, can be deduced as a wave, as in an interaction between humanity and nature. As soon as they completely mold their paradigm or whatever pattern, they move away from Nature and Constructive Interference (which are multiple waves interacting harmoniously), and instead define their own Reality and impose it on others, while not being open to other things (Destructive Interference). It's pretty much a concept, like aesthetics, where opposite forces work in conjunction with each other to produce thought, which manifests in a concept. One post of mine you may find interesting is "A Social Organism", found at the Political philosophy section of this forum.”
Okay:
You’re sitting in a bare room at a table drinking a cup of coffee. There is only a clock, ticking, and an open window. You reach for the coffee but suddenly a dog barks outside and you turn to the window as your hand, detached from your attention and as dumb as the heart (too dumb to resist the momentum of its trajectory ( topples the cup. You turn and watch in disgust as the dark stain crawls, in a fractal multiplicity of directions, across the table.
Now, at a superficial molar level, you can see a Newtonian chain of cause and effect through narrative: the dog happened to bark at the worst possible time; you got distracted; and, if you want to relieve yourself of accountability (see Sartre), your hand spilled the coffee. At the same time, at this level, there are still relationships of cause and effect. For instance, why didn’t the clock intervene? What was the cause for its not being a cause? And why did the window allow the sound of the bark pass through? Of course, in order to answer these questions, we would have to go through an infinite series of describing the various and multiple chains of cause and effect. In other words, to truly describe the cause and effect (or better: causes and effects) involved we would have to engage in a process similar to Derrida’s Di’ferrance in that the meaning of a statement, or the description, through cause and effect, of why the event occurred, would always be a deferred and infinite process of describing the cause/effect event before the cause/effect event -what Camus referred to as the Absurd.
But it gets even tougher for the Newtonian determinist when we work to the molecular level which they always seem to defer to when cause and effect gets sticky at the molar level or when I ask them to give me next week’s lotto numbers. In order for it to work the way they assert it does, it would have to be a barrage of particle strings (particles that, like the chain of cause and effect, engage in a serial relation of cause and effect at a micro level). Take, for instance, the hand as it hits the coffee cup. What we are suppose to see, at a molecular level, is the particles of the hand moving forward in these parallel strings that, in turn, create motion in the particle strings of the cup. But let’s follow through with this model and simplify it. Take three chains of cause and effect working in parallel and use language as a kind of stand in:
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
Because of this, that. Because of that, this.
And let’s follow the model though to the collective effect of:
Because of this, that.
The molar effect of the molecular:
Because of this, that.
Because of this, that.
Because of this, that.
Now: note the contradiction at work here. On one hand, the Newtonian model can compress the three different causal chains into the collective: Because of this, that. But at the same time, this puts off the impression that these causal chains work in isolation –that is until they displace the trajectory of another causal chain. But it gets worse for the Newtonian when you consider the gaps that must be explained in causal terms as well. Much as the clock stayed out of the situation (for which there must be a cause)you have to explain the cause for chains of cause and effect that don’t effect another chain of cause and effect. In other words, between the three initial chains (in those spaces between the lines) there are still causal relationships working at all points within the spaces between the sentences. If everything must have a cause, then there must be cause within the very spaces left by the chains of cause and effect we can describe.
In other words, time (that is as a description of change –thank you Dr. Tallis!) must move in waves, not a barrage of particle strings. In our situation, it is as if the BwO (the Body without Organs) of time radiated from the dog outside, swept through the open window, through you, then converged in your hand to knock the cup over, then shitted in your face as it spread the dark stain across your table while the clock, and everything else in the universe, just watched.
Anyway, I’ve gone past the 500 words I like to limit myself to in these sessions. But before I go, I want to list (in cliff notes style) some the other points I want to go into:
-the possibility that your model could also be referred to as a fractal approach to causation and reality.
-the similarity of your take on reality and how we fix it to the relationship between difference and repetition.
-and how I am conditionally sympathetic to your distrust of quantum physics, but probably for different reasons than you.
Well I must say, d63, it was a great pleasure talking to you. Hopefully we might do this again, as I would like for us to maybe share our viewpoints.
d63 wrote:You do know I'm just fucking with you, right?
Look: I love what I'm doing. I live for it.
It's just cool to connect with someone who seems to be doing the same thing:
someone who does it mainly for themselves and what they can experience in the process,
not for what they can get from it:
something like owning the in-crowd.
Worry not, my friend. I, myself, tend to be a bit eccentric at times on this forum, so it's a fine pleasure to meet someone who has the rigor to learn as well as some form of idiosyncrasies as me (to some degree).
Anyway, Wandering, the following will be addressed to you and include some of your posts. However, the plan is to use this to initiate another string on the forum focused on books: namely Levi Bryant's book, on Deleuze's Difference and Repetition, Difference and Giveness.
Hope you don't mind and that I will see you there.
d63 wrote:Anyway, Wandering, the following will be addressed to you and include some of your posts. However, the plan is to use this to initiate another string on the forum focused on books: namely Levi Bryant's book, on Deleuze's Difference and Repetition, Difference and Giveness.
Hope you don't mind and that I will see you there.
Well to be honest, I haven't actually looked at those books, so you will have to elaborate on those. I have heard of Deleuze from videos, such as one from The Partially Examined Life on YouTube, but I haven't really gotten to his actual works, although I do get his philosophy and his ideas.
Anyways, just message me via Private Message on the forum to let me know.
Doesn't matter. We all have our own process. Just respond to what you can in my posts on the subject. Work with what you have and have faith in your own process. It's what I do and I am quite confident in your process. It's impressed me so far.
