Re: [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models

[James N Rose <***>]

++ [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models ++

Buck,

Given consensus acceptance of 'limitations' as the overarching
state-of-the-world, you - with others - are comfortable with functional
ignorange/illiteracy - in experience, psychology, perception.

It's comfortable and doesn't rock the boat.

All you're doing is advocating a shortsheeted definition of 'know'.

I'm not happy with 'epi-cycles' however, even though that's
a workable-system of evaluation/prediction.

My "unique 'Rosean'" system of complexity pushes all the limits and
challenges all the definitions, indeed.  Not invalidating the two
sentences but cautioning against them as 'absolutes'.

The deep dichotomy of existence is a strange one, and one wholly
different from all the ones currently on the table of human
thinking.  The dichotomy I have in mind is 'identity' versus
'involvement' ;  or 'agency vis a vis dis-agency'.

I can show that 'agent/identity' relations instantiate at the
very beginning of dimensions-creation.  Which means that from the
first formative level of existence, systems congeal into unique
identities, or as I call them, 'integrities'.  All subsequent
emergings being creations of new-tier integrities, and, they
stemming from coordinating-of-agents in prior and related tiers.

So, the process architecture of existence .. creates and
venerates 'individuality' on one hand, while having
operations and having support processes on the other
hand which blur what an identity or individuality is.


Extrapolating this situation to human thought and ideas,
it is -instinctive- (in the absolute sense) to feel very
very comfortable with paradigms that buttress 'identity'
individuality and uniqueness, versus notions which bolster
non-specialness of persona/ae.

The two sentences,
  "Only I can ever know my subjective reality.
     No one can ever know objective reality.",
are more statements of reactive preservation of weltanschauung than
they are of 'conditional/situational fact'.   So I appreciate the truth
they refer to in one sense, but I totally challenge them otherwise.

On more formal grounds, I totally challenge the current
understandings used to define 'subjective' and 'objective'.
Conventional thought merely has 'objectivity' being the/an
extreme state of 'subjectivity';  where information is complete
and not limited; where perturbation and noise is eliminated.
But they are effectively the same thing, one being the 'pure form
of the other'.

I choose to re-write the definitions so as to avoid those exact
problems the current definitions lead to.

All systems are conjoint bindings of objective AND subjective.
Objective information is the rules of performance.
Subjective information is instantiated performances of Objective information.

Can't parse one from the other.  Can't 'purify' one and get some
kind of 'reality extract' residue that is the other.

You'd still be left with having to deal with new situations, new
criteria, new qualia, alternative arrangings of things percepts
and responsibilities.  Life would go on, in otherwords, and
the 'truth' of having to stay with the program, even if you
were absolutely enlightened, would rise as the greater reality.

Existence has a momentum.  Objective reality creates subjective
examplings; subjective examplings are the only access (because
they are expressions -of- it) to objective reality "itself".

Because we all share 'objectivity' from the core of our being,
we -can- subjectively (to a real sufficient degree such that our
decisions and behaviors will re-arrange and derive from the
relations) 'know the subjective reality of another integrity'.

It's when we -choose- to isolate ourselves (deify our
own special personae) that we rationalize statements like
 "Only I can ever know my subjective reality.
        No one can ever know objective reality."

What looks like a 'theory of existential being conditions' is
combinantly a biased notion, a high psychological defense
mechanism to bolster 'selfness', dressed up as a theory of existence.

The universe is first and foremost a communications reticulum.
Information and information compatible and information shared.
"Sympatico" is the key to dimensional activities and to us
as well.  It just gets tough to see it when the system has to
use 'separation' to foster appreciation of shared-qualia.

Jamie
Ceptual Institute
July 24, 2004





Buck Lawrimore wrote:
>
> Jamie,
>
> In defense of Suzanne, your unique "Rosean" system of Complexity does
> not in any way invalidate the two sentences which you quoted. The
> operative word here is "know." Within her system, or M&V's system, one
> can define "know" in such a way that both statements are true. I find
> those sentences resonate 100% with my experience, including some fairly
> extensive studies of psychology and perception.
>
> Buck
>
> On Jul 22, 2004, at 10:09 AM, James N Rose wrote:
>
> > Suzanne Kelly wrote:
> >
> > "Only I can ever know my subjective reality.
> >        No one can ever know objective reality."
> >
> > That is a frightening statement/conclusion, and it flies
> > in the face of performances which have been experienced
> > and identified.
> >
> >
> > "Empathy" is -sufficient sharing of objective -and-
> > subjective reality- to enable 'bound or resultant behaviors'
> > of agents.
> >
> > No one, no 'thing', no entity made of atoms, will -ever-
> > directly experience a proton or neutron .. even though the
> > majority of their composition -is- protons and neutrons.
> >
> > Entities -will- experience 'qualia emergents' that only
> > protons and neutrons can generate, and so -will have-
> > transduced 'involvement' with atomic internal 'presence'.
> >
> > "Shared understanding" is a de facto requisite in first
> > order interactions requirement .. when 'understanding' is
> > most-generally defined as 'initially/pandemically correspondable'.
> >
> >
> > If the gauge of the topic question is 'absolute or guaranteed
> > coordination of all decisions for all participants' then
> > the reductionized terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are
> > weakly parsed and improperly explored when several tiers
> > of qualia/criteria are involved.
> >
> > To say that 'family' is a relationship that exists in all
> > cultures is true.  To say that all possible relations
> > which can be defined as 'family' will map identically
> > when performances and potential co-integration of
> > activities is attempted among all possible 'families',
> > is something else entirely.
> >
> > With a tip of the hat to Dr. Cohen: 'sex' is everywhere;
> > not all sexual species engage coordinately together.
> >
> > Systems will 'niche respectively into patterns' and
> > be sufficiently if not satisfactorally engaged: independent
> > but coordinated.  Because of adequate subjective/objective
> > coordination.
> >
> > Jamie Rose
> >