Archive Fire: Fluid Becoming

9.2.11

Fluid Becoming

.

Matt Pringle, Fluid Form:

Music: Tryad - Waltz Into The Moonlight.

[ h/t metaconscious ]

.

24 comments:

Purple Cow said...: Like a Seventies larva lamp with lots of sensual gratuitous spurting... I found that very relaxing, thank you. How does he do it?; February 09, 2011 7:30 AM
Joe Conservative said...: What are they becoming if all the forms never stop evolving? All you have, therefore, is an "unintelligible infinite sequence of "beings".

Achilles is either never going to catch the tortoise, or he's going to lap him an infinite number of times!; February 09, 2011 4:46 PM
Michael- said...: @PC

Not sure how he does it, but i think its ink in water. I just really enjoyed it and thought i'd share.; February 09, 2011 6:28 PM
Michael- said...: @Joe,

I don't think being and becoming are separate realities. I think everything that is is becoming; and all becoming results in singularities, or temporal, unique beings.

I certainly don't think that all of reality is lava-lampy (nod to Tim Morton), because all things/situations have an onto-specificity inherent to their conditions.

either/or cognitions are dead ends.; February 09, 2011 6:39 PM
Thersites said...: either/or cognitions are dead ends

Especially "predictive" ones like "cause" and "effect". They're the biggest dead end of all. ;)

Dead/end... hmmmm. Another "end" in an either/or cognition.

*Best beam me up, Scotty!*

"Being" is the current onto-specific moment. Becoming is the next. And "used to be" was the last.; February 09, 2011 7:00 PM
Michael- said...: "Being" is the current onto-specific moment. Becoming is the next. And "used to be" was the last.

You could say that, i guess. But I think that simplifies too much. All things are beings and becomings at the same time.

Sometimes I say that all things/assemblages/situations are ‘rambling chaos-boxes’, or temporal beings, or individuated processes, etc, etc,. There are many ways to capture the ephemeral and persistent aspects of compositions.; February 10, 2011 9:18 AM
Joe Conservative said...: All things are beings and becomings at the same time.

All things are both "static and unchanging" and "changing and in motion" at the same time? How can that be possible? It's either one or the other (Aristotle's first principle).; February 11, 2011 3:56 AM
Michael- said...: either/or = primitive binary logic

The world exceeds your expectations.

(ps. google "post-formal cognition adult development" and git yerself learned); February 11, 2011 9:08 AM
Joe Conservative said...: either/or = primitive binary logic

...and yet here we are, communicating on devices that employ naught but simple binary logic and are the great hope for the modern era. Imagine that! :); February 11, 2011 7:10 PM
Joe Conservative said...: Much as you may not like it, Aristotle still matters. And he's got a 2,000 year track record. How long has fuzzy logic been around again? 45?; February 11, 2011 7:12 PM
Joe Conservative said...: I also find it interesting that you use the pejorative/diminutive case for "binary" logic.

I guess when you're attempting to deceive both yourself and others, it is harder to make your arguments favouring muddled and/or incomplete thinking harder...; February 12, 2011 5:59 AM
Joe Conservative said...: There are many ways to capture the ephemeral and persistent aspects of compositions.

Your method... "ignore them and pretend they're not there."

Great plan.; February 12, 2011 6:01 AM
Michael- said...: Joe,

Binary logic works great for machines, but is that the kind of intelligence you want to develop? You want to be no smarter or moral or considerate than a cell phone?

Binary logic is based on the Aristotelian idea that everything is either A or not-A. It is the logic you are forced to use when you take a true or false test. It's also the logic computers are based on. 1 or 0. Now for some things binary logic works very well. For example, if you ask a school class, "Who is female?", all the girls will put up their hands and all the boys will keep them down. You get a clear answer, since everyone is either female or non-female.

What if you ask the same kids, "Who likes school?" Some kids may put up their hands all the way (they definitely like school) and others might keep their hand down (they hate school). Most of the kids however will put their hand up and take it down again a few times and then leave it somewhere in the middle. Maybe they like school in general, but there are some bad things about it, or they actually don't like school, but sometimes it's fun.

But if we tried to track these results with binary logic, we would have to reduce each result to the extremes of either loving school or hating school; A or not-A. Here we need a different kind of logic to note the answers accurately; we need a logic where the kids can both like school and not like school at the same time.

Binary logic reduces and complex phenomena to a level of simplicity that fails to take account of the true nature of that situation. Advances in logic have recognized that and have moved beyond it.; February 13, 2011 4:00 PM
Michael- said...: In the domain of developmental psychology researchers have also shown that thinking styles grounded in binary logic are features of lower cognitive development.

The following quotes are from the text Development Across the Life Span (2005), by Robert S. Feldman:

“Postformal thought is thinking that goes beyond Piaget’s formal operations. Rather than being based on purely logical processes, with absolutely right and wrong answers to problems, postformal thought acknowledges that adult predicaments must sometimes be solved in relativistic terms.” (Gisela Labouvie-Vief , p.456)

“According to psychologist Jan Sinnott (1998a), postformal thought also takes into account real-world considerations when solving problems. Postformal thinkers can shift back and forth between an abstract, ideal solution and real-world constraints that might prevent the solution from being successfully implemented. In addition, postformal thinkers understand that just as there can be multiple causes of a situation, there can be multiple solutions.” (p.457)

“To psychologist William Perry (1970, 1981), early adulthood represents a period of developmental growth that encompasses mastery not just of particular bodies of knowledge, but of ways of understanding the world. Perry examined the ways in which students grew intellectually and morally during college. In comprehensive interviews with a group of students at Harvard University, he found that students entering college tended to use dualistic thinking in their views of the world. For instance, they reasoned that something was right, or it was wrong; people were good, or they were bad; and others were either for them, or against them. However, as these students encountered new ideas and points of view from other students and their professors, their dualistic thinking declined.”

I could go on, but I think you might by now be somewhat getting the picture – and thus be rejecting it as “wrong” to your “right”.; February 13, 2011 4:00 PM
Michael- said...: JOE: “Much as you may not like it, Aristotle still matters. And he's got a 2,000 year track record. How long has fuzzy logic been around again? 45?”

Is that your only standard of appropriateness, how long someone has been around? WOW. So by your standard the I Ching has more import than the bible because it predates it? How about the Hindu Vedas? They must be THE authority on everything since they have been around for 5000+ years and are still relevant to Hindus? Vishnu’s belly-bottom cosmology sounds about as much fun and Aristotle’s earth-centered universe theory – let’s change the textbooks!

What exactly did Aristotle get right again? Can you give one example of something Aristotle wrote that has proved scientifically valid?

You keep using ancient modes of thought and see how that works out for you Joe….

Great plan.; February 13, 2011 4:09 PM
Joe Conservative said...: But if we tried to track these results with binary logic, we would have to reduce each result to the extremes of either loving school or hating school; A or not-A.

Perhaps that's where your mistake is. Seeking binary answers to questions incapable of providing them (ie - Fluid Becoming as you addressed it, not as Aristotle successfully addressed "becomings" by breaking it into four causes "changes to form" being but one). But lets face it, if you asked a better subset of questions, one about each of the multiple various aspects of school (or "becoming")...(specific subjects and activities) you'd likely have a MUCH better answer to your original question, as you would know "what" aspects the students liked and which they did not.

Denigrating binary logic is simply irrational. It's like favouring even numbers over odd ones. What's the point in that?

Advances in logic have recognized that and have moved beyond it.

No, they haven't. They STILL use binary logic when appropriate (reducible problems) AND they use fuzzy logic when it's appropriate (ie- addressing incomplete data in presently irreducible problems where an approximated answer will suffice).

Binary logic is great in that it produces certain and reliable results. You wouldn't want a fuzzy logic only cell phone... one without 3, or 7's for dialing with, would you?

“Postformal thought is thinking that goes beyond Piaget’s formal operations.

But all that pschology still doesn't go beyond the firing of individual neurons in the brain. And so all that "higher" logic still operates on a binary basis... did the neuron FIRE or didn't it?

Imagine that. None of that "higher" brain logic would exist at all without binary logic.

Can you give one example of something Aristotle wrote that has proved scientifically valid?

How about his first principle. Oooops, that may form the entire basis of the scientific method, but you're right, it can't be proved "scientifically". So much for an appeal to "science" as an authority. Are you sure THAT is the point you wanted to make? That "logic" has no real scientifically provable foundation? If so, I could have saved you the trouble and quoted Nietzsche "Gay Science" 110. Hmmmm... in it Nietzsche also supports your proposition about my standard of appropriateness... so hey, you might finally be on to something. ;); February 13, 2011 7:42 PM
Michael- said...: Joe: Denigrating binary logic is simply irrational. It's like favouring even numbers over odd ones. What's the point in that?

Actually those two are not even close to being the same. I simply point out the primitive nature and limited use of binary logic. It has it's uses, to be sure, but understanding complex dynamics with millions of variables is not one of them.

A massive body of research shows how thinking dualistically is a sign of immature cognitive capacities. I'm sorry if that shocks you but it's true - you can do the homework and find out for yourself. I recommend starting with the work of Michael Commons, or Robert Kegan if you decide to follow-up and git yerself learned.

Joe: You wouldn't want a fuzzy logic only cell phone... one without 3, or 7's for dialing with, would you?

LOL. I guess not, but I don't understand what binary logic has to do with the availability of 3s and 7s on your keypad? lol.

I certainly would want to use zeros and ones for digital programming, but i suggest upgrading your cognitive skills to be able to use "fuzzy" logic for more complex issues. Complex issues call for complex thinking Joe, sorry, that's just the way it is.

Joe: But all that pschology still doesn't go beyond the firing of individual neurons in the brain. And so all that "higher" logic still operates on a binary basis... did the neuron FIRE or didn't it?

Wow, that's terrible logic even by Aristotle's standards. One neuron does not a system make. It takes that differential firing of cascading systems of neurons to generate complex thinking or behavior. The emergent properties of such a symphony of linear and non-linear processes (and external and internal differentials and interactions) have no resemblance to binary-logic.

But you'd have to be able to think beyond binaries to even understand exactly HOW that is so.

I apologize, once again, for allowing this discussion to disintegrate into 'i'm smarting than thou' shit, because I understand that you come from a very different background than I, and I should be more generous and compassionate than I am being now. And it's my fault that this has resulting in childish communications. Truly.

You and I have been arguing like this for a long time Joe. Let's just agree to disagree and let history, ecology and future generations judge who was more accurate in their descriptions of the world.; February 14, 2011 12:18 AM
Michael- said...: Nietzsche against ethnocentrism and christianity, in one fell swoop:

"We who are homeless are too manifold and mixed racially and in our descent, being "modern men," and consequently do not feel tempted to participate in the mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking and that is doubly false and obscene among the people of the "historical sense." We are, in one word—and let this be our word of honor—good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the rich, oversupplied, but also overly obligated heirs of thousands of years of European spirit. As such, we have also outgrown Christianity and are averse to it—precisely because we have grown out of it..." (The Gay Science, 378)

How does that fit with your value-system Joe?; February 14, 2011 12:29 AM
Joe Conservative said...: and I should be more generous and compassionate than I am being now

lol! Hubris is neither generous nor compassionate. It's simply "ignorant".

How does that fit with your value-system Joe?

A 100% match. No fuzziness needed.; February 14, 2011 3:55 AM
Joe Conservative said...: btw - You really need to get over your distaste for every idea NOT the most current. It'll be the "death" of you. ;); February 14, 2011 3:56 AM
Michael- said...: A 100% match.

So you agree that Christianity is a sign of a weak, immature mind?

And you abhor racism and ethnocentrism as well?; February 14, 2011 9:54 AM
Titan Uranus 2 said...: So you agree that Christianity is a sign of a weak, immature mind?

Nope. Christianity was the result of a weak, but OVER-mature mind. Rome and the neo-Platonism of Greece.

And you abhor racism and ethnocentrism as well?

Abhor? No, I don't abhor them. I'm sure they still have their uses for weaker and debauched races and ethnicities. But a strong laissez-faire civilization such as our own needn't employ them except as necessary to preserve an illusion of social justice (affirmative action) and/or as expedient to crush our enemies during war.

Unlike you, I don't "hate" ideas. They all have their time and place.; February 14, 2011 7:35 PM
Titan Uranus 2 said...: Nietzsche, GS 377

On the "Homeless Europeans"...

We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights," "a free society," "no more masters and no servants" has no allure for us. We simply do not consider it desirable that a realm of justice and concord should be established on earth (because it would certainly be the realm of the deepest leveling and chinoiserie) [concluding poem, Beyond Good and Evil: "nur wer sich wandelt bleibt mit mir verwandt" (Only those who keep changing remain akin to me)]; we are delighted with all who love, as we do, danger, war, and adventures, who refuse to compromise, to be captured, reconciled, and castrated; we count ourselves among conquerors; we think about the necessity for new orders, also for a new slavery—for every strengthening and enhancement of the human type also involves a new kind of enslavement. Is it not clear that with all this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen? It is bad enough that precisely when we hear these beautiful words we have the ugliest suspicions. What we find in them is merely an expression—and a masquerade—of a profound weakening, of weariness, of old age, of declining energies. What can it matter to us what tinsel the sick may use to cover up their weakness? Let them parade it as their virtue; after all, there is no doubt that weakness makes one mild, oh so mild, so righteous, so inoffensive, so "humane"!; February 14, 2011 7:46 PM
Michael- said...: 1. You write, "...for weaker and debauched races and ethnicities".

2. You quote word for word the very passage from Nietzsche that Adolph Hitler cited in 1942 when he was talking to a crowd gathered in Berlin.

3. Draw your own conclusions...

*note to readers: at least some of them are depraved enough to reveal EXACTLY what they.; February 14, 2011 10:45 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)