<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
EricS/DaveW
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1A38A29A-27D0-4D7D-947D-F680EDC77370@santafe.edu">Meanwhile,
the program of living, including all its events of choosing, is
not contained within the formal system. Alongside the formal
system, the program of living as it is realized is yet-another
thing in the world, of a different kind.</blockquote>
<p>This is downright poetic. <br>
</p>
<p>It echoes Schweitzer's "I am life that wills to live, in the
midst of life that wills to live." which I tend to generalize to
"Life is that which wills to live amongst that which wills to
live".</p>
<p>And Schopenhauer's "Life is a language in which certain truths
are conveyed to us; if we could learn them in some other way, we
should not live." Many things you reference related to language
reminds me of Schopenhauer's proto-thoughts from another era in
his "The World as Will and Representation"</p>
<p>I appreciated your acknowledgement of DaveWs willingness ability
to articulate-in/defer-to an analytic language or stylization of
expression while holding true to his inner experience which is of
a different kind. (as I understood it). I attribute "effing the
ineffable" to him, though that may be my projection. I find it
brilliant.<br>
</p>
<p>In this split between the ultra-rational and the mystic I am more
an agnostic than anything, not convinced of either having primacy
but rather finding them both persuasive in their own domains and
useful even to myself as I wander between them or walk a fine line
just one side or the other noticing the other-other as phantasms
dancing just beyond some veil. Perhaps having my corpus callosum
split would help me return to the naive but perhaps more natural
state implied by Julian Jayne's "Bicameral Mind" concept (recently
re-introduced here by Jochen, tyvm). I can't say that the
meta-cognitive dissonance the co-munnication causes me much
distress but I suspect that it is a source of a lot of my
correspondents disconcert with some of my method/madness seeming
conflations? Let the muddle proceed...<br>
</p>
<p>In a sociospiritual domain, what you say about "choice" resonates
with my own experience of probability vs possibility. Life is
that which seeks to exploit probabilities to explore possibilities
more efficiently (amongst other systems following the same
program)?</p>
<p>this is getting deep and layered as it always does when I attempt
to <i>eff the ineffable</i> ... but the central theme of
emergence appears to be the generalization of this? <br>
</p>
<p>Glen, if he has been able to wade this deep in my mumbled
musings, has tried (I believe) to raise something like this when
he has railed against (or merely questioned) the use of the term
"levels" to talk (I think) about emergence? it is all tied in
with the semiotics of affordances as well? Guerin has endured
this question from me before... <br>
</p>
<p>Mumble,</p>
<p> - Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>