[FRIAM] When are telic attributions appropriate in physical descriptions?

[steve smith]

> Dude. OK. The Angels becoming Demons isn't a duality, at least in my 
> intent raising it, here.

Not clear which of the myriad usages of /dual/ you are saying it is not. 
But I will try to defer to your declaration that such doesn't map onto 
your intentions in invoking them.   Most oft/recently here  I think 
"duality" gets invoked in the sense of mind-body and that definitely 
doesn't map.   It is precisely a /dual/ in the metaphysical sense?  My 
intention however, was a little more structural, vaguely Cat Theoretic 
(any attempt on my part to explicate that probably would be 
significantly bullshit)...  The tangent I was on had to do with the 
interplay between good intentions and bad and the transition between 
them, how one can maybe drive the other and vice-versa?  Symbiotic 
Mutualism?

> Our want to, desire for, *fascination* is both good and bad and good 
> and bad aren't duals.
complements then, perhaps?

> Regarless, even if you want them to be duals, that's fine. The point 
> I'm making is that this trait of ours, the desire to be 
> fascinated/ecstatic is hallmark/canonical. 
Thus my reference to annealing schedules?   Is this not how CAS and life 
in general and human innovation itself explores the 
possibility/probability space?  It drives us beyond  a "reasonable" 
excursion from the existing problem/solution regime we are "naturally" in?
> Only those of us hopped up on mediTation or drugs that blunt emotions 
> exhibit a reduced desire for things like profundity, awe, ecstasy, etc.
I'm feeling this in the inverse of what I experience?  Maybe my 
experience with such things is enhanced sensitization rather than 
suppressed.
> It reminds me of the book "To Engineer is Human" ... but I'd 
> generalize and say that it's fundamental to biology for organisms to 
> seek ecstatic states ... the oneness of the universe, the dissolution 
> of the self, etc.
yes and amen...
>
> But this desire for beauty, to escape our selves, IS the problem as 
> much as it is the solution. That's what I mean by Angels and Demons.
I think it reflects the tension between individuation and synthesis that 
comes with (not sure of a better word) levels of 
organization/aggregation?    Atoms/molecules on the edge between 
individuation and collection are where chemistry happens?   Teens 
preparing to leave home into the "big world", same/same?   I think it 
transcends multiple "levels" of organization (being a good true-to-self 
ego/id human vs a good spouse/partner/parent vs a good 
neighbor/employee/citizen vs a good participant in an 
ecosystem/biosphere) and this is where the "roil" happens, a dynamic 
rather than a static balance?

> Also "bullshit" is fairly well defined. It's an artificial/false 
> construct constructed without regard to the Truth (where "Truth" might 
> mean any number of shared values, accuracy, usefulness, etc.). This 
> means that bullshit can accidentally be true, but never True.
I like this concise/specific definition, it rings True for the most 
part.  My own experience of (others') bullshit is that it is ambiguous 
to me as to the full spectrum of intention.  Sometimes it is exquisitely 
the case that the BS is pure gaslighting, defined not only to be 
not-true but to avoid True.  Other times it seems to be sheer laziness, 
a total disregard for truthiness which is maybe the BS you are referring 
to?  Or maybe you are invoking the sort of deliberate injection of noise 
that sort of prevents coherent truthiness?
> I don't know how much time y'all spend talking to, say, QAnon 
> believers ... or back in the day those who yapped about Bilderberg, 
> the Illuminati, speaking in tongues, or whatever. 
Not much at all yet too much somehow.
> But, for me, the enthusiasm and ecstasy they exuded was infectious.
I know the feeling of acute jealousy of their ability to give over so 
thoroughly.   I get that among fundamentalist Xtians and Newagers 
(rhymes with sewa..) as well.   I get that here when the (other) 
technophiles get really high on their own supply of some tech-thingy... 
(we all know who we are?).
> Even as several of my homunculi knew it was bullshit-begetting, it was 
> downright fun; not so harmless as the mob behavior of a rave, but 
> still fun. I sought (still do to some extent) it relentlessly. 
I grant everyone their own morbid fascinations, mine are legion.
> It's a miracle of happenstance (or genetics?) I was never engulfed by it.
I like the idea that "our allergies are also our addictions", I've known 
people who really thrive on dancing the edges of dysfunction and that it 
is easier/safer for them to do so by proxy.   I have my own element of 
that, but I respect/acknowledge those yet more drawn to it.
> I still do, at least when it's not merely lazy. In order for me to 
> feel it, there has to be some *deep* bullshit ... you have to be able 
> to get lost in the bullshit. If you hit clay or sand in the first hour 
> or so, then it's just not that beautiful ... It has to be like String 
> Theory deep. Now that's far out, man.
I like this stylization/ideation/characterization of "deep bullshit", 
like the kind you can only find when you switch your vision from raw to 
telescope to Hubble to Webb.

While I am fascinated by GPTs bullshit generation (maybe where this 
discussion started?) but very disappointed by it's "dynamic range"...  I 
hit it first with DALL-E's image generation where it's "hallucinatory" 
visual imagery offered up in response to a BS session I'd had with GPT.  
Pretty quickly it "blew my mind" with some imagery but then I found that 
if i settled in and tried to fully inhabit/absorb/commune-with the 
imagery it got old and rite really quickly... Perhaps that is the 
Achille's heel of these transformers is that they manage to settle in on 
something which has the statistical profile of profundity without 
actually being profound?   The more "interesting" superficially the text 
or image generated, the more "hollow" it is?   A good load of properly 
"deep bullshit" is not hollow?

Did I just talk myself around to the point you have been making all along?

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240813/7f59076a/attachment-0001.html>