Dubstepforum.com

it has been recommended that:

by not knowing,
not hoping to know
& not acting like we know
what's happening

we might not avoid uncertainty
& our discomfort with it

but we might be more prepared to make compassionate inquiry
into our irrationale fears i.e. neuroses

does that make sense to anyone?

why would openly embracing the random and apparently chaotic nature of life encourage inward reflection?

perfect example of what i said on the previous page...

it seems to me, inwards reflection is caused directly by the existence of neurosis - embracing a concept of the world and of yourself as being in a state of total and irreparable flux, seems to be at the end of the timeline.

its one of many different ways you'll choose to live your life after considered reflection upon yourself - a side note, for those who attempt to ascribe to the philosophy that we are in this apparent state of confusion, neither coming nor going, nor knowing which way would be which if one were to go there anyway - how would it be possible to ever be able to stick to one course if by your philosophies very nature it instinctively has no direction and is falsified by its own principles?

im not even really sure what's being discussed here anymore...

Noam's right.

see below

this thread

did sd5 eat up my blotter..?

sd5 wrote:

noam wrote:why would openly embracing the random and apparently chaotic nature of life encourage inward reflection?

because the mind is not exempt

sorry mate, could you expand that point, its been a while since i was on this train of thought! the mind is not exempt from the chaotic nature of life?

sd5 wrote:

it seems to me, inwards reflection is caused directly by the existence of neurosis - embracing a concept of the world and of yourself as being in a state of total and irreparable flux, seems to be at the end of the timeline.

hmm, contemplation only takes place when one is anxious?
irreparable flux?...strange concept, how is flux damageable?

not only when you're anxious no, but mostly i believe yes, however this is without the benefit of being inside someone else's head, often these discussions can be reduced to simply describing your own mental state and analysing your own behaviour - like Nietzsche said each philosophy is the unwitting memoir of its author.

irreparable as if the change is constant and unwanted: in order to gain a sense of stability, thus avoiding anxiety over the constant change and uncertainty (which it seems is a favourable state by wishing to 'avoid' it in the first place - correct me if i missed the mark though) one must mend the 'damage' done by being in a perpetual state of 'neither here nor there' ? in this instance inward reflection is the tool used to fix the concern over the state of ones affairs, mental/physical/whatever... to cut the BS if you're looking to avoid uncertainty and change it suggest something negative is felt about those two states of being. it was from that point i answered, but to me it seems an odd question to pose if there is no sense of anxiety in desiring to avoid these states.

sd5 wrote:

its one of many different ways you'll choose to live your life after considered reflection upon yourself - a side note, for those who attempt to ascribe to the philosophy that we are in this apparent state of confusion, neither coming nor going, nor knowing which way would be which if one were to go there anyway - how would it be possible to ever be able to stick to one course if by your philosophies very nature it instinctively has no direction and is falsified by its own principles?

imo state of confusion is not equivalent to not knowing
but over-identification with the process of rationalizing experience,
just as not knowing (what is happening or about to happen) is demonstrably not the source of neurosis
rather, anxiety arises when I believe that my direction relies on holding a consistent principle

if believing that reliance on a consistent principle for direction in life causes anxiety, ascribing to any principle at all will not remedy this - which is precisely my point about choosing a philosophy and sticking by it

it seems that anxiety is caused not by teetering on the edge of a certainty, but more in line with Kierkegaards belief that anxiety was caused by the fear and realisation of both your own freedom to act and its consequences. Anxiety in this respect causes inwards reflection which can mutate into neurosis.

you're not anxious of holding a consistent principle, you're anxious about both the ability to stick to it and your freedom to drop it whenever you want, this anxiety presents choices you are forced to confront and tackle, neurosis is then caused by someones inability to deal with the choices and decisions they are required to make (and by required to make, i also include 'inactivity' which is also, under this guise, a decision you have made - this is existentialism at its core however and there are rejections to be levied against it) - thus a perpetuating cycle of indecision serves both as the unwitting remedy to change and the instigator of continued uncertainty

sd5 wrote:

i'm not even really sure what's being discussed here anymore...

We now seem to be discussing whether holding certain philosophies or principles exempts us from the confusing aspects of uncertainty & change...? If so, it might be worth discussing how that works.

i agree

hope i made sense, haven't picked apart what i wrote, sure you can do that for me, you sure did on the last thing i wrote!!

toady wrote:did sd5 eat up my blotter?

blotted my copybook years ago,
fortunately after exposure to zen, tm
& realizing, untrammeled, the beauty of existence,
so well primed for the surprising void.

noam wrote:

sd5 wrote:

noam wrote:why would openly embracing the random and apparently chaotic nature of life encourage inward reflection?

because the mind is not exempt

sorry mate, could you expand that point, its been a while since i was on this train of thought! the mind is not exempt from the chaotic nature of life?

mind could be an evolution enhancing survival prospects
a nexus of senses trolling for patterns
in an attempt to predict upcoming environmental opportunities & hazards
but, being part of 'life', imbued with the same spontaneous nature,
full of whorls & perturbations,
whether actually random or uncomputably complex,
still our limited recourse to reflective (as opposed to reflexive) dealing.

noam wrote:

sd5 wrote:

it seems to me, inwards reflection is caused directly by the existence of neurosis - embracing a concept of the world and of yourself as being in a state of total and irreparable flux, seems to be at the end of the timeline.

hmm, contemplation only takes place when one is anxious?
irreparable flux?...strange concept, how is flux damageable?

not only when you're anxious no, but mostly i believe yes, however this is without the benefit of being inside someone else's head, often these discussions can be reduced to simply describing your own mental state and analysing your own behaviour - like Nietzsche said each philosophy is the unwitting memoir of its author.

I agree but, if accepted, witting.

noam wrote:irreparable as if the change is constant and unwanted: in order to gain a sense of stability, thus avoiding anxiety over the constant change and uncertainty (which it seems is a favourable state by wishing to 'avoid' it in the first place - correct me if i missed the mark though) one must mend the 'damage' done by being in a perpetual state of 'neither here nor there' ? in this instance inward reflection is the tool used to fix the concern over the state of ones affairs, mental/physical/whatever... to cut the BS if you're looking to avoid uncertainty and change it suggest something negative is felt about those two states of being. it was from that point i answered, but to me it seems an odd question to pose if there is no sense of anxiety in desiring to avoid these states.

Yeah, it wasn't a question but a provocation. Personally, I feel uncomfortable with apparent certainty. I intuit being fooled. Attaching to a moment of surety, I'm inclined to pry my fingers off.
Not trying to universalize a solution or outlook here though.

The Costa Concordia is now more stable than it was on a drifting sea. Firmly stuck yet anxiety bound, national reflection rampant.

sd5 wrote:

noam wrote:its one of many different ways you'll choose to live your life after considered reflection upon yourself - a side note, for those who attempt to ascribe to the philosophy that we are in this apparent state of confusion, neither coming nor going, nor knowing which way would be which if one were to go there anyway - how would it be possible to ever be able to stick to one course if by your philosophies very nature it instinctively has no direction and is falsified by its own principles?

imo state of confusion is not equivalent to not knowing
but over-identification with the process of rationalizing experience,
just as not knowing (what is happening or about to happen) is demonstrably not the source of neurosis
rather, anxiety arises when I believe that my direction relies on holding a consistent principle

^^ a good question. What do you suggest?

noam wrote:if believing that reliance on a consistent principle for direction in life causes anxiety, ascribing to any principle at all will not remedy this - which is precisely my point about choosing a philosophy and sticking by it

If philosophic certainty is illusory or unattainable, then any choice is equally valid, including those of most utility or giving a sense of certainty.

noam wrote:it seems that anxiety is caused not by teetering on the edge of a certainty, but more in line with Kierkegaards belief that anxiety was caused by the fear and realisation of both your own freedom to act and its consequences. Anxiety in this respect causes inwards reflection which can mutate into neurosis.

K assumed a causal connection between will to act & the act happening.

By inwards reflection, do you mean conversation with self (interactive) or watching what you think (observational)?

noam wrote:...anxiety presents choices you are forced to confront and tackle, neurosis is then caused by someones inability to deal with the choices and decisions...
...indecision serves both as the unwitting remedy to change and the instigator of continued uncertainty

Agree if you see decision-making as instigating action. Alternatively, take away this belief in the efficacy of decision-making in determining outcomes & anxiety dissolves in the context of uncontrollable happenstance.
Note that this has no implications for involvement in the world, morality or effort but leaves me free to be who I am & do what I'm doing.

I find that by treating mind as a describer rather than a controller, I am better able to cope with change & uncertainty to the betterment of my & others' well-being. Undeniably subjective & pragmatic; no philosophy involved.

and I'm taking my defence of Jamie Woon's music elsewhere.

we're currently describing the foundations of the disagreement between strict existentialism and post-modernism

RE:

sd5 wrote: If philosophic certainty is illusory or unattainable, then any choice is equally valid, including those of most utility or giving a sense of certainty.

the point i made was based on your original assumption that the moment you begin to feel attached to an apparent certainty, is the moment of anxiety

in rejecting that assumption, we're still free to live by certain rules and principles without a) equally distributing value (which by definition reduces value of any individual to zero) and b)leave room for discourse that cant instantly be appeased by withdrawal to the argument for maximal subjectivity

the very fact subjectivity exists suggests the existence of an opposite. Even in concept, the idea of objectivity is by definition objective and thus it is illogical to reject any idea of value judgment regarding moral principles - simply the idea that everyones view is equal is both in some respects true, but also inherently flawed when considered as universals.

noam wrote:we're currently describing the foundations of the disagreement between strict existentialism and post-modernism

ha ha are there any strict existentialists? I'm a dabbler in the density of post-modernism (mainly through architecture) but I see its roots in existentialism, the latter's subjective self-construction & object-less angst preparing the thinker for ecclectic deconstruction....sorry, word games .

noam wrote:RE:

sd5 wrote: If philosophic certainty is illusory or unattainable, then any choice is equally valid, including those of most utility or giving a sense of certainty.

the point i made was based on your original assumption that the moment you begin to feel attached to an apparent certainty, is the moment of anxiety

hadn't realized I assumed that

noam wrote:in rejecting that assumption, we're still free to live by certain rules and principles without a) equally distributing value (which by definition reduces value of any individual to zero) and b)leave room for discourse that cant instantly be appeased by withdrawal to the argument for maximal subjectivity

I'm not trying to take simplistic comfort in the certainty of uncertainty
& I agree with the need implicit (in the above) to find value in principles & individuals
as you write: "we're still free to live by..."
...whether that freedom is by choice or from lack of restraint is moot,

I hope you don't consider my personal resolution (integration) of isms is a withdrawl into maximal subjectivity,
just as I don't consider the basis for your rejection of groundlessness unarguable
...in fact it illustrates the way that these choices are best made:
from experience of what constructs work to promote well-being.

noam wrote:the very fact subjectivity exists suggests the existence of an opposite. Even in concept, the idea of objectivity is by definition objective and thus it is illogical to reject any idea of value judgment regarding moral principles - simply the idea that everyones view is equal is both in some respects true, but also inherently flawed when considered as universals.

well there's a whole other thing...that moral judgements rely upon there being an objective (view? idea? being?)
...can't values, as always, be a work in progress (we don't hit kids any more)
arising consensually as what operates best in this time/environment.
Sure, philosophically, that's being pragmatic but it's a lot easier than agreeing an objective truth.


Frankly, apart from semantics, I think we're on the same page.
Literally so.

i like the thought that values are a work in progress and yeh that point was pretty disconnected, i had to cut short what i was about to go into and i just kinda left that bit there...

yeah, that'll do,
circling the evermorph,
trying to keep eye contact,
is exhausting eh

i know mate i spent all day writing im all typed out *wipes brow*