I said in the QM thread that its not an unlikely truth, of  historical and biological evolution, that there has not been a fossil out of place in billions of years. Though my intent was to emphasize  that the fallacy is to give consciousness the  kind of credence  it gets  (and consequently evolution) – for instance in the way that profound significance is attached to them , probably to make sense out of the bewildering monotony of evolution.

Say if it takes fifteen billion years to get somewhere, would be a sort of a problem right? Or if takes any time at all to figure what or who Iam, it would be heartless to say it is developmentally inept to be pissed off. But perspectives that come in the way seem to be inextricable from the process of evolution (Maybe there is a point to it, but that’s another issue) so this is the problem I think, which cannot be dealt with by ascribing depth to a skeletal process, but by giving credence to the problem instead and deconstructing it .

To deal with the stuff that comes in the way, all tools and processes need to be deconstructive. Whether its QM or meditation or critical realism – whatever. Fundamentally all mechanisms are reversal kinds, there are no formative/creative mechanisms, as there is an inherent contradiction in the term.  One thing that comes through as vital is that instantaneity and acausality, besides its creative potential, is an equally dynamic potential for absence. Not just emptiness, but for the notion of anything ever having been there  at all.  There isn’t the stretch of effort or the need to account for anything  - which is the only sustainable premise for eternity (non linear anything) or problems of that order. As the two cannot be mutually exclusive. Instantaneity is a process which at the same time, is creation and destruction.

The other interesting thing about keeping the biological and historical view of evolution is that, this polarity between instantaneity and the outrageous lengthiness of evolution is that it seems to mimic the polarity between destruction and creation. But not quite since the latter cannot be differentialted. And instead these two processes wind up being the ultimate polarity considering space and time. In an uncanny way you have a referral to otherness in space and time, by being as  other as it gets. talk about a need for reification, or a no holds bar assertion of existence. Not surprising since that can never be, existence can never be unassailable. So I have a contrary view to Derrida, its not otheness that never arrives, its existence that never arrives. Once there is existence otherness has an obsessive thing to spill over ^..^

So you have deconstruction as the only viable process  at all levels - biological, psychological, existential etc

Well, this is work in progress.  what do ya'll think?

 

Views: 275

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"... what do ya'll think?"

 

My first instinct is to run away whenever I see a post with "deconstruction" in the title, but seeing as you asked... well, existence is primary, IMO.  It is the only thing I am 100% sure of.  Everything else is metaphysical speculation.

 

When you are sure of something isn't that the end of the road ?

If by that you mean whether I am sure that existence exists, then yes, I have reached the end of that particular road.  It doesn't tell me anything about the nature of what specifically exists though, so there is no need to worry about dogmatic certainty creeping in.  Exactly how that relates to "otherness"... I have no idea.  Perhaps some of the other members will have something more useful to say?
Yes, that is when you have quantum realization through mystical empiricism, man, and the rest is, like, 100 years behind the programme, man!

valli said:

 

When you are sure of something isn't that the end of the road ?

I'm pretty sure "I am," man. At least, I seemed to be the last time I smoked a big fatty.

Anyway, Kenny sez I am, man, so I must be.

kelamuni said:

Yes, that is when you have quantum realization through mystical empiricism, man, and the rest is, like, 100 years behind the programme, man!

valli said:

 

When you are sure of something isn't that the end of the road ?

 


hahaha. Kenny's audience seem to be in rapture, doesn't that kind of reverence account for anything ?


 

IMO, Wilbur or anyone couldn’t have said it better what is not big mind. He says the one thing that’s infallible is the sense that I am. What was there five minutes ago or 5oo years ago.  Forever

This is what I mean existence never arrives. the same five minutes ago or 500 years ago. Bewildering monotony. This fallacy is like, big, about consciousness . A dead end so fixing its forever – sorry its cynical – but theres a puzzle here that needs to be sorted out

 

If I'm following you, here, valli, you are addressing an element in Wilber's formulation which Dawid, another member here, used to criticize as the "Big Blob of Consciousness" -- consciousness conceived as a monolithic thing or field.  Is this correct -- meaning, is this what you are criticizing?

 

Balder, I think there is a problem with the infallibility of I am, to start with. monolithic too. i’ll get back to this. I quite like the sense of I am Ken is talking about, the seamless feel of it, the connection. Only it is not seamless, the too easy approach. You can’t just integrate the gaps in time and space by some mantra. My criticism is that this is not a feature of content, of consciousness, you don’t arrive at that in a positivist way. Past phenomena the connection is axial

-so deconstruction implies both: existence doesn't arrive, otherness doesn't arrive

Tom, Yes they don’t arrive necessarily. but deconstruction negates both . It is also true to say existence and otherness arrives. Its like, when you state something , you need a contrary statement to complete that. You can only refer to something partially at anytime, otherwise you get into absolute territory  (foot note - this may be a structural aspect that adds to the integrity of events, the gatekeeper not marginalized) The waywardness is cool though, loose the trail to find the location! Then, there is an instant resolution for the absolute in nothing, a basic premise for creativity. I don’t think otherness is absolute, its dimensional. Iam saying any fixation is untenable. Down this line the absolute is remote . Don’t you think the exciting thing about the instant stuff is that the absolute gets a break?

If you’re sure of something, there is also its non viability. You go with both and then it changes and you may get surer. Ha ha, This looks regenerative , works on itself. An implied nonlinearity in things if you like.

My  intent remains the need to discriminate – not to mix up structural, existential and dimensional issues. there is the structural issue and the incidence of the counter aspect of things at the outset - to get some order into this view. Then, What happens when you have certain asymmetric arrangement of events and their locales ? When a simple undertaking like the contrary aspect is not enough ? so, greater symmetry is an option . The thing is, You might have to qualify kinds of asymmetry or symmetry.  so far discrimination gets a heads up - between  consciousness, evolution and the nonlinear for one thing. closes the gap between them. And so, I go on…

on Dawid's take - Without difference everything becomes a blob not just consciousness. Isn’t that the likely first act, differentiation? And then you have the reverse – micros become mammals.

 

that’s like a rush transcript ….

 

"Without difference everything becomes a blob not just consciousness. Isn’t that the likely first act, differentiation?"

 

Hi Vali,

 

The way I look at it, it's logically impossible to have an object without a subject, or a subject without an object.  I don't mean just human subjects, but anything -- that is, any thing, all the way down, even to the fundamental level of physics.  I barely understand even the basics of relativity, but the one thing I got from Einstein is that everything must be understood as a relationship (a temporal process of change and differentiation), not as an atemporal, Platonic-style, self-existing object.  Then we create words and concepts for these processes (nouns especially -- btw, Balder, I'll post on your language thread soon), and reify them as objects.  (Perhaps Thomas can confirm this, or slap my wrists if it's BS?)

 

But if differentiation is the first act (and I think it is), then it suggests that there was some "thing" prior to it -- logically prior, that is, not chronologically prior, because time means change, and change requires difference. And if the first "thing" (actually thingness, not a thing) is identified with consciousness (and I think it must be), then consciousness really is like an undifferentiated blob... and, at the same time, everything that exists in duality.

 

So you don't need to do Big Mind meditation to touch the ultimate.  We are all doing it right now.  However, a charitable reading of Wilber is perhaps to suggest that he's giving us instructions to get into a state where we are susceptible to knowing that (or something like it) experientially.  So long as you don't go further and take his metaphysics too seriously...

 

Hi infimitas,

 

This is because of that and that is because if this. Interdependence, the Buddhist view. Or from Einstein, everything must be understood as a relationship. And Wilber’s IS - perspectives are not things but relationships – takes it a notch ahead. Just a notch. Of course there are no subjects without objects, given a fix or two

The issue though is how they are observed, which is who or what things are. It changes things, including logic. Which is what QM, Now brings to the table.

Kenny doesn’t address the gap between the idea of I am and the event of I am. The big mind thing. There is no event 500 years ago, that is subjective. It must be who I am at anytime . or something or sometime :) but, this is the question. So there is the critical process of deconstruction that is missing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or non-movement (as nothing moves in a discontinuous frame)


Tom, Nothing moves in a discontinuous frame, but changes and jumps ? feels like the collapse of effort than the intent of movement for one thing. Iam curious, a lot left unsaid ..

the problem of serial separate events has been coming up with Kenny, and in Edwards and Infimitas’s posts. Now, could isolated discontinuous events fix that , numerical width and its order in time are resolved ?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2021   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service