Archive Fire: Multiple Becomings

9.2.11

Multiple Becomings

.

Inner Life Project:

Misha Shyukin: parpar

[h/t The New Knowledge of Ecology]

17 Years in 2 minutes:

Joshua Tree National Park:

.

14 comments:

Thersites said...: You need to re-title to "Infinite Beings". None of "becomings" ever "became." And none could describe in advance what they were trying to "become".; February 10, 2011 3:46 AM
Joe Conservative said...: btw - the city was largely self-organizing, so trying to attribute "being" to such a geographical constellation is simply Salvadore Dali's "Paranoid Critical" method writ large. There is no "seated man" in this picture...; February 10, 2011 3:56 AM
Michael- said...: semantics.

But you called that self-organizing thing a "city" - which is a noun, which implies a certain degree of being-ness, or substantiality to it, so calling it a "being" (a city) is approriate. If it's noy a being, then what is the 'self' that organizes?; February 10, 2011 9:22 AM
Joe Conservative said...: Individual people. THEY are your "beings". Your postulated "city with being" is a "paranoic critical" one. City's (and other groupings) have no self-volition. The only have the multiple conflicting volitions of the people who live in them.

And ontology isn't "semantics". It's the difference between sophistry (what you practice) and philosophy.; February 11, 2011 3:52 AM
Michael- said...: Actually whole populations have emergent properties that give them a semblance of ‘individuality’. Hence a city, or an army, or the republican party. Such things are what I would call, following others, an assemblage.

But that’s not the complete picture: I would take it one step further and suggest to you that all "individuals" are also assemblages (with parts, sub-parts and only emergent wholeness) - or what Whitehead called "societies". All human "individuals" are assemblages or collections of everything from quanta to atoms to molecules to organs to whole sets of bodily systems – we are compositions.

Have you ever heard of “dynamic equilibrium”? You ask below how actual systems deify Aristotles logic of either/or, well our own bodies are examples of something that is in constant change (anti-stasis) while retaining enough stasis or stability (anti-change) to have a particular efficacy (individuality) in the world - AT THE SAME TIME.

In fact, the whole of systems theory, ecological science and physics has shown just how interconnected, interdependent and entangled all things are. As sexy as his thinking was Aristotle never had access to this knowledge.

So your hyper-individualism is an abstraction, an egoic-based ideology created by those seeking to shirk their collective responsibilities and dominate "weaker" or "lesser" beings by through their own "will to power". But that's the cognitive style of a 3 year old. "me, me, me, me, me...." It’s willful brain damage.

Here is the take-away point: actual living systems define binary logic. The Real world exceeds your expectations. Your binary cognition can’t capture the complexity. Sorry, it just can’t.

A person with a mature belief system understands how connected and interdependent all people and things are, and adjusts accordingly - they become socialized (in the neutral sociological sense of that term).; February 11, 2011 8:59 AM
Michael- said...: And for the record: ontology (theory) without ontography (method) is simply 'transcendental metaphysics' - which is another term for religion. No thanks.

But what you offer is rhetoric - and the willful deployment of semantics.; February 11, 2011 9:05 AM
Joe Conservative said...: :I would take it one step further and suggest to you that all "individuals" are also assemblages (with parts, sub-parts and only emergent wholeness) - or what Whitehead called "societies". All human "individuals" are assemblages or collections of everything from quanta to atoms to molecules to organs to whole sets of bodily systems – we are compositions.

Indeed we are collections and groupings. But we only have one single "consciousness"...unless, of course, you have some form of dissociative identity disorder. So much for your anti-individualism theory. ;)

And for the record: ontology (theory) without ontography (method) is simply 'transcendental metaphysics' - which is another term for religion.

Your lack of method is evident in your postings vis a vis the "nature of becoming". Is yours a secular humanistic religion, perhaps? At least Aristotle and I have method. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cheers!; February 11, 2011 4:34 PM
Michael- said...: JOE: Indeed we are collections and groupings. But we only have one single "consciousness"...unless, of course, you have some form of dissociative identity disorder. So much for your anti-individualism theory.

ME: One single consciousness huh? LOL. We have unitary experience, sure, but consciousness is not a "thing", but rather a confluence of forces and material conditions always in process ('becoming').

And i'm not anti-individualist you sad little man. I'm just not hyper-individualistic - I see complexity and simultaneity, where individuals and collectives co-exist and are interdependent.

'pro/anti' = yet another stupid binary; February 13, 2011 4:16 PM
Joe Conservative said...: William James?

lol!

Consciousness may not "be" (lol!) "a thing", but it certainly is a "unitary experience".

And i'm not anti-individualist

Why can't you just be satisfied with your "fuzzy" logic characterization and admit that you ARE anti-individualist? Perhaps because it embarrasses you and makes you seem, in the eyes of others, a "bad person"...

pro/anti' = yet another stupid binary

The stupidity lies in how the binary is used.... and you're the one framing the inappropriate statements.

Binary logic isn't moral/amoral good/bad. It just "is". ;); February 13, 2011 7:58 PM
Michael- said...: Again, it's about individuals AND collectives, not individuals OR collectives. I'm all for self-cultivation and the dignity (and responsibility) of individuals, but i'm also for social values and communitarian life. I know it's hard to believe (or in your case understand) but it's true. I have values that your primitive classifications would view as congruent with both "Left" and "Right" positions.

But you wouldn't know that since you seem only capable of thinking in terms of 'either/or'.

But, AGAIN, I want you to explain to me how, if you are a champion of "freedom" and "liberty", you can also be AGAINST gay rights? Please answer the question.; February 13, 2011 11:51 PM
Titan Uranus 2 said...: Please answer the question.

I'm against paedophile rights, too. Does that make me a bad person? :{; February 14, 2011 7:11 PM
Michael- said...: Paedophiles prey on children - in other words they have victims, and are thus pathological and criminal.

Homosexuals are consenting adults with no victims at all.

So instead of dodging the issue, will you please just answer the question:

HOW can you justify preaching Liberty and Freedom, and say that you value these things, when you are against Gay rights? HOW does that make sense?

Can you admit that you are only in favor of "Liberty" for some - and only those who you deem worthy of "freedom".

If you are not ashamed of your beliefs you can say it: you reserve the right to decide who should be free and who should not, right?

I think it is because you know in your heart that your values are based on bigotry and fear, and you can't bring yourself to admit it...; February 14, 2011 10:27 PM
Joe Conservative said...: Homosexuals are consenting adults with no victims at all.

...and then they "adopt" and raise catamites. Plenty of victims to go round.; February 16, 2011 6:36 PM
Michael- said...: --> http://vimeo.com/2244276; February 19, 2011 4:00 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)