Complex Chaos in Words..Simple in Form...Not Even There....(not for all)

[Guest guest]

For well-nigh all of this thing called 'we', each day of our lives is

a reawakening to a unremitting assailing of information. Our senses

rapidly drench our psyches with the signs, symbols, and assorted info-

artifacts of an all-pervasive and percolating, mass-media-fueled

tribal perceptiveness. The meaning of so many 'meaningfuls' seems

unknowable.

 

In the past few years the work of mathematicians and complexity

scientists has been making a resurgence in certain circles. The

term " fuzzy logic " --coined the early sixties--is finding its way into

sophisticated conversation just as chaos, quantum physics and

relativity have in the past. Fuzzy Logic was the term given to a

system of mathematics developed to model the human brain's curious

way of processing and selecting words. " Fuzzy " in this sense means

not " either/or " reality, but a state of being arising from a

transition or evolution from one state into another. It is

a " both/neither " phenomenology. In classical logic, things are

members of an ideal class or category which by definition are not

also members of a different class (except, of course, the class of

all classes…). Fuzzy Logic is referent to a more complex description

of reality wherein things can belong to two different categories

simultaneously.

 

Imagine an automobile undergoing demolition. We may certainly

start out by calling it a " car " , but as the demolition proceeds,

the " car " is transformed into something else. It has become

part " car " and part " not car " . Even though all the parts of the car

are still present, it now clearly possesses a more complex state of

being. Fuzzy Logic is what the brain uses to decide what to call

such a thing (other than " junk " ). And yet, the descriptive

phrase " part car, part not car " is fundamentally imprecise.This loss

in precision--especially in the use of words to describe complex

systems--has led to the formulation of the 'Law of

Incompatibility', which states: As complexity rises, precise

statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision. And

what could be more complex than this system of being-time we

understand or sense as ourselves; whether considered individual

systems of 'realness', or as artifacts or relections of that which is

Sole Being?

 

Deep dilemma....prodigious perplexity.... preganant with unknown

strangeness.

 

We become reminded that we (our minds) are a crucial part of any

observable system. Language, of course, lay at the very heart of the

problem--being as it is an often confusing (and imprecise) means of

generating descriptive/symbolic analogies of reality (paradigms). We

may begin to feel ourselves becoming individual arisings of Stephen

Crane's " Man in Pursuit of the Horizon. "

 

Suddenly, we may realize the fundamental problem: it is complexity

itself that is the cause of our frustrations. Extrapolating this

foregoing work, we see that we can make meaningfully imprecise

statements (about the whole system, for example) and less meaningful

but precise statements concerning a specific interrelationship. We

begin to realize that complex interrelationing, necessitates the

incompatibility principle. For within any complex system, the meaning

of any given relationship between elements arises from its

relationship to the total system (the so-called Stapp Principle).

Complexity is a dynamic and holistic thing. And it seemed to be,

after so much thought, just an exotic example of the old thing-in-

itself concept (Hegel's Ding An Sich). Complexity, being as it is a

totality which enfolds us as we contribute to it, defies our rational

attempts to fully describe it. Complexity can be cruel.

 

But let's bring this high-falootin' intellectualism back down to the

social plane. Although we may suspect that much of the population

does not understand even the rudiments of Complexity--nor does it

care to--people nevertheless perceive, if unconsciously, the

influences of complexification. Individuals within a society and

smaller groups such as this list for example, may lack the

intellectual constructs(no big deal anyway), to describe what is

happening to them, but they can certainly apprehend this uncertain

world--psychologically and emotionally. The expansion of media and

technology, the proliferation of faiths, the transformation of

economic modes, and the intermingling of cultures are all, to some

degree, brought into popular awareness--possibly leaving the

individual mind in an alternately confused and reactive state. And

every day that passes, the word 'chaos' spreads like a virus.

 

Logician/Psychologist G. Spencer Brown tells us, " When the present

existence ceases to make sense, it can still come to sense again

through the realization of its form. " However, our traditional

capacities for pattern recognition do not always avail us when it

comes to Chaos and Complexity.

 

Are they not likewise subject to the Law of Unintentional

Consequences?

 

In his remarkable and elegant work " Finite And Infinite Games " ,

philosopher James Carse writes: " Chaos is Nature refusing to obey our

expectations. " And also, we can add, our fears and demons, highs and

lows, and joys and consternations. We may if we choose....... take

great hope and courage from this.

 

All hail Chaos!

 

 

 

...........bob

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111

wrote:

>

> For well-nigh all of this thing called 'we', each day of our lives is

> a reawakening to a unremitting assailing of information. Our senses

> rapidly drench our psyches with the signs, symbols, and assorted info-

> artifacts of an all-pervasive and percolating, mass-media-fueled

> tribal perceptiveness. The meaning of so many 'meaningfuls' seems

> unknowable.

>

> In the past few years the work of mathematicians and complexity

> scientists has been making a resurgence in certain circles. The

> term " fuzzy logic " --coined the early sixties--is finding its way into

> sophisticated conversation just as chaos, quantum physics and

> relativity have in the past. Fuzzy Logic was the term given to a

> system of mathematics developed to model the human brain's curious

> way of processing and selecting words. " Fuzzy " in this sense means

> not " either/or " reality, but a state of being arising from a

> transition or evolution from one state into another. It is

> a " both/neither " phenomenology. In classical logic, things are

> members of an ideal class or category which by definition are not

> also members of a different class (except, of course, the class of

> all classes…). Fuzzy Logic is referent to a more complex description

> of reality wherein things can belong to two different categories

> simultaneously.

>

> Imagine an automobile undergoing demolition. We may certainly

> start out by calling it a " car " , but as the demolition proceeds,

> the " car " is transformed into something else. It has become

> part " car " and part " not car " . Even though all the parts of the car

> are still present, it now clearly possesses a more complex state of

> being. Fuzzy Logic is what the brain uses to decide what to call

> such a thing (other than " junk " ). And yet, the descriptive

> phrase " part car, part not car " is fundamentally imprecise.This loss

> in precision--especially in the use of words to describe complex

> systems--has led to the formulation of the 'Law of

> Incompatibility', which states: As complexity rises, precise

> statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision. And

> what could be more complex than this system of being-time we

> understand or sense as ourselves; whether considered individual

> systems of 'realness', or as artifacts or relections of that which is

> Sole Being?

>

> Deep dilemma....prodigious perplexity.... preganant with unknown

> strangeness.

>

> We become reminded that we (our minds) are a crucial part of any

> observable system. Language, of course, lay at the very heart of the

> problem--being as it is an often confusing (and imprecise) means of

> generating descriptive/symbolic analogies of reality (paradigms). We

> may begin to feel ourselves becoming individual arisings of Stephen

> Crane's " Man in Pursuit of the Horizon. "

>

> Suddenly, we may realize the fundamental problem: it is complexity

> itself that is the cause of our frustrations. Extrapolating this

> foregoing work, we see that we can make meaningfully imprecise

> statements (about the whole system, for example) and less meaningful

> but precise statements concerning a specific interrelationship. We

> begin to realize that complex interrelationing, necessitates the

> incompatibility principle. For within any complex system, the meaning

> of any given relationship between elements arises from its

> relationship to the total system (the so-called Stapp Principle).

> Complexity is a dynamic and holistic thing. And it seemed to be,

> after so much thought, just an exotic example of the old thing-in-

> itself concept (Hegel's Ding An Sich). Complexity, being as it is a

> totality which enfolds us as we contribute to it, defies our rational

> attempts to fully describe it. Complexity can be cruel.

>

> But let's bring this high-falootin' intellectualism back down to the

> social plane. Although we may suspect that much of the population

> does not understand even the rudiments of Complexity--nor does it

> care to--people nevertheless perceive, if unconsciously, the

> influences of complexification. Individuals within a society and

> smaller groups such as this list for example, may lack the

> intellectual constructs(no big deal anyway), to describe what is

> happening to them, but they can certainly apprehend this uncertain

> world--psychologically and emotionally. The expansion of media and

> technology, the proliferation of faiths, the transformation of

> economic modes, and the intermingling of cultures are all, to some

> degree, brought into popular awareness--possibly leaving the

> individual mind in an alternately confused and reactive state. And

> every day that passes, the word 'chaos' spreads like a virus.

>

> Logician/Psychologist G. Spencer Brown tells us, " When the present

> existence ceases to make sense, it can still come to sense again

> through the realization of its form. " However, our traditional

> capacities for pattern recognition do not always avail us when it

> comes to Chaos and Complexity.

>

> Are they not likewise subject to the Law of Unintentional

> Consequences?

>

> In his remarkable and elegant work " Finite And Infinite Games " ,

> philosopher James Carse writes: " Chaos is Nature refusing to obey our

> expectations. " And also, we can add, our fears and demons, highs and

> lows, and joys and consternations. We may if we choose....... take

> great hope and courage from this.

>

> All hail Chaos!

>

>

>

> ...........bob

>

 

 

sitting here

a frothy soup of being

lapping in this tidepool of now

 

nothing to know

nothing to understand

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

> wrote:

> >

> > For well-nigh all of this thing called 'we', each day of our

lives is

> > a reawakening to a unremitting assailing of information. Our

senses

> > rapidly drench our psyches with the signs, symbols, and assorted

info-

> > artifacts of an all-pervasive and percolating, mass-media-fueled

> > tribal perceptiveness. The meaning of so many 'meaningfuls'

seems

> > unknowable.

> >

> > In the past few years the work of mathematicians and complexity

> > scientists has been making a resurgence in certain circles. The

> > term " fuzzy logic " --coined the early sixties--is finding its way

into

> > sophisticated conversation just as chaos, quantum physics and

> > relativity have in the past. Fuzzy Logic was the term given to a

> > system of mathematics developed to model the human brain's

curious

> > way of processing and selecting words. " Fuzzy " in this sense

means

> > not " either/or " reality, but a state of being arising from a

> > transition or evolution from one state into another. It is

> > a " both/neither " phenomenology. In classical logic, things are

> > members of an ideal class or category which by definition are not

> > also members of a different class (except, of course, the class

of

> > all classes…). Fuzzy Logic is referent to a more complex

description

> > of reality wherein things can belong to two different categories

> > simultaneously.

> >

> > Imagine an automobile undergoing demolition. We may

certainly

> > start out by calling it a " car " , but as the demolition proceeds,

> > the " car " is transformed into something else. It has become

> > part " car " and part " not car " . Even though all the parts of the

car

> > are still present, it now clearly possesses a more complex state

of

> > being. Fuzzy Logic is what the brain uses to decide what to call

> > such a thing (other than " junk " ). And yet, the descriptive

> > phrase " part car, part not car " is fundamentally imprecise.This

loss

> > in precision--especially in the use of words to describe complex

> > systems--has led to the formulation of the 'Law of

> > Incompatibility', which states: As complexity rises, precise

> > statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

And

> > what could be more complex than this system of being-time we

> > understand or sense as ourselves; whether considered individual

> > systems of 'realness', or as artifacts or relections of that

which is

> > Sole Being?

> >

> > Deep dilemma....prodigious perplexity.... preganant with unknown

> > strangeness.

> >

> > We become reminded that we (our minds) are a crucial part of any

> > observable system. Language, of course, lay at the very heart of

the

> > problem--being as it is an often confusing (and imprecise) means

of

> > generating descriptive/symbolic analogies of reality (paradigms).

We

> > may begin to feel ourselves becoming individual arisings of

Stephen

> > Crane's " Man in Pursuit of the Horizon. "

> >

> > Suddenly, we may realize the fundamental problem: it is

complexity

> > itself that is the cause of our frustrations. Extrapolating this

> > foregoing work, we see that we can make meaningfully imprecise

> > statements (about the whole system, for example) and less

meaningful

> > but precise statements concerning a specific interrelationship.

We

> > begin to realize that complex interrelationing, necessitates the

> > incompatibility principle. For within any complex system, the

meaning

> > of any given relationship between elements arises from its

> > relationship to the total system (the so-called Stapp Principle).

> > Complexity is a dynamic and holistic thing. And it seemed to be,

> > after so much thought, just an exotic example of the old thing-in-

> > itself concept (Hegel's Ding An Sich). Complexity, being as it is

a

> > totality which enfolds us as we contribute to it, defies our

rational

> > attempts to fully describe it. Complexity can be cruel.

> >

> > But let's bring this high-falootin' intellectualism back down to

the

> > social plane. Although we may suspect that much of the population

> > does not understand even the rudiments of Complexity--nor does it

> > care to--people nevertheless perceive, if unconsciously, the

> > influences of complexification. Individuals within a society and

> > smaller groups such as this list for example, may lack the

> > intellectual constructs(no big deal anyway), to describe what is

> > happening to them, but they can certainly apprehend this

uncertain

> > world--psychologically and emotionally. The expansion of media

and

> > technology, the proliferation of faiths, the transformation of

> > economic modes, and the intermingling of cultures are all, to

some

> > degree, brought into popular awareness--possibly leaving the

> > individual mind in an alternately confused and reactive state.

And

> > every day that passes, the word 'chaos' spreads like a virus.

> >

> > Logician/Psychologist G. Spencer Brown tells us, " When the

present

> > existence ceases to make sense, it can still come to sense again

> > through the realization of its form. " However, our traditional

> > capacities for pattern recognition do not always avail us when it

> > comes to Chaos and Complexity.

> >

> > Are they not likewise subject to the Law of Unintentional

> > Consequences?

> >

> > In his remarkable and elegant work " Finite And Infinite Games " ,

> > philosopher James Carse writes: " Chaos is Nature refusing to obey

our

> > expectations. " And also, we can add, our fears and demons, highs

and

> > lows, and joys and consternations. We may if we choose.......

take

> > great hope and courage from this.

> >

> > All hail Chaos!

> >

> >

> >

> > ...........bob

> >

>

>

> sitting here

> a frothy soup of being

> lapping in this tidepool of now

>

> nothing to know

> nothing to understand

 

 

 

little by little I discover myself in the pain of finding nothing

 

Fernado Pessoa