Friam

Re-ignition?

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Russell Gonnering

Re-ignition?

Not to stir the philosophical pot too much, but I spent a delightful day with David Snowden this past week. He started his discussion with a quote from Seneca:

“The greatest loss of time is delay & expectation, which depend upon the future. We let go the present, which we have in our power, and look forward to that which depends upon chance, and so relinquish a certainty for an uncertainty.”

Could Seneca have been the original Complexity Theory proponent?

Russ #3

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Re-ignition?

Our sense perceptions, when thus treated as the paralogisms of natural reason, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like metaphysics, they exclude the possibility of problematic principles, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle.

--

Our understanding (and let us suppose that this is true) proves the validity of our judgements.

--

Experiences, consequently, become modalized also in correlation with noetic acts.

--

Experiences, perchance, are only modalities of cogitationes.

--

As is proven in the ontological manuals, Aristotle tells us that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is what first gives rise to, in natural theology, our sense perceptions.

The above courtesy of

The Philosophy Generator
by Justin Poirier

http://www.tandj.net/~jpoirier/little_hacks/kant/index.html

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Russell Gonnering <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to stir the philosophical pot too much, but I spent a delightful day with David Snowden this past week. He started his discussion with a quote from Seneca:

“The greatest loss of time is delay & expectation, which depend upon the future. We let go the present, which we have in our power, and look forward to that which depends upon chance, and so relinquish a certainty for an uncertainty.”

Could Seneca have been the original Complexity Theory proponent?

Russ #3

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Re-ignition?

Since gibberish generators are inherently discipline free, the rule should be to only mock one's own technobabble.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Re-ignition?

Quite good! I'll add that one to the list.

--Doug

Certainly, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions can be treated like our understanding, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Since gibberish generators are inherently discipline free, the rule should be to only mock one's own technobabble.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: Re-ignition?

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

a-HA!

JUST as I thought. Or sensed. Or experienced.

Tory

On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Our sense perceptions, when thus treated as the paralogisms of natural reason, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like metaphysics, they exclude the possibility of problematic principles, as is shown in the writings of Aristotle.

--

Our understanding (and let us suppose that this is true) proves the validity of our judgements.

--

Experiences, consequently, become modalized also in correlation with noetic acts.

--

Experiences, perchance, are only modalities of cogitationes.

--

As is proven in the ontological manuals, Aristotle tells us that the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions is what first gives rise to, in natural theology, our sense perceptions.

The above courtesy of

The Philosophy Generator
by Justin Poirier

http://www.tandj.net/~jpoirier/little_hacks/kant/index.html

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Russell Gonnering <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to stir the philosophical pot too much, but I spent a delightful day with David Snowden this past week. He started his discussion with a quote from Seneca:

“The greatest loss of time is delay & expectation, which depend upon the future. We let go the present, which we have in our power, and look forward to that which depends upon chance, and so relinquish a certainty for an uncertainty.”

Could Seneca have been the original Complexity Theory proponent?

Russ #3

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: Re-ignition?... and free will

In reply to this post by Russell Gonnering

Russ #3,
I will attempt a serious response to your post, with a non-randomly generated quote. I have recently been pondering the following quote by Pierce (founder of the Pragmatism movement), which seems relevant:

"The question of free-will and fate in its simplest form, stripped of verbiage, is something like this: I have done something of which I am ashamed: could I, by an effort of the will, have resisted the temptation, and done otherwise? The philosophical reply is, that this is not a question of fact, but only of the arrangement of facts. Arranging them so as to exhibit what is particularly pertinent to my question --- namely, that I ought to blame myself for having done wrong --- it is perfectly true to say that, if I had willed to do otherwise than I did, I should have done otherwise. On the other hand, arranging the facts so as to exhibit another important consideration, it is equally true that, when a temptation has once been allowed to work, it will, if it has a certain force, produce its effect, let me struggle how I may... Many questions are involved in the free-will discussion, and I am far from desiring to say that both sides are equally right... But what I do say is, that the above single question was the origin of the whole doubt; that, had it not been for this question, the controversy would never have arisen; and that this question is perfectly solved in the manner which I have indicated."

I think this quote seems relevant to me because it somehow suggests that both Seneca's "certainty" and his "uncertainty" are somehow false.

Eric

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 12:39 PM, Russell Gonnering <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to stir the philosophical pot too much, but I spent a delightful day with David Snowden this past week. He started his discussion with a quote from Seneca:

“The greatest loss of time is delay & expectation, which depend upon the future. We let go the present, which we have in our power, and look forward to that which depends upon chance, and so relinquish a certainty for an uncertainty.”

Could Seneca have been the original Complexity Theory proponent?

Russ #3
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Russell Gonnering

Re: Re-ignition?... and free will

Eric-

Interesting quote. Free will is obviously a discussion that is endless. It separates the CAS of humanity from that of ants, bees and termites. Are we closer to the "edge of chaos" and creativity because of free will. I think so. Is there a possible theological implication of that. Again, I think so.

Seneca seemed to appreciate the difference between the relative order of the present and the increasing unorder of the future. I don't mean to "channel" Seneca, but his thoughts seem startlingly contemporary. While "Philosophy" has taken a beating on this discussion board, if we shift the semiotic from "Philosophy" to "Ontology" perhaps it sheds its baggage a bit. After all, we all engage in some form of "sense making" with our environment.

Thanks for taking the time to share the quote.

Russ#3

On Aug 15, 2009, at 11:54 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Russ #3,
I will attempt a serious response to your post, with a non-randomly generated quote. I have recently been pondering the following quote by Pierce (founder of the Pragmatism movement), which seems relevant:

"The question of free-will and fate in its simplest form, stripped of verbiage, is something like this: I have done something of which I am ashamed: could I, by an effort of the will, have resisted the temptation, and done otherwise? The philosophical reply is, that this is not a question of fact, but only of the arrangement of facts. Arranging them so as to exhibit what is particularly pertinent to my question --- namely, that I ought to blame myself for having done wrong --- it is perfectly true to say that, if I had willed to do otherwise than I did, I should have done otherwise. On the other hand, arranging the facts so as to exhibit another important consideration, it is equally true that, when a temptation has once been allowed to work, it will, if it has a certain force, produce its effect, let me struggle how I may... Many questions are involved in the free-will discussion, and I am far from desiring to say that both sides are equally right... But what I do say is, that the above single question was the origin of the whole doubt; that, had it not been for this question, the controversy would never have arisen; and that this question is perfectly solved in the manner which I have indicated."

I think this quote seems relevant to me because it somehow suggests that both Seneca's "certainty" and his "uncertainty" are somehow false.

Eric

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 12:39 PM, Russell Gonnering <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not to stir the philosophical pot too much, but I spent a delightful day with David Snowden this past week. He started his discussion with a quote from Seneca:

“The greatest loss of time is delay & expectation, which depend upon the future. We let go the present, which we have in our power, and look forward to that which depends upon chance, and so relinquish a certainty for an uncertainty.”

Could Seneca have been the original Complexity Theory proponent?

Russ #3
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org