Why do we think the way we do?

Have posts disappeared?? Crap...

that's no way to talk about the posts, i think one was "mine"!

I think Effectuation's first post has disappeared----it may have something to do with some editing such as his link to his site---he probably didn't realize this is verbotin.

Maybe I can persuade you guys to enlighten me on how we become fuzzies or rigids or anything in between. I submit that it most probably has something to do with our genetic hard wiring? Because thinking back I believe I have been in the rigid camp( more or less) from an early age---I can not tolerate ambiguity. I truly believe thats why I am very frustrated by philosophy because to me it never seems to accomplish anything except ambiguity.

as with all polarity one actualizes the other, so rigidity informs fuzziness.

i think of myself as rigidly fuzzy!

Jeez, I won't be any help here, because I'm going with BoGoWo on this...life depends on the co-existence of opposites, order (rigidity) and chaos (fuzzy). The balance inbetween is not ambiguous, just really really hard to put into words.

Yeah --could be--as in opposites attract as in God likes controversy---and I'm not religious----wow maybe it's the grand design.
Keeps life interesting and going around in ever widening circles. He must be getting impatient ---- no that's a human failing -----he has forever.

I guess it's OK as long as the circles don't get smaller and we implode.

evicycles on the evicycles..............

do me a favor and read the tao teh ching!

Dear ReDHoRN

You obviously are a student of Tao----how far have you gotten in your quest to experience Tao?

Follow on to ReDHoRN

Since you quote Nietzsche---do you think Nietzsche was a nihilist?

I like General Tao Chicken...always on the menu...these days though, I wish for Lao Tze Pork, and a bit of Tao Te Bling-Bling, and a side of Chuang Tze, who is always fun at a party, observational comedian that he is.

Strangely enough, the more I analyze my last post, the less I understand it...

Oh how is that Cav?

It tickled my funnybone.

It was meant to and the second post was a Tao-wager on the thought that you might pick up on the poor widow. Also meant for humour as well

BoGoWo, re "my signature ["All is Polarity: "something" is defined by "nothing"."] actually refers to my philosophy of the actuallization of opposites, - pistols at dawn, slap, slap!":


The general issue is rather interesting, difficult and probably subtly important. Here is the fruit of my labour, and excuse me for having rambled a little:

My formal thesis regarding the nature of things expresses that "perception effects through, or indeed as, the tension (relationship) 'of forces'". However, such 'perception' would not recognise 'itself'. (This is a reason why in my first principle the first word comes in single quotes: 'Perception').

The system develops: "such an interactivity would effect 'features / phenomena' which somewhat recur to a greater degree than others [should perhaps be "would generate somewhat recurrence"], indeed sufficiently to effect a sense of I, and implicitly Other". The idea here is, that the recurrence, or degree of durability, of, to a degree, a (fluctuating) tension would, through that indefiniteness, have a sense of self, a sense of being, perception; a sense of the form I - Other. I suppose that through somewhat recurrence, the force- -tension- -perception increases in viability force and clout, and there-in in awareness - in the pool of comparative chaos - and also in development potential.

Also, perhaps there is a feed-back loop (to the aether, or holistic system) of the generated viable higher-order form (that moment of extra strong energy- -electrical charge) thereby making them more predisposed - more programmed/formed - to somewhat (re)generation of that form.

In any case, according to such system, apparently value would effect through and as a (fluctuating) tension.

'It' is- -am the effect which exists, not the forces as prior to their interaction; action causes change, so 'the forces' change, also if the forces remained the same they would be what exists, not the new effect.

So, re "All is Polarity: "something" is defined by "nothing".", at least at the Quantum Mechanics level, and presumably throughout nature, it is not a matter of one thing being dependent on, or determined by, another. 'It' is- -am more effect through relationship 'of forces'.

For example: the value "being" or "perception" effects through the (momentary) tension of "form and Other- -chaos".

So, in contrast to you philosophy featuring "All is Polarity: "something" is defined by "nothing"." [;] actuallization of opposites", Effectuationism expresses such momentary tension, which it features, as a kind of circularity: "effect through the forces and forces through the effect".

I guess it falls short of "murdering your signature". I had an idea that I needed to address the issue at more length than heretofore, so thanks for triggering the exercise.


http://www.effectuationism.com/

You know what is subtle? The way they slip that 'b' into the word...(with apologies to Stephen Wright).

BGW


Please excuse the aside but everytime I see your signature(All is Polarity:
"something" is defined by "nothing". ) I think of the cynicism, and nothingness of nihilism.

I know you intend it as something (although I know not what) else but as you may have noticed I am obsessed with dangerous implications of nihilism

I don't consider nihilism either very widely popular, nor at all dangerous. It's devotees are largely young people, and more specifically, young men. I think their frustration with the lack of attention paid them by the world, combined with the adolescent fascination with death and suicide, makes nihilism attractive to them. Their very act of embracing such a nonsensical view of society, however, margalizes them to the extent that nihilism poses no real threat to society.

Setanta

I associate nihilism more with fanatical skepticism and cynicism which seem to be more and more prevalent in our society every day. But I'm certain you are correct----many thanks for clearing that up for me---now I can sleep tight.

Dear "perception" as you stated earlier,
I read about the tao. The philosophy of chuang tzu and lao tzu always makes me feel at ease. As for the iconoclasm and complexity of Nietzsche, according to twilight of the idols nietzsche says that Nihilism is considered to be a decadent belief system filled with error in logical thought. He really hates nihilists! And no I don't consider him to be one! The tao teh ching however gives me a sense of peace, but nor do I follow it's belief principles. If anything the way I percieve life and the world is more so through Nietzsche's view. I admire his ability to use logic in it's appropriate way and not abuse it with logical error as portrayed in nihilism, christianity, and the philosophy of Kant!