• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    KERRAYoO( ) psychedelické memy ( )O๑.. ॐ ..๑O( ) psychedelic memes ( )Oo
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    vyhlašuji výběrové řízení na podtitulek blogu Psychedelic Memes

    návrhy v angličtině prosím do pošty (klidně to může být nějaký kus textu proběhnuvší tady v klubu), když se mi bude něco líbit, použiju to, když si nebudu moct vybrat, uděláme anketu

    fantazii se meze nekladou, ale mělo by to být takřka k podstatě věcí
    ALISTAIR
    ALISTAIR --- ---
    KRISTALKA: Já bych to nepřeháněl. Chce to spíš opatrně pootevřít a doufat, že Pravda je o trochu štíhlejší než Jezinky :)
    KRISTALKA
    KRISTALKA --- ---
    KERRAY: dobry, prave to sem ted potrebovala syset .... otviram dvere dokoran 8]
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    Když zamkneš dveře před všemi omyly, zůstane za nimi i pravda.

    Rabíndranáth Thákur
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    The Simpsons S18E16, aktuálně poslední odvysílaný díl. Pár dobře vystižených archetýpků.
    http://tv-links.co.uk/link.do/2/166/458/13972/23568
    ALISTAIR
    ALISTAIR --- ---
    JUNIPETRUS: Sice si nejsem jistý, jestli toho Gödela chápe správně, ale článek je to opravdu pěkný.

    (Ať se k tomu kdyžtak vyjádří nějaký matematik, ale podle mně Gödel neříká "but if the system is made to include these truths and thus attempts to become complete, then it inevitably (and inherently) contradicts itself at crucial points -- it becomes inconsistent", ale spíš to, že i když se do systému zapojí věta, která byla pro systém donedávna nerozhodnutelná, nerozhodnutelnost se jenom odsune o krok dál a ne že by to systém začalo nějakým způsobem pozměňovat tak, že by se stal najednou inkonzistentním.)
    JUNIPETRUS
    JUNIPETRUS --- ---
    Ken WIlber, hodne zajimavy chlapik

    INCOMPLETE OR UNCERTAIN

    A general theme running throughout the Idealist writers -- and indeed, a theme found in virtually all of the mystically or contemplatively oriented philosopher-sages the world over -- is that finite things, finite holons, are somehow profoundly lacking, or even profoundly contradictory, in and of themselves. "All finite things are contradictory," as Hegel put it. Na­garjuna would maintain the same for all finite phenomena (both thought and things are self-contradictory). From Eckhart to Bradley, from Shank­ara to Ramana, from Abinavagupta to Gaudapada -- the general notion is that, as Hegel put it, "All things in themselves are contradictory."

    These types of statements have often stirred much controversy in philo­sophical circles, and many philosophers are either annoyed or puzzled by what they mean (or even can mean). But the reason these types of state­ments ("All holons are self-contradictory") come from mystically ori­ented philosopher-sages is that they have glimpsed the eternal, tasted in­finity, and thus all finite things by comparison are pale, incomplete, uncertain, shifting, shadowy. And thus to be merely finite is not only a constriction, it is ultimately self-defeating: to be merely finite is to deny Infinity, and this is self-contradictory in the deepest sense because it denies one's deepest reality.

    This is why, I think, Hegel says, "For anything to be finite, is just to suppress itself and put itself aside." And thus, "all that is determinate and
    finite is unstable." And it is this incompleteness, this instability, that drives the agitated movement of the entire finite and manifest universe: "Only insofar," he says, "as something has contradiction in itself does it move, have impulse, or activity."

    I mention all of this because, as I said, virtually every mystically ori­ented philosopher ends up making some sort of these types of state­ments -- none, perhaps, with more exuberance than Francis Bradley: "Re­lation, cause, space, time, thing, and self are self-contradictory." And Nagarjuna's powerful dialectic is an intense and unrelenting bearing-­down on every single category of thought imaginable, all with the same result: they are totally self-contradictory and, if consistently pressed, they totally self-destruct (leaving Emptiness, leaving the formless infinite; the deconstruction of the phenomenal leaves prajna).

    The deconstructionists have picked up certain of these lines of thought (mostly from Hegel, whom Derrida uncharacteristically treats with much respect), but after Bradley and Nagarjuna, the deconstructionists are very thin soup indeed, and, depressingly, they almost always miss the punch line: if you don't want to be a complete self-contradiction, then you must rest in infinity.

    But admittedly, the philosopher-sages' explanations of why all holons are "self-contradictory" are not very clear, and have caused a great deal of confusion. I think the situation can be explained more easily and a bit more clearly.

    The point, as I would put it, is that every holon is a whole/part. There are no wholes and no parts anywhere in the manifest universe; there are only whole/parts. If actual wholes or actual parts really existed some­where, then they could rest; they would simply be what they were; there would be no massive instability, no internal "self-contradiction."

    But every holon is simultaneously a whole/part. It has a dual tension inherent in its very constitution. As a wholeness, it must achieve a degree of coherence and consistency in order to endure at all as the same entity across time (this is its regime, code, agency, relative autonomy, and so on). But as a partness, as a part of some other holon, it must embrace its partialness, embrace its incompleteness, or else it will simply not fit in, will not be a part but will always drift off into its own isolated wholeness. In order to be complete, or to complete itself, it must join with forces larger than itself. As a whole/part, there is thus a constant tension be­tween coherency or consistency, on the one hand, and completeness, on the other.

    And the more of the one, the less of the other -- neither "force" can win without destroying the holon, and so the holon remains in constant instability. The more consistent (self-contained), then the less complete (the less in communion).

    And thus [...] all holons issue an IOU to the Kosmos, where IOU means "Incomplete Or Uncertain," and which specifically means, the more complete or encompassing a holon, the less consistent or certain, and vice versa. To say a holon can be complete or consistent, but not both, is also to say that every holon is therefore incomplete or inconsistent (uncertain), and thus: every holon issues an IOU to the Kosmos.

    Put more simply, since every holon is incomplete or inconsistent, every holon issues a promissory note to the universe, which says, in effect: I can't pay you now, I can't achieve certainty and stability and complete­ness and consistency today, but I will gladly pay you tomorrow. And no holon ever delivers, or can deliver, on that promise.

    This IOU principle has, of course, started to become very obvious (and very famous) in certain branches of knowledge, particularly mathematics, physics, and sociology (to name a few). In mathematics, it shows up as Tarski's Theorem and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, both of which are taken to mean that in any sufficiently developed mathematical system (mathematical holon), the holon can be either complete or consistent, but not both. That is, if the mathematical system is made to be consistent (or self-certain), there remain fundamental truths that cannot be derived from the system itself (it is incomplete); but if the system is made to include these truths and thus attempts to become complete, then it inevitably (and inherently) contradicts itself at crucial points -- it becomes inconsistent.
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    “To be free is nothing, to become free is everything.”

    Hegel
    [ ALISTAIR @ CITATY ... aneb veci, ktere vam pomohly otevrit oci ... ]
    SLEEPY
    SLEEPY --- ---
    R. A. Wilson : : Vytvaranie tunelov reality


    Tak som docital tretiu cast wilsonovych Iluminatov a musim s lutostou prehlasit ze prave tento byvaly redaktor playboy magazine, spolupracovnik timothy learyho, milovnik jamesa joycea, crowleyho magicku, bielobrady dedusko a ta najvacsia diskordianska svina z patice Illuminati Primi (zdravicko, Hagbarde ;) je jeden z mala ludi ktori su absolutne NORMALNY a pri zmysloch v dnesnom sialenom svete. Tuto cast wilsonovej Quantum Psychology mi poslala evad uz docela davno tak ju konecne uverejnujem ako spajaci mostik medzi clankami Jak si to udelas tak to mas a 8 neurologickych obvodov ludskej psyche . Dozviete sa v nom najma krutu pravdu o tom ako su domestikovane primaty druhu Homo Sapiens obmedzene v ich vnimani sveta.:::
    Nase modely vesmiru - nase odhady a dohady - su limitovane prinajmensom nasledovnymi faktormi :



    1. genetika.

    podla vsetkeho sa nasa DNA vyvinula zo standradnej DNA primatov a stále je z 98% identicka s DNA simpanza (a z 85% identicka s DNA juhoamerickeho paviana).

    Takze v podstate gro nasej anatomie je to iste ako anatomia cicavcov, mame takmer rovnaky nervovy systém, v podstate tie iste zmyslove organy, atd. (nase vyvinutejsie mozgove kory nam dovoluju vykonavat urcite „vyssie“ alebo zlozitejsie mentalne funkcie ako ostatnym primatom, ale nase vimanie spada z vacsej casti do normy primatov).



    DNA a zmyslovo - nervovy aparat vyprodukovany DNA tvoria to co etologovia nazyvaju umwelt (svet - pole) vnimane zvieratom.

    Macky a psy vidia a vnimaju iny umwelt alebo reality-tunel ako primaty. Tu plati Heinleinov zakon: “este sa nenasiel sposob ako prekonat macaciu tvrdohlavost”. Reality-tunely maciek, psov a primatov su si ale dost pribuzne a tak medzi tymito druhmi moze existovat priatelstvo a komunikacia.

    Hady ziju v dost odlisnom umwelte. Napriklad vidia tepelne vlny, a zjavne nevidia “objekty”. Svet videny hadom vyzera ako spiritualisticka seanca - polia “zivotnej energie” plavajuce v hmle. To vysvetluje preco had napadne teplovzdusny balon ktory narusi jeho uzemie. Pre hada, teplo v balone a teplo v polovnikovej nohe maju ten isty vyznam - prichod narusitela. Had chrani svoje uzemie utokom v oboch pripadoch.

    Kedze hadi umwelt alebo reality-tunel sa odlisuje od umweltu cicavcov v takej miere, priatelstva medzi ludmi a hadmi sa vyskytuju o dost menej castejsie ako priatelstva medzi ludmi a inymi cicavcami.



    Viera v to, ze ludske vnimanie odhaluje “realitu” alebo “hlboku realitu” vyznieva, v tejto perspektive, tak isto naivne ako viera ze “kilometrovnik ukazuje viac reality ako voltmeter” alebo ze “moje nabozenstvo je lepsie ako tvoje nabozenstvo”. Neurogeneticky sovinizmus nema o nic vacsie vedecke opodstatnenie ako nacionalisticky alebo sexualny sovinizmus.



    Posledny genialny pokus ako oprasit klasicky aristotelianizmus sa objavil v knizke Anthonyho Stevensa “Archetypy” v ktorej argumentuje ze evolucia predsa musela vyprodukovat zmyslove organy ktore ukazuju “pravdu” a “realitu”alebo nieco toho druhu, lebo inak by sme uz davno vymreli. Tento argument prehliada rozne fakty ako:

    Viac zivocisnych druhov uz vymrelo ako prezilo.

    Vacsina vymretych druhov vymrela kvoli svojim vlastnym obmedzeniam pred tym ako vznikli ludia a teda ich zanik nebol sposobeny ludskym posobenim.

    Vela kmenov ludi vymrelo.

    Cele civilizacie ludi sa navzajom znicili, niektore zjavne tym, ze nasledovali blaznive a unahlene zavery svojho nedokonaleho vnimania.



    Zvazujuc evoluciu vzhladom na uvedene fakty, vidime ze vacsina zvierat vnima ako spravny reality-tunel svojho lokalneho domaceho prostredia, ktory dovoli statisticky vacsine clenov toho ktoreho druhu prezit dost dlho na to, aby sa reprodukovali. Ziadne zvierata, vratane domestikovanych primatov (pozn. prekl. = ludi) nemozu samolubo predpokladat, ze svet spoznany / vytvoreny prostrednictvom ich zmyslov a mozgu rovna sa vo vsetkych aspektoch realnemu svetu alebo “jedinemu realnemu svetu”.



    2. imprinty

    vyzera to tak ze zvierata maju kratke obdobia imprintovej zranitelnosti pocas ktorych ich nervove systemy mozu nahle vytvorit reality-tunel unikatny sam o sebe. Tieto imprinty permanentne viazu neurony k reflexnej sustave sposobom, ktory viditelne pretrvava po cely zivot. Zakladny vyskum imprintov, napriklad za ktory Lorenz a Timbergen dostali nobelovu cenu v 1973, demonstroval ze statisticky normalne husatko si imprintuje svoju matku hus, ako odlisnu od akejkolvek inej husi, velmi kratko po porode. Tento imprint vytvara “vazbu” a husatko sa viaze na matku kedykolvek a akokolvek je to mozne.

    Pocas tychto kratkych obdobi imprintovej zranitelnosti moze vpodstate imprintovat cokolvek. Lorenz, npriklad, zaznamenal priklad, kde husatko, za docasnej nepritomnosti matky, imprintovalo ping-pongovu lopticku. Potom ju nahanalo, hralo sa s nou, tulilo sa k nej, a neskor, v dospelom veku, sa dokonca s loptickou pokusalo o sex. Dalsie husatko imprintovalo Dr. Lorenza samotneho, s podobne bizarnym vysledkom.

    V ktoromkolvek hode psicat mozete velmi lahko sledovat ako rychlo sa imprintuju role hlavneho psa a nizsieho alebo najnizsieho psa. (top dog vs. bottom dog). Top dog je viac, narastie vacsi a pokracuje cely zivot ako Top dog, Bottom dog zostava submisivny a “plachy”.

    Rychly prieskum akejkolvek ludskej komunity vyvola potlesk hypoteze Dr. Timothyho Learyho ze vacsina ludi si imprintovala top dog alebo bottom dog role presne tak mechanicky ako psy alebo ine zvierata. (u niektorych primatov, samozrejme, si niektori jedinci imprintuju role niekde medzi top a bottom dog a potom vznika hierarchia.)



    ako a kedy si imprintujeme jazyk s najvacsou pravdepodobnostou determinuje dozivotne programy „bystrosti“ (slovne nadanie) alebo „hluposti“ (slovna neohrabanost). Toto sa odraza v nasej reci a, kedze myslenie pozostava vacsinou zo sub-vokalneho kombinovania slov, v nasej schopnosti uchopit koncept, riesit problemy apod.



    ako a kedy sa imprintuje nasa pubertalna sexualita viditelne determinuje dozivotne programy heterosexuality alebo homosexuality, promiskuity alebo monogamie atd. V obidvoch pripadoch - beznych sexualnych imprintoch ako vyssie menovane alebo vo viac excentrickych imprintoch (celibat, foot fetisizmus, sadomasochizmus atd.) viazane mozgove obvody posobia presne tak mechanicky ako imprint ktory zviazal husatko ku pingpongovej lopticke. (každý kto o tomto pochybuje moze skusit sexualne reagovat na stimul, ktory ho nikdy pred tym nevzrusil alebo totalne ignorovat stimul, ktory ho normalne vzrusuje).



    Takze, nikto nevstupuje do miestnosti len s genetickym obmedzenim neurologie primata ako jedinym obmedzenim toho co vnima. Vzavislosti na imprintoch, clovek moze „vidiet“ z perspektivy mudreho heterosexualneho top-dog-a, perspektivy mudreho homosexualneho bottom-dog-a apod. Kombinacii a moznosti je pomerne vela, ale nie nekonecno.



    Genetika a zakladne (hard wired) imprinty nevytvaraju cely software ktory programuje nase vlastne ja a nase vnimane vesmiru. Zostavaju:



    3. podmienovanie

    na rozdiel od imprintov, ktore sa zvycajne po jedej skusenosti a permanentne “zavrtaju” do neuronov, podmienovacie reflexy vyzaduju viacere opakovania a nezapisu sa permanentne. Napr. behavioristi vedia ako “zvratit” podmienovaci reflex reverznym podmienovanim, ale iba Dr. Timothy Leary tvrdil ze vie ako zvratit alebo odstranit imprintovanie. (zvlastne, ale zakony momentalne ostatnym vedcom zakazuju opakovat a testovat experimenty Dr. Learyho a vyhrazaju sa im vezenim ak ich prichytia opakovat jeho experimenty. Myslienka ze inkvizicia skoncila pred 170 rokmi posobi, rovnako ako “Oddelenia statu a cirkvi” len ako dalsi mytus. )



    4. ucenie

    tak ako podmienovanie, ucenie vyzaduje mnohe opakovania ale zaroven vyzaduje motivaciu. Z tyho dovodov hra v ludskom vnimani a presvedceni omnoho mensiu ulohu ako genetika a imprinty, dokonca este mensiu ako podmienovanie.



    Vyzera to tak, ze vsetky hady vnimaju v podstate ten isty reality-tunel, len s malymi imprintovanymi rozdielmi. Reality-tunely cicavcov uz vykazuju viac podmienenych a naucenych rozdielov. (napr. vacsina pribehov o “mudrych psoch” ktore sa dostanu na stranky casopisov, ukazuje, ze urcity pes si imprintoval model sveta odlisny od modelov znamych vsetkym ostatnym psom).

    Ludia, vdaka svojej komplikovanej mozgovej kore a prednym lalokom, ktore umoznuju viac podmienenych reflexov a ucenia, a zaroven vdaka svojej predlzenej periode detstva (ktora pravdepodobne dovoluje viac imprintov, a viac excentrickych) su zivocisnym druhom s najvycsimi medzidruhovymi rozdielmi.



    Takze, Irsky pes, Afgansky pes, Rusky pes atd. si v podstate dost dobre rozumeju. Psi reality-tunel ma viac podobnosti ako rozdielnosti, ako sme uz povedali. Akokolvek, Ir obaleny katolickym reality-tunelom a top-dog osobnostou bude zrejme mat velky problem s porozumenim Afgancovi s muslimskym reality-tunelom a bottom-dog osobnostou a obaja mozu povazovat za nemozne komunikovat s ruskym homosexualnym komunistickym top-dog-om.

    Tato roznorodost ludi moze fungovat ako najvacsia evolucna vyhoda ludskej rasy, pretoze nam moze dovolit ucit sa od ludi inak imprintovanych a / alebo trenovanych vidiet, pocut, citit a mysliet veci ktore sme predtym nedokazali vidiet, pocut, citit a mysliet.



    Kvoli ludskemu zlozvyku predcasne si utvarat hotove nazory tato roznorodost zial malokedy splna svoju prospesnu evolucnu ulohu.Ovela castejsie, ked stretneme niekoho s inym reality-tunelom, oznackujeme ho okamzite ako “blazna” alebo “zleho” - sialeny alebo diabol, alebo oboje naraz. Toto moze vysvetlovat vacsinu nepriatelstva na tejto planete, a vacsinu vojen.

    …a obrancovia urcitych autoritativnych / dogmatickych skupin (Vatikan, vlada USA, Politbiro, CSICOP) stravia vacsinu svojho casu konstruovanim “dokazov” ze kazdy kto nezdiela ich reality-tunel ma vazne mentalne alebo moralne vady alebo je prekliaty klamar.



    Verim, ze porozumenie a zzitie sa s tymito principmi moze znizit dogmu, netoleranciu, nutkave spravanie sa, nepriatelstvo a pod. A na druhej strane moze zvysit otvorenost, nepretrzite ucenie sa, “rast” a empatiu - vacsina z tychto cielov je zhodna s cielmi vacsiny foriem psychoterapie a niektorych mystickych nabozenstiev.



    R.A.Wilson: Quantum Psychology
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    Kvalita je nejsilnějším nepřítelem zmasovění všeho druhu. Společensky vzato to znamená, vzdát se honby za pozicemi, rozejít se s jakýmkoliv kultem hvězd, svobodně hledět směrem nahoru i dolů, zvláště pokud jde o volbu užšího okruhu přátel, radovat se ze života soukromého stejně jako mít odvahu k životu veřejnému. Po stránce kulturní znamená smysl pro kvalitu, návrat od novin a rozhlasu ke knize, od shonu ke klidu a ztišení, od rozptýlenosti k soustředění, od senzací k zamyšlení, od virtuozity k umění, od snobismu ke skromnosti, od ztráty smyslu pro míru k jeho znovunalezení. Kvantity si vzájemně ubírají prostor, kvality se navzájem doplňují.

    citát z díla teologa Dietricha Bonhoeffera (1906-1945), popraveného nacisty těsně před koncem druhé světové války za účast na spiknutí s cílem zavraždit Adofa Hitlera via http://www.blisty.cz
    ESTEN
    ESTEN --- ---
    docela zabavny cteni...
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    relativně dlouhá a velice výživná ukázka - a kratší, nepříliš reprezentativní výňatek:

    "Some complain that e-mail is impersonal—that your contact with me, during the e-mail phase of our relationship, was mediated by wires and screens and cables. Some would say that’s not as good as conversing face-to-face. And yet our seeing of things is always mediated by corneas, retinas, optic nerves, and some neural machinery that takes the information from the optic nerve and propagates it into our minds. So, is looking at words on a screen so very much inferior? I think not; at least then you are conscious of the distortions. Whereas, when you see someone with your eyes, you forget about the distortions and imagine you are experiencing them purely and immediately."

    "So what’s your explanation of how I recognized you?"

    "I would argue that inside your mind was some pattern of neurological activity that was not there before you exchanged e-mail with me. The Root Representation. It is not me. I’m this big slug of carbon and oxygen and some other stuff on this cot right next to you. The Root Rep, by contrast, is the thing that you’ll carry around in your brain for the rest of your life, barring some kind of major neurological insult, that your mind uses to represent me. When you think about me, in other words, you’re not thinking about me qua this big slug of carbon, you are thinking about the Root Rep. Indeed, some day you might get released from jail and run into someone who would say, ‘You know, I was in the Philippines once, running around in the boondocks, and I ran into this old fart who started talking to me about Root Reps.’ And by exchanging notes (as it were) with this fellow you would be able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Root Rep in your brain and the Root Rep in his brain were generated by the same actual slug of carbon and oxygen and so on: me."

    "And this has something to do, again, with Athena?"

    "If you think of the Greek gods as real supernatural beings who lived on Mount Olympus, no. But if you think of them as being in the same class of entities as the Root Rep, which is to say, patterns of neurological activity that the mind uses to represent things that it sees, or thinks it sees, in the outside world, then yes. Suddenly, Greek gods can be just as interesting and relevant as real people. Why? Because, in the same way as you might one day encounter another person with his own Root Rep so, if you were to have a conversation with an ancient Greek person, and he started talking about Zeus, you might—once you got over your initial feelings of superiority—discover that you had some mental representations inside your own mind that, though you didn’t name them Zeus and didn’t think of them as a big hairy thunderbolt-hurling son of a Titan, nonetheless had been generated as a result of interactions with entities in the outside world that are the same as the ones that cause the Zeus Representation to appear in the Greek’s mind. And here we could talk about the Plato’s Cave thing for a while—the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors—it slices! it dices!"

    z knihy Neal Stephenson - Cryptonomicon
    ALISTAIR
    ALISTAIR --- ---
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

    Já vím, že je to stará pravda, ale tenhle mem je víc než to. Je to silná psychedelie a funguje na několika rovinách. Slova re-member a re-peat jsou v jakémsi protikladném vztahu (protože jedno vylučuje druhé), ale přesto v sobě obě nesou prvek opakování - jednou probíhá v mysli a jednou ve vnějším životě. Navíc pamatování a rozvzpomenutí není nikdy jenom "zpřístupnění dat", ale je v tom trocha té platónské anamnesis - tedy rozvzpomenutí se na Tehdy. Platí pak přísloví také? Nebo naopak?
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    "What if this weren't a hypothetical question?"

    // pry anonym :)
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    "The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."

    Stephen Jay Gould
    KERRAY
    KERRAY --- ---
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    "There's either no free will ... or only free will ... depending on who you're referring to; to the Self, there is only free will - to the egoic body-mind, essentially zero"
    Adyashanti
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam