Sunday, October 9, 2011

Revolutionem, Revolutus, Revolvere… Revolution?

Revolution?

The system is us, the institutions are us, the agents are us, the markets are us, the responsibility is ours. The revolution must be in us.

When the altruistic practices become an effective permanence, we can speak of a revolution.

When the dignity ceases to be just a postulate to become a generalized effective practice, we can speak of a revolution.

When the tolerance and cooperation replace the Darwinian competition, we can speak of a revolution…

…until then, any social revolution will only be the replacement of a predatory power by other predatory powers.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

..“But what next?”....

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/10/05/occupation-nation-ritual-arrests-and-candle-light-vigils-what-next/

“But what next?”

For now, and with some inspiration in Baudrillard’s matrix, what we have is a desperate capitalism sustained by a Moebian Double Bind operationalized in manipulation by anticipation.

The discourses and contra-discourses are programmed and simulated towards effects of banalization and respective integration, idiotically sustained in perspectives of system control by inertia and closing. Inertia because the people cease to react, closing by control by way of normative formatting of discourses and the respective contra-discourses.

The final goal is the zombification by iterative banalization. This is systemically dangerous for all, also for those that, in their pathological delirium of power, think themselves Laplacian daimones.

Friday, September 30, 2011

...on transcendence...

All the systems are conditioned by rules/laws of structure that are determined, in fundamental terms, by their respective formative initial conditions.

But what is a rule/law? What is the nature of a rule/law? What can be the ontological status of a rule/law? How can the rules/laws of structure, determined by initial conditions that the system did not choose, condition all its life? All its choices? Its actions? Its paths? Because even if the system can rewrite its initial conditions, that rewriting will, still, be conditioned by its vital laws of structure responsible for the system’s integrity.

In this context, what pertinence can there have the projection of scenarios, configured by pre-figurated degrees of freedom? Within what parameters would it be possible to consider planes of systemic transcendence?

Transcendence involves the concept of limit, to transcend is the act by which someone, or some thing surpasses or “escapes” the limits imposed by the immanence.

An act of transcendence is an arbitrary act of projective opening that gifts the system with the ability to launch itself, or jump, towards outside of itself, as position of itself in itself, in that which, with pertinence, can be designated by systemic jump, that is, the jump that installs in the systemic identity the ontological rotative dyad, conceptually synthesizable as the other of itself in itself.

Transcendence is the dynamics, in the immanence, for the enacting of a systemic surpassing, still sustained by the immanence: this is about growth, development, evolution...

Thursday, September 29, 2011

...reciprocity...

Any system enacts an anomaly when it refuses the vital dynamics of reciprocity: the enacted anomaly is, in the system, the motifeme – the invariant entity without adaptive clinamen – of the tautological narrateme without humus..., without world, without the others in face of oneself and with oneself.

When the human agents refuse a vital dynamics of reciprocity, they are enacting an anomaly of themselves: excluding themselves from that which connects them with the others and with themselves: the “mutuum”. When the agents put themselves as monstrative reifications of dogmatic divine postulates, they are enacting an anomaly of themselves.

Friday, September 23, 2011

On Information - Definition

With the growth and development of the scientific, technical and technological work, there have been localized and signalized sequences of coexistent conceptual systems, organized, articulated, distributed and circulated around the problems that are specific of each epoch and that configurate webs of theoretical/empirical statements, constituents of the domains of discourse and of memory, in which it is related what was learnt, what was seen, what is deduced or induced, what is admitted as probable, true or valid and what is postulated.

The techniques and technologies with which we, currently, work and (co)exist are a consequence of the human labor applied to science and technique.

Presently, and borrowing some words of Pierre Lévy (2000), we participate in the silent explosion of the hypercortex infinitely reticulated of the World Wide Web, dynamically configured as a new workspace, interpreted from two fundamental notions: the notion of knowledge and the notion of information, with root in the Latin informatio, from the verb informo with the meaning of: action of forming, representing, sketching, planning... .

This term arose, in the 13th Century, designating the set of acts susceptible to establish the proof of an infraction and of revealing its authors, in the course of the preliminary instruction of a process. Later on, information came to be defined as designator of events or of facts that are given to know to someone, individual or collective.

From the 20th Century, information acquired new semantic contents, through its usage, by some disciplinary areas. Thus, in Biology, it designates the set of elements that a living being receives in permanence, through its own organism or through its ecosystem, making part of the exchanges of energy and matter that allow for the maintenance of its structure and that impede its disaggregation.

Later on, Systems Theory approached and developed, in terms of epistemological framework, the notion of information as an equivalence to the mathematical measure of probability of an event, to occur, in the set of possible events. The quantity of information is defined, in Information Theory, in terms of an entropy measure.

At the root of Information Theory, there were the concerns, by part of the Bell society, to encounter a means of transmission of messages that would be, simultaneously, more economic and safer, thus aimed at a theoretical construction of a system of communications to a practical application in which a transmitter could transmit, through a certain channel, a message to a receiver.

The adaptive flexibility, linked to the development of the concept of information in its theoretical/practical use, agilized its application to all the disciplinary areas, making indispensible its usage as a fundamental scientific criterion of any statement.

In ontological terms: the information is not fact, is not act, is not thing, is not entity, is not place, has no topos that is proper to it,..., the information is a systemic dynamics towards the fact, towards the act, towards the thing, towards the entity, towards the place, towards the topos... .

Currently, and ever more, by way of the technological developments, linked to the expansion of the Internet, the information flows reticularly through self-referent polissemic planetary webs, crossing over local/global strategic arbitria of power radiculated in hybrid intentionalities of obsolete arbitrariness, perceived by syntheses of cognitive presentiment of metaphysical root of fundament, linked to the vital impulse of survival of search for causes, search for reasons of existence, of life, of search for reasons of legitimacy, reasons of dignity.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Censorship in the US Free(?)Media: NPR

The following link is an article in NPR on the origin of life:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/08/16/139673287/hunting-the-replicators-how-did-life-begin

Below are the comments that were placed in NPR, the last ones, as will be indicated, were censored by NPR.


Perhaps it is a bit reductive to make depend a notion of life upon self-replication. Both the amoeba as well as the rock are two concrete physical existents that make exchanges with the environment in a dynamics of aggregation and disaggregation, in the case of the amoeba, life and death.

Both the rock as well as the amoeba are two self-motivated agents. Regarding a rock, it can be a mix of organic and inorganic. In the amoeba as well as in the rock there take place self-sustained dynamics necessary to the maintenance of the integrity of both structures/systems...

Interesting would be to take a conjectural look at the molecular dynamics, to perceive a kind of "social and associative instinct" of the atomic elements that enacted the molecules. There is a kind of sociability that makes the molecules fit to make associations, linkages and exchanges towards a greater thermodynamic stability.

In Philosophy, being, existence and life are still open issues. Science is very much concentrated on the issue of life, but before life there is the issue of the existence. Because if there are doubts in the classification of what is or is not life, what is a fact, and, because of that, is the case, is that all things there in the world, in the cosmos, if one prefers, are all existent things/entities/agents, be these things/entities/agents: rocks, amoebas, viruses, humans, ants, or even aliens...,

Mark, I don't get your point. The origin of reproduction and/or replication was not the issue that I raised.

My question is about the definition of life and the relation between life and existence.

All the living systems are existents, but not all the existents/systems are, in scientific terms, considered as living systems, what I state is that: to base, in fundamental terms, a definition of life upon reproduction or replication dynamics is quite reductive, which does not mean that I do not wish to know how reproduction and/or replication were enacted by the systems that are not classified as life.

All the chemical elements that constitute the brain of each of us existed in the cosmos long before us..., long before any system classified as living. Whatever is called life was enacted by such chemical elements.

Well, it is my conviction that to state that reproduction is an "attribute" is an error. Reproduction is dispositional, this is a fact, such as consciousness of the human animals is dispositional.

But this dispositional, in regards to reproduction, as capability to life generate more life was enacted by what?

Of course, one can always recur to the easiest solution, the solution that one has always in the pocket, ok it was God. But that is the solution of those who wish to resolve the issue more quickly.

Avoiding God's argument, probably, we have to state something like: only life could generate life, and the capability of replication could only be generated by life itself, and the question remains: what is life?

To classify is easy, to explain is harder.

For instance to explain the difference between life and existence is certainly hard.

Life is autopoietic, self-referent, one might well keep that in mind.

And existence? What is that?

I like to think of the noumenon as that which hides itself in what shows itself, it is that which we do not see in what we see. Which does not mean that we do not have the noumenic experience...

Mark, that perspective points towards a dependence of life upon reproduction/replication, that is, a reproduction/replication system comes before life. Then, what is life? And what is that which enacted a reproduction/replication system? If life comes after a reproduction/replication system then..., this reasoning enters into a looping worst than the egg and the chicken.

If there is only life because there is replication, then life is an effect of a replicating system that is not being classified as life, or is it? And you are pointing towards an eternity: that there has always been life? If one considers that life had a beginning somewhere in this cosmos you can make a reduction until God, but is God a living entity? Is God an existing entity? Does God exist? Is God a replicating system (God forbid, this Universe was enough)?

Ok, Seth, I opened the way for the statement that the thinking is to one side and the experience is to the other. But these things are complicated and complex. Gnosis has the primitive sense of action of knowing, action of learning through a certain (co)naturality of knowing by direct and spontaneous contact through perception (aisthesis/aistheton).

Of course, I am pointing towards a certain systemic synchronization between the perception and the perceived thing.

I defend that replication is dispositional, and I think that there is not a robust definition of life that allows us, human animals, to perceive the fundamental causality that is at the origin of life.

If I ask you, Mark, what the nature of life is, by nature understand that which some thing is necessarily, what some thing must be without which it would lose its integrity, how would you answer? Why does life enact replicating agents, for instance? Yes, because agents are life, but they are not the life, they are not life itself.

If life is a proprium of the living things, what is the proprium of life itself?

What about the humus? Does live need its individuated replicators?

We are talking about life here, but we should actually talk about LifeAndDeath, because what we have, in general terms is life and death everywhere, and not simply life. We cannot solve the problem of definition of life, without incorporating in that definition the definition of death as a fundamental necessity of life itself, in constitutive terms.


The following was censored by NPR.org:


Well, Mark, we are all here looking for explanations, we are all here looking for explanatory causes, we are all here looking for the origin of the things. Probably, if we were not motivated by a certain “idea” of control, we would obtain better answers, because we would ask better questions.

Each of us can be considered a manifestation or an expression, or even a position (in Spinozan terms) of life, we are life, but we are not the life, nor even parts of life. Thus, reproduction is dispositional in each of us, living manifestations, or manifestations of life, but reproduction is not a part of us, such as a thought or a feeling is not a part of us, but we are the ones thinking and feeling, reproduction is just a to be able to, in each of the beings that are us.

Life and death do not mean that life is a part of death or that death is a part of life, it just means that: that which we call living is sustained by a LifeAndDeath dynamics.

If we radicalize and go back to a fundamental approach, probably that which can be localized as an asymmetry is a problem of human cognition, which processes things in accordance with a before and after, or in accordance with dualities either-or, in the sense that LifeAndDeath constitute an ontological unit in terms of permanence in the existence of all the things.

Of course a definition of life, in the sense of The Life, has to cognitively synthesize a constitutive antinomy at the level of the causes and a paradox at the level of the effects and incorporate that synthesis in the understanding of the nature of that which we call life.

We have to start to understand that there are noumenic reasons that are simultaneously and spontaneously the affirmation and the negation of itself, without rupture, without fracture, without loss of permanence of itself as position of itself. Of course, this points towards an eternity.

If life can be eternal? It can!

If the existence is before life? Yes!

If the existence depends upon life? No, not at all. This is my conviction.

But upon what does existence, itself, depend? Upon the being, itself, because existence is!

And upon what does the being, itself, depend? Probably upon the nothing, that is still being..., and here we are in a cognitive strange looplooping...

Thursday, June 9, 2011

The game of the life is not about winning or losing...

The general notion of game, as conceptual synthesis, depends upon the general notion of life, considered as autopoietic referent and reference to the emergence of adaptive schemata.

The game, in its fundamental sense, as game of the life that does not intend any end or finality other than the permanence of the action of the game in the game, exhibits a nature and effectiveness of schemata that legitimates the definition of game as enactive dynamics permanent and undetermined that makes the life persist and insist in the life.

The living is living while it is playing. The eternity of life persists through the eternity of the game. The game of the life is not about winning or losing, only about permanence in the living of the existence of all the things.