Ume, dear Father/brother Surrogate.
So good to see u on this Bloody Sunday.
With your clarity & sanity.
This is very true stuff:
“Examine preference: /preference is put into play when words do not write themselves”
Words are not ours, no no. They are there with or without us.
Some of us have been blessed with the Word .
It is a Living God, they say. I say, well, gimme gimme my living god in my head all the damn time, please, if that be my inheritance.

Ha.
Spiritual pride will sink you to the bottom of hell.

`````````````````````````

“a physical property like motion
a kinetics then
to fit the day
to fit the life “

these things like gravity and motion and light are not only physical.


“to fit the greater life which is contemporary with nothing else &
a kinetics which is in harmony with nothing else:
a language (physic) in harmony with a greater life (physic) &
not out of harmony with effort. “


Ok, I am “in”! This continuity of effort stuff is what makes me tired
And wanna sleep and have dreams.

emmerling, 'continuity of effort':
there are bodies of effort with so little continuity
that they crumble to pieces on the slightest touch;

harmony! i always wonder what it was.

note:

Fe is a major sink for oxygen;

all our iron junk is writing O 2 out of the picture

Oh ume, so in need of a. n. whithead.
Harmony? He defined it.
It is this:
“ combination of width & narrowness” process & reality, p.111.
“intensity is the reward of narrowness” 112.
“narrowness is massive simplicity” 112. Not the bad kinda simplicity. Simple like you, haw.

Ah you will like this one:
“THE STRUGGLE AGAINST EVIL IS
A PROCESS of building up a mode of Utilization
By the provision of intermediate elements
Introducing a complex
Structure of Harmony”

As
Evil is: “the characters of things are mutually obstructive”

Oh ume, so in need of a. n. whithead.
Harmony? He defined it.
It is this:
“ combination of width & narrowness” process & reality, p.111.
“intensity is the reward of narrowness” 112.
“narrowness is massive simplicity” 112. Not the bad kinda simplicity. Simple like you, haw.

Ah you will like this one:
“THE STRUGGLE AGAINST EVIL IS
A PROCESS of building up a mode of Utilization
By the provision of intermediate elements
Introducing a complex
Structure of Harmony”

As
Evil is: “the characters of things are mutually obstructive”

Harmony is:

Well it is all about this “preestablished harmony” (do not laugh!)
What makes it up is “intrinsic inconsistencies”, sorry.

The whole pt of moral responsibility is: (p.255)
“the entity, in process, when it is not fully definite, determines its own definiteness”.


Well what if you are “aesthetic,” he asks.
In this case, (same page..255) he says, “aesthetic adaptation for an end (goal)
Is the formative condition of this preestablished harmony”

Anyway.
What is the f-ing point, right?
Same page, every page, he tells ya:
“the ultimate? Of feelings?
It is a creation of you, the creature, processing..
It is: “you gotta have this 1. Subjective unity & 2. Subjective harmony”
Uh
Heh.

I like it.
It is the kinda stuff you read once and say, ho ho!
Then a second , third, …eightieth time and say, uh?

emmerling:

so Art's Pascal quote didn’t get you running?

“For after all what is man/women in nature?
A nothing in relation to infinity. All in relation
To nothing,
A central point between nothing and all and
infinitely far from understanding either . . .”

seems your
Lord Alfred North Whitehead”s:

“THE STRUGGLE AGAINST EVIL IS
A PROCESS of building up a mode of Utilization
By the provision of intermediate elements
Introducing a complex
Structure of Harmony”

doesn’t fit;

you have come around to talking about evil
(influenced by what posts? comments?)

If i think harmony, then i am not necessarily thinking evil,

Rust is not evil.

The failure in efforts has nothing to do with width,
it is their lack of continuity,
their lack of harmony.

Whitehead’s building up a mode of Utilization
is impenetrable; he is certainly not talking about
disappearance thru addition

but you’ve had so much in addition to say today;
maybe my efforts are needing of a new mode

note:
Russell gave us a koan
“the other side of the page is failure”

we still think in terms of pages, right?

and, emmerling, thank you for your '2:05' comment;

you got off evil

here anyway

I am going to be looking Sir Whitehead this week

right in the kisser.

Kisses,
-ume

Pascal had a wager I prefer not to share in. I prefer blind faith.
Blind faith has often done the trick for me, gotta say.
Evil is boring, is the first thing wrong with it.
Too much yap yap yap. Revenge. Looking over yer back and whatnot.
So much more to life than engaging evil.

“For after all what is man/women in nature?
A nothing in relation to infinity. All in relation

Is true and yet not true.
Your ego, dummy, is the nothing.
Your Self is It.


:” lack of continuity,
lack of harmony.”

…………….

You know yer Zen. Yer boo-dah-ism.
You cannot help but being continuous.
So …ha..you don’t feel continuous?
That is a screw up in yer harmony,
An illusion only.

Obviously you are continuous, old bean. You are still writing!




KISSING MEN>? AY WHAT A THING!
I
kinda eschew it usually.

shave,, though, if i gotta kiss yer cheek. okay?

wrong boyo.
when u say
"
Whitehead’s building up a mode of Utilization
is impenetrable; he is certainly not talking about
disappearance thru addition "

oh yes he is.

dissapearance into what he calls "objective immortality"

a thing, a thought, a feeling, IS.
then it is gone.

what happens to it?

it is taken up.
into some Soup. Some Place. A god, maybe.

what it is, is what dawkins, that asshole, calls a meme.

it lives on, but literally.


and God, you ask?

He has the unique quality of
always being in the Present. Everything that happens
is happening right now to him for all eternity.

eternity is what?
it is not here, not now exclusively.
has the ability to be here here now.
eternity.
ah what is so hard about this concept?

emmerling (who else if not emmerling?) says:

"has the ability to be here here now.
eternity.
ah what is so hard about this concept?"

(and i didn't split this off the line coming before it)

How bout we clean it up, clear it up a little by this:

[If an entity] has the ability to be here here now. [, by choice,
are they then experiencing] Eternity [?].

then, no, not so hard a concept .
[[[[ah what is so hard about this concept?]]]]

It is really a matter of 'here'
and maybe a physic
would be the metaphorical monkey wrench
for the moving man-god

move off Art/Pascal's center
and you are licked (a kind of kissing?)

Ume the Utterly Cool Old Cat,
An entity has little choice but to be where it is, when it is.
That is its “here/now.”
Or so it seems. Of course it is all about choice. Not conscious choice, though.
~
Ah but wait, what does this mean? This being stuck, here & now. ..?
The great and good Whitehead said, there is no such thing as
‘simple location’..
Simple location is: being only here, only now.
What nonsense!
It is a Fallacy! ‘Fallacy’ is a big curse for Philosophers.

(I am a bit distracted..the sober girls are up..they are out on the porch, chitchatting.it is very hot, so they eschew clothes.)
~
Eternity is not a religious term. It is a philosophical one. It means: 1)nowhere, nowhen AND 2)possibly anywhere,anywhen. It bursts into timespace because it is accessed by the temporal entity. For example, to use a crude example, a leaf is green. Green is eternal.
Or..i am angry. Anger is eternal.
Universals…that old philosophical problem. Universals vs . Particulars. Lots of words written by dusty old white men about this indeed.

~

Life is continuous, but what is ‘behind’ the continuity? Some form of Permanence.
They say if there is a God, he must in every instant of Creation, recreate the world, keep it going.
This sounds like nonsense to our quantum mechanical ears.
But think of that ,uh, Quantum soup.
What the hell keeps that going?
~
I am bungling this message so I shall leave it to whitehead to conclude :

• “Creativity is the universal of universals characterizing ultimate matter of fact. It is that ultimate principle by which the many, which are the universe disjunctively, become the one actual occasion, which is the universe conjunctively. It lies in the nature of things that the many enter into complex unity.
• The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction.
~
Off the subject, I am enjoying my morning immensely because there is an Ume to write to, and also other less…uh, asymptotic friends on OS….
I surely enjoyed Calculus. It was all about infinity! I didn’t realize it at the time. Still, I got a’s.


ps in new england men DO NOT kiss. this is a strict rule. a blue law.
we barely hug. it's like a pat on the shoulder, a hug, here.

Hep Daddy,
not much of a bungle:

[Eternity] bursts into timespace because it is accessed by the temporal entity.

lucid

then, ANW’s

Creativity is the universal of universals characterizing ultimate matter of fact. It is that ultimate principle by which the many, which are the universe disjunctively, become the one actual occasion, which is the universe conjunctively

not so lucid is his ‘occaison’;
is it without timespace (a physic)?

might his 'occaison' be without
antecedent and consequent?

might his 'occaison' be without
antecedent and consequent?

which leaves out the human mind
as it is a consequent (no matter how indefinite);

his occaison is certainly a single quality;
is of infinite existence (your love of the Calculus);

okay so here is the branching of philosophy
and metaphysics....

"Notice disappearance thru addition." That formula becomes more apparent with the passage of time and youth's fading delusion of immortality.

Jesus godalmighty. Where are all the smart cool ladies today?
All I got is you two. Ume and jmac. Oh, and Herr R.
(what is yer problem with yer head, ume? His post is grand)

not so lucid is his ‘occaison’;
is it without timespace (a physic)?

You have hit on a great point here. An “occasion”, an “event”, what wm james called “a drop of experience”,
Is indeed w/o timespace as it BECOMES. Once it becomes, it bursts into timespace, to be swallowed by the next drop. See?
All events have antecedents. What are they? They are previous events.
But what is an event?
YOU GOTTA UNDERSTAND IT IS A SUBJECTIVE THING, A PREHENSION.
It is the pulling together of everthing before,

And incorporating it into the event’s self creation.

So..what is the ultimate constituent of the universe?
Events.
Subjective experiences.
Consciousness comes later, much later. Consider the electron. What subjectively is it up to? It does something. Nobody does anything without a reason, yah?



"Notice disappearance thru addition." That formula becomes more apparent with the passage of time and youth's fading delusion of immortality.

Immortality is real enough. Just not in the flesh, jmac.

emmerling;

we, the human mind, may and will comment on the ‘occaison’
but we certainly are not part of it;

there’s the rub;
philosophy and metaphysic were invented by outsiders;
as for the rest of us, well, it is all about getting off

note: where are the smart, cool ladies?
waking up slow i guess

Ume,
Do not fall victim to that malicious travesty of a lie serving a
goddamned elitist power play for our very minds. The “Academics” who
take the gold mined by the master thinkers and make of it ornamentation. Jewelry. Status symbols.

Uh, I mean: philosophy and metaphysic were developed by silly dolts much like ourselves.
Outsiders? Are we not the ultimate outsiders? Outside what, though?
Outside the inside of the collective hive mind.
The way in? Through the gracious ladies of course. Some of em dig a smart fella if he is not too arrogant .
....
we may and will comment on this abstract idea of "occasion"
or "event". In our own occasion of commenting.
then the next instant will follow, and
another occasion arise
from the endless drip drip drip of experience.
And our poor occasion, where we contemplated ''occasion"?
Swallowed up!
Swallowed up but not lost.


As a species we would love to drain the Sea, and
keep every drop of it in its own separate chamber.
In its own neuron.
Ridiculous.
Brain=Platform , as our Herr R says.
A platform is simply a raising up from the horizontal
where we express ourselves. A stage!
Someone hired these actors.
A director is making obnoxious suggestions
and a producer is in the background.

Then there is the audience.

I say, do not drain my sea!

beautiful opening for the day, emmerling

note: i am struggling at the moment
(still night here)
with Herr's Singularity ' I AM' and
was about to pose a question to him
when you rang up;

somehow ANW has to weigh in
on human consciousness
wch Herr says alternates
between two modes of self perception;

note: who's arrogant, how?

ANW on human consciousness:

(if you want the simpleton version of anw see
http://www3.sympatico.ca/rlubbock/ANW.html)
Herr’s I AM is most puzzling indeed. It is what Kant called the Transcendental Something or other, I cannot find it, sorry. Transcendental simply means “beyond experience”.

Hegel swooped in and utterly destroyed this nonsense of a kind of Newtonian Point where all the ‘categories ‘ &‘forms’ are passively processed in a machinelike manner.

They understood him through the 19th century in the German, even some American universities!

Then came guys like Russell and Wm. James and others who annihilated Hegelianism.

Whitehead? Uh, he was a special case, an intellectual freakazoid. He said, well, I have inverted Hegel.

~
Anyway ANW said consciousness is not basic. What is basic is FEELING. Or, better, PREHENDING. This means gathering the entire universe into yourself feelingly in an instant, integrating it, and letting it fly off to the next instant, new integration, cuz a new universe.

Consciousness comes after much development of ‘the mental pole’.

Yes, he too was a dualist like our buddy Herr.

A mental and a physical pole to EVERY THING.
Except, there are no ‘things’. There are only occasions of subjectivity. Of prehending.
Physically first, always. Then, in advanced beings, Mentally.
Through certain modes of perception I remember mentioning on my old man blog.

~

The I is the highest ‘society’ in a huge overlapping series of ‘societies’ in the body.
I guess, like, the liver is a society, made up of the occasions of liver cells, made up of the occasions of…etc..of subatomic particles, etc.


So the liver is a society within the body of societies, which has for some oddball reason developed an identification with the highest society. The , uh, well, he says

Consciousness dwells in the empty spaces of the brain! I dunno if he was kidding.

ANW on human consciousness:

(if you want the simpleton version of anw see
http://www3.sympatico.ca/rlubbock/ANW.html)
Herr’s I AM is most puzzling indeed. It is what Kant called the Transcendental Something or other, I cannot find it, sorry. Transcendental simply means “beyond experience”.

Hegel swooped in and utterly destroyed this nonsense of a kind of Newtonian Point where all the ‘categories ‘ &‘forms’ are passively processed in a machinelike manner.

They understood him through the 19th century in the German, even some American universities!

Then came guys like Russell and Wm. James and others who annihilated Hegelianism.

Whitehead? Uh, he was a special case, an intellectual freakazoid. He said, well, I have inverted Hegel.

~
Anyway ANW said consciousness is not basic. What is basic is FEELING. Or, better, PREHENDING. This means gathering the entire universe into yourself feelingly in an instant, integrating it, and letting it fly off to the next instant, new integration, cuz a new universe.

Consciousness comes after much development of ‘the mental pole’.

Yes, he too was a dualist like our buddy Herr.

A mental and a physical pole to EVERY THING.
Except, there are no ‘things’. There are only occasions of subjectivity. Of prehending.
Physically first, always. Then, in advanced beings, Mentally.
Through certain modes of perception I remember mentioning on my old man blog.

~

The I is the highest ‘society’ in a huge overlapping series of ‘societies’ in the body.
I guess, like, the liver is a society, made up of the occasions of liver cells, made up of the occasions of…etc..of subatomic particles, etc.


So the liver is a society within the body of societies, which has for some oddball reason developed an identification with the highest society. The , uh, well, he says

Consciousness dwells in the empty spaces of the brain! I dunno if he was kidding.

according to emmerling, the ‘I AM’ consciousness is not basic;

prehending is.

emmerling’s prehending:

“This means gathering the entire universe into yourself feelingly in an instant, integrating it, and letting it fly off to the next instant”

besides denial of self perception, what else is involved? well:

the only will at work is in the process of
gathering, integrating and waving bye-bye;

why these three things i do not know,
but they are pretty good.