KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA62
(Mikes)
Response
1 (to C2, Müller)
REFLECTIONS
: VIEWS
ABOUT TOTAL INTERCONNECTION
by
John Mikes
6 April 2008, posted 12 April 2008
[1]
Introduction
This is a very belated reply upon the 2003 posting.
Several readers commented and I do apologize for not reflecting to them
immediately.
Not only was it solely my procrastination, I really
started to write replies - then discarded all, - I postponed my reflections because my active
'speculation' went on concerning not only the reply-items, but also the content
of my 'TA' itself.
Not that by now I am in the clear with all of it, but
some items changed (evolved to the better, as I hope to put it) so I do not
argue for (about) my 'recently changed' earlier ideas.
As a matter of fact I do not want to argue at all.
*
All respondents gave me positive input to my study and I
only wanted to evaluate, how I can make use of the submitted 'arguments'. I am referring now only to the TA-62-C2 (H.
Müller) comment as the one taking a full professional course through my article
- and addressing the entire topical
content of it.
I am at the very beginning of speculations in and around
the topic touched in TA-62 (as Networks of Networks) - in an ongoing line
starting with A.Bogdanov and including David Bohm through Robert Rosen (Totality -Interconnectional-
view, Complexity, the limited model-view (reductionist) in the conventional
sciences and others.)
[2]
To Müller <1>:
I start now with MY 'narrative' (briefly outlined in [4])
- omitting the urge for an original fiction.
I omit Müllers named 'zero derivational buildup' and deem all our knowledge about our existence
(world, if you prefer) the result of a partial input we receive about it - as
interpreted by ourselves (represented?) for our experience. I call such world-image (our knowledge about
the world) a 'perceived reality' - our first person variant as our individual
experience and mindset (see later) shaped it - even in matters transferred from
the experience-communication of others (books etc.).
In this respect I call it our 'mini solipsism': it is
not more identical of anybody else's than is our immune system, fingerprint, or
DNA. We "get" the items and shape them for our understanding.
Fit it into our belief system.
[3]
To Müller <2>:
The above point answers HM's remark on "our
structures". I do not want to go
into the aspect here, how our technology intrudes into nature - to 'shape'
(sometimes destroy?) it.
I did not detail the 'observable changes' which led to
incorrect observations (at the level of the instruments and epistemic cognitive
inventory of that observational era) - however explained at the same level
continually and calculated at the level of that time. The subsequent development proved many of
them as at least incorrect, but most have been "kept" with
amendments. This is the way - in my view
- how our present (incredible - reductionistic)
science was built with all the forced-and-kept misunderstandings (paradoxes and
accepted 'assumptions upon assumptions upon...' into thousands of levels over
millennia). It is ALMOST perfect, the
almost meaning: airplanes fall off the sky, sicknesses fleurish
in spite of curing efforts, wars and economic disasters occur in spite of the
social sciences management, false theories
get their impact and their existence time-span, etc. Immature
observation and premature explanations of the so identified phenomena gave rise to
physical sciences and the view of a 'physical world'.
[4]
To Müller <3>
The image of 'the scientist' in his armchair at the
fireplace looking at the little fireball that WAS after the 'Big Bang' is
tempting and widespread.
Such is the 'MIR'-objective.
In my ongoing desire for a 'totality-view' (at the
present state of our development it may be still unattainable) a
"SYSTEM" is a limited model with boundaries of topical/functional
content and relations cut to such. It is reduced to science.
Robert Rosen's 'natural system' with no limits makes a
mess, like I tried to illustrate in[7-8] as 'extended
network of networks of networks'.
I like 'unlimited' which may be different from infinite,
but does not recognize boundries. To realize
(encompass? evaluate?) an unlimited (natural) system is beyond our present
mental capabilities.
[5]
To Müller <4> and <5>
I fully appreciate the wisdom of the classics, not only
the old Greeks, but also the near-past thinkers'. However the epistemic
enrichment is growing and their 'level' of cognitive inventory was missing lots
of 'perceived reality' what we acquired up to recent times. Maybe our more
involved knowledge restricts the freedom of our thinking, however the 'oldies'
could conclude in resolutions that mislead from today's problems.
I dreamed up the plenitude upon Rainer Zimmermann's
"pre-geometrical" originative state, which
points to some 'primitive, yet existing state that has to develop further' -
and the 'pre' points to a time-set. I wanted the opposite, from which WE are a
primitive and 'temporary' facet only - with keeping it unknown from any
'human-induced' sophistication or structuring. The 'zero information' pertains
to us: WE have no information about any structure of that dreamed-up plenitude
for our sake. It may have lots of such - not accessible for us. The plenitude
served only to approach a "Big Bang" startup
- what I kept hypothetically for not liking other variants better (in the (my)
'narrative').
*
I am in complete agreement with <5> - maybe I
could not have formulated it so well.
In my wordage a 'system' is a topical - functional
aspect of chosen (limited) qualia - restricted to relations of the select
components we included into them for our observation. I use 'simple' in the sense that
"less" information is observed in the 'cut' - making it 'more' reductionistic (cf: Occam's
razor). Every 'simple' item can be
extended into wider boundaries (see 'Networks' in the TA-62 article), when it becomes
"more complicated = less narrow - less simple".
I do not expand into mathematical marvels like muiltidimensional membranes or strings in my cut to our
common sense logical traits. So I kept "my" plenitude simple to serve
only the origins what (this way) I wanted to shove under the rug as do most
scientific theories in diverse ways.
[6]
To Müller <6> - <7>
Theocratic religions and Mystiques tell other simple
stories.
Here HM touches the assumptional
(pseudo - religious) systems to which I may like to add the 'science-religion'
idea (saved for another topic):
the
development of conventional sciences upon inadequate observations over
millennia - using inadequate instrumentation and explanatory cognitive
inventory of the time - assuming what was not clear. On such assumptions
further many levels of assumptions were based in consecutive extension of
discoveries, mathematical tools and instrumentation - yet the fundamental
assumption was kept. It was amended and amended. In this belief-system the
ancient assumptions (by the incompletely? observed 'facts'?) were not
questioned - they were learned and believed and used for further studies.
It is the non-theistic/theocratic "religion"
of our conventional (reductionistic) sciences.
[7]
Lately I prefer instead of 'whole' the 'unlimited'.
Interconnectedness brought up the question of the
'agent' connecting, even (inter)acting in the totality, 'relation' is less meningful, but also less debatable and open for accepting
improved words in the future.
The 'total', as HM emphasized, has to be a simple unit,
because our capabilities can encompass only a small part of it. Unit, however,
is something composite, requiring the comparison to the 'non unit'. Since all
our experience comes from 'inside' we cannot comprehend from the outside where
we are (totally?) ignorant. In agreement with HM: structures are mostly reduced
relations into the topic (model) where they are observed in. An 'unlimited'
structure is no structure.
HM's "we build the structures of self-and-world
inside the unstructured experience..." sounds well - in the model view,
taking every stgep of components separately by themselves.
I would prefer to look at the (world) complexity as interrelated, even if it is
only quite vaguely discernible, and think of an 'evolution' in parallel changes
of all relations. I used here the 'e' word without starting it by 'd' although
in my terms the 'e' represents the entire life- story of our universe (in my
narrative), from its (plenitude-timeless) occurrence till its (just so
plenitude-timeless) redistribution (aka Big Crunch) into the undefined 'total'
unlimited 'invariant' symmetry of the (hypothesized?) plenitude.
(Rem.: the agency to 'form' universes is in the unlimitedness of the plenitude: violating by its unlimited
interrelations (i.e. similar aspects also grouping together) the invariant
total symmetry that dissipates as it formed. Not so in the inside-view where in
OUR universe the space - time coordination implies the figments of distance and
time-sequence).
*
As for "self": this is the topic of some
aspects related differently to some other aspects as in more, or less
'intimate' relations. I still hope to make progress in this chapter.
"Self-refletive" is a word without
explaining "how". Any close meaning involves assumed concepts for an
explanation. Like "total" in 'unlimited'.
[8]
To Müller <8>
Vision is the most widely studied field with the least
of likely input: phenomenologically observed
similarities in explanations of the varying 'sciences' of the ages. I do not
imply that we did not discover lots of knowledge so far, but do not deny that
more is to come. We use words, like 'atomistic terms' - which may be completely
off base, if some - so far not yet discovered - maybe some analogue-based -
'process'? - arises as responsible for all we assign to our "objective and
calculated" ongoing classical physical sciences.
Paul Churchland in his younger
years wrote in a book on consciousness about a ' tribe', understanding physics
well' - that
considered 'caloric' a liquid - and narrated a complete enjoyable physical
story on that basis.
Objectivity needs some omniscience, to get ALL into our
representation of the world and understand it beyond the filter by our personal
experience. Atomistic, however, raises the question of the interstitial
'nothing' to pass in a discontinuum. Just as a continuum asks for a transition from one quale into the other. Both are basic to our
conventional thinking. The word 'wholistic' maybe
wrong: it's baggage comes from the language of such
questionable bases.
If it seems that I wanted to convey "objectivity
essentially atomistic, not wholistic" I
formulated my sentence falsely - I would not now. I want to arrive at "panta rhei" in the
meaning-sense with a better understanding of the 'transitions' from one
conceptual phase into another. Relations and 'processes' included.
[9]
To Müller <10>
Mind(-set?) could be considered as (HM:) the ongoing
experience - but structured indeed on the genetic build of the cooperative
'tool' - as e.g. the brain - which may have some genetic disposition to 'ease'
or 'hinder' select functional aspects - adding all together in the (empty
word!) mentality. Structured processing - the individual differences - may be
within our (e.g. behavioral?) observation, or beyond
it.
Language may be considered as the human word-based, or
animal behavior-based inter-communication, (of the
latter we have so far very limited experience, but consider our various sign and facial
languages in such respect as well).
I referred to 'reality' what I prefer as 'reality
perceived' as HM put it: "what we construct and believe in, inside
experience."
[10]
Thanks for the remarks and advice. I still can use them
after 5 years.
------------------------------------------------
John Mikes
e-mail < jamikes
(at) prodigy.net>