Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Colored Fog

---In, wrote :

>Our native language (mother tongue) has a profound impact on us in that the way we live and perceive the world depends heavily on the logic our native language is based upon. So, I still cannot see any logic in holding a steering wheel by right hand and changing the gears by left hand (as Englishmen do). My logic tells me that there must be "17, March, 2015 " instead of "March 17, 2015", and so on. So, any ideas how to unify the logic we use?

[rf]  Bo(th) and more, Serge.

The challenge, as I see it and express in my terms as "seek a thought worthy of speech", or, "in order to understand understanding we first need to acquire the new common (tactile) physical intuition that reality is nested structured~duality, or nested fields within nested fields, and/or for all to bone up on doing analyses via nested structural coding", is we are destined to discover and agree upon a NEW (common) expression.   We are, after all, coming to a new understanding.

Iain McGilchrist says  some of it in a helpful way. "The polarity between 'objective' and 'subjective' points of view is a creation of the left hemisphere's analytical disposition. In reality there can be neither absolutely, only a choice between a betweenness which acknowledges itself, and one which denies its own nature."  [McGilchrist, Ian, 'The Master and His Emissary', at 5919 or ~34% on Nexus7 Kindle version]

Here he (or I) echo ~my impression that "objectivity is just a strongly repeating form of repeatable subjectivity". Or, similarly, that impressions are passed from the right hemisphere to the left where the left resurrects and applies the blinding wordful associations that we all  cherish.  

Yet, in the case that you ask about, notice that what is involved in acquiring the new understanding (of understanding, or as many would say, of consciousness) is the challenge IS for the left, right or left-right to make up and integrate the new term and expression. ...The one that fits the gap in the anomalous cavity of  our growing 'cerebral canopy'.

So, we're looking for a new term, a new principle, the new, expressive word -- something we create and agree upon.  

The thing that nested structured~duality allows is to see reality as nested fields within nested fields. And from there,  particularly if one does try to remove the log just  from one's own eye what, at least I encounter when realizing that the prior defense mechanisms previously counted gain are instead, huge losses, is the transition is complex and multi-faceted -- not just a matter of left or right.  

A useful new metaphor is to visualize  six to ten levels or layers or gradients of differently colored fog, blending as in "nested fields within nested fields".  And, in habitual or 'initial'  "state of consciousness", say, ensconced within one or another of the so-called attachment love styles (defense mechanisms), one hue, color or disposition is often dominant. A person has a disposition. I have a disposition. 

Yet, for instance, implementing one (not so simple) change of relying less often in dissociation, the nested fields within nested fields shift about in inexplicable, only-experienceable ways, over a period of days, weeks, months, and years.  The change  is essentially imperceptible -- and so it should be.  But the change, in subconscious, and emotions, and unconscious, and intentions, and imagination, and behaviors and in group dynamics, etc., in and through protein formations and foldings and in structural coding in the ordered water forged  within respiration, slowly arise from the inside-out into  different dispositional states within the colored fogs.  And one *feels* the change.  I *feel* the change.

Thus, Serge,  when you truncate to  point toward differing 'logics', I note that when I reference 8:00pm March 17, 2015,  here in mid-north Indiana, for you in Ukraine  you are at 2:00am 18 March 2015 -- beginning the next cycle of the endless 'day'.   

We do the translation, shifting the associations between one nested structural coding and another -- and it is bo(h) and more.  In the paradigm transition it is similar but just more complex. We transition from one strong association into a dissociated state most likely between three or more nested fields within nested fields.  And when the actual change occurs, days or weeks or years later, we notice a change in the dispositional colored fogs.  The blend is different, influenced by learning to protein-fold just one new thing.

A philosophical type may struggle to explain the unexplainable in terms of shady reasons and causes.  Us analysts consider sequences of events, too often forgetting that every isolated 'event' is also within, not the fictitious void, but always enfolded within the surrounding, inseparable totality -- structurally coding  as nested fields within nested fields.  

The more unified expression arises when we learn and agree upon, let's say, agreement, a deeper level of peaceful association.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition  Support
[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Serge wrote:

Jonathan Edwards on Mar 16, 2015 wrote:
>The reason why lead is heavy is independent of any particular 
>time or place. For the same reason God does not have to be 
>there before creation in order to create the world because reasons 
>do not need to be 'before', they are independent of time.
[S.P.] There is nothing like "reason" or "cause". There is always "a reason of this event" or "a cause of that event". The key word here is not "reason/cause" but "event". 
Second, I hold (and this is dictated by the logic I use) that if there is an event, there must always be another event that preceded it, or caused it. So, "the reason of the given even" is ALWAYS some other event. Similarly, if there is an organism, there should be another organism who preceded (gave birth to) the given organism. That is why we describe the world not in reasons/causes, but in events. For example, History is a sequence of events, but not a sequence of reasons/causes.
Third. For me, the phrase "The reason why lead is heavy is independent of any particular time or place." has no sense no logic in it. Indeed, why do we decide that lead is heavy? It is because we compare it with another substance of the same volume. Therefore, when talking about lead as being "heavy", we already tie its "heaviness" (or some other physical feature) with particular "time and place". For example, lead is heavier than chromium because its atoms are heavier than those ones of chromium, and lead is lighter than uranium because its atoms are lighter than those of uranium.
Forth. Since we should always talk about the events (either preceding or succeeding), therefore no "pure reasons" or "pure causes" are possible in principle. That is why I treat the phrase that "God does not have to be there before creation" as having no sense as well. Yet in my post  I have explained what the word "god" means. The word "god" means not a reason or cause, but "unknown reason/cause". 
In Ukrainian language the word "bo(h)" means simultaneously "god" and "because". Consider the following examples. We say: "There is rain "bo(h)" (because) the grey heavy clouds cover the sky." We say: "I feel bad "bo(h)" (because) the atmospheric pressure is very low.", and so on. In these examples, the reasons/causes of the events ARE KNOWN for us. 
Now, let us look at the following examples. We say: "Our Universe is so huge "bo(h)" (because) ... (the answer is absent)". We say: "I have survived in a fierce car accident "bo(h)" (because) ... (the answer is absent too)". In these examples, the reasons/causes of the events are NOT KNOWN for us. 
Then, our consciousness performs a trick of hypostatization and the word "bo(h)" acquires independent existence with a meaning to be "unknown cause of some events/facts" (and even transforms into anthropomorphic bearded creature), and the phrase "Our Universe is so huge "bo(h)" (because) ... (the answer is absent)." is replaced by the following one: "Bo(h) (God) knows why our Universe is so huge". But, every educated person understands that the expression "God knows (why)!" simply means "the reason/cause is unknown", and nothing else. 
However, for a reason/cause to be unknown does not mean to be independent of time and place, because the very word "unknown" means here "still unknown", or "not fully known yet". Due to the fact that a person is conducting a process of cognition and is permanently gaining knowledge, the "unknown" is in a slow but steady process of transformation into the "known", thereby being permanently linked with concrete "place and time".
I see that in trying to construct a Science of Consciousness we will have to solve not only the general problem of intersubjectivity (which objectively appears when any two persons communicate), but also the problem of incompatibility of elementary logic. However, the latter problem appears only when I try to communicate with certain native English speakers of Anglo-Saxon origin, whereas no such a problem appears when I communicate with persons who just use English as a second language as I do. 
Our native language (mother tongue) has a profound impact on us in that the way we live and perceive the world depends heavily on the logic our native language is based upon. So, I still cannot see any logic in holding a steering wheel by right hand and changing the gears by left hand (as Englishmen do). My logic tells me that there must be "17, March, 2015" instead of "March 17, 2015", and so on. So, any ideas how to unify the logic we use?
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment