It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fetishizing Uncertainty

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
There are some people who love to "bask in chaos" - who've come to essentialize reality, or, in their mystical lingo, have found a "gnosis" that "transcends" whatever the other person thinks.

Such silliness of course does not hold up to the flame - which makes sense: wouldn't a creature like us, who evolved over evolutionary time - wouldn't that have something to do with how how we affect one another? Thus, wouldn't 'gnosis' be fundamentally about an interpersonal logic? That is, to understanding and recognizing that Human happiness - human wellbeing, and all that is good, great and enlivening, has to do with how we understand and recognize the Presence that emerges between us when we care for one another - and the sheer elation of creating and developing narratives between one another?

NEVER!!!!



Fetishizing uncertainty probably has much to do with the joy of chess.

Elites since ancient times have played convoluted games that were meant to encapsulate the sorts of games they played with the "ignorant hoard" i.e. other people, to which their parents, and their parents, upward, had been raised to repeatedly depreciate.

The game of chess captures the mystery of uncertainty - and its utility as a state of awareness to be assumed before every move - and indeed, as a non-stop procedure in analysis - a calm, unexpecting composure towards your own moves and the moves of your opponent allows you to main a "beginners consciousness", as the Buddhists say - the mind open to all possibilities, but not "bound up" within a particular narrative stream, and thus allowing you to attune and be open towards whatever new possibility opens up as a result of move.

The game of chess - or good chess players - are people who pay attention to their own responses so that they better attune to the myriad possibilities that open up with each and every move: this means maintaining multiple internal models of the boards many possibilities, but not committing to any one possibility, and repeatedly relaxing and calming your own engagement within the game - so that you don't get caught up in one of those flickering narratives.

I feel chess is one of those games that resembles life - and yet ones relationship to it, like life, is probably very much related to how we were raised - the people who knew us, looked at us, and aroused us, who placed the "constraints" that molded the flow of our awareness.

In my description of chess above, there is something called "presence" - a repeatedly invoked state of relatedness that does not overly commit - doesn't let itself get "carried" away, and indeed, isn't this what any good chess player needs to do within himself? Not get side-tracked by side-thinking or overly sure in a future set of moves.

Clearly, uncertainty is evident here - but it can become overboard - it can be "essentialized" and turned into more than what it is, if I do not recognize the complementary state - that is, the part which selects - which knows - which picks this move and not that move, because this move is more coherent towards achieving my goal: to gain an advantage over my opponent. The complementary state is ultimately the motive: to win. And yet some people can get so side-tracked by their relationship to one quality of the game - the "uncertainty" dimension, that like in life, where uncertainty can be useful - becomes "feteshized" - something to which they assign a platonic "essence" to - indeed, isn't this what the ancients did? In their naivete - in their lack of knowing, they blocked out other dimensions of reality as they shrunk down their epistemological world towards some tiny corner of the universe - telling themselves a story about its legitimacy, even though, ultimately, having your world shrunken only goes to benefit those who want you to think that way - whether it be other people - usually those who have something to gain - or even more abstractly, it's quite possible that the entropy-dimension of our consciousness, what could be called "demons", would seek their enlivenment in the same way and manner that viruses use cells to make more of themselves: is the virus alive or real? This is a serious question for many biologists, because in one sense they're most certainly not alive - if being alive means having the intrinsic capacity to replicate yourself, they aren't alive. Yet, as coherently organized nucleic acids, protected by a membrane, and having the inner machinery to manipulate the cell, the physical virus and the spiritual "demon" are similar forces - existing in some removed way, but requiring the mediation of a self-reproducing structure to populate itself.

This idea necessarily results from the application of systems theory terms, as applied in biophysics, to the neurological dynamics that generate our consciousness, and the mental states we have, which in turn are governed by the way and manner we know (feel) one another.

Positive feelings which promote the robust metabolic functioning of each members of the group are felt as "good" by Humans; similarly, feelings which weaken any members of the group - such as pride, arrogance, haughtiness, apathy, greed, lust, contempt, depression, anxiety, etc - these various "negative" states - some experienced as positive (pride, haughtiness, greed, lust, contempt), others as negative (depression, anxiety, fear) are "entropic" because they destabilize the collective coherency of the group - of the culture, and so has deleterious effects on neurological processing, leading to lower-down metabolic affects ranging from diseases of the mind to diseases of the body.

The fetishization of uncertainty - of this idea that reality is "just" uncertain, as opposed to an uncertainty which takes on certainty as a function of the choices we make - has in fact been something that has been focused upon to the exclusion of all other values, as if living and being human were one-dimensional - as if context didn't change the organization of our values - or that the love and care we give and receive from others, made us, in fact, not merely dependent on those people - but actually created in our selfhood by the very feelings we experience i.e. by the fact that the principles of love, care, kindness, were precisely those "choices" that were selected by our ancestors, and by selecting them again and again, against the frustrations and stresses of contempt, greed, and lust, led to a mind with tremendously more self-control -and thus, autonomy - than the minds produced by the culture we currently inhabit.

In living with others, focusing on "uncertainty", or, rather, not caring how things go, and taking a light-hearted, care-free, who "gives a $hit" attitude, as if we couldn't influence ourselves in our acting, is exactly the sort of philosophy that has been propagated in the United States by the elite class - and is exactly the philosophy that rules the decision making of people like the Rothdschilds, Rockerfellers, and Bushes.

Madonnas song "life is a mystery, everyone stands alone" - captures nicely the notion that this society is based upon - although with no actual referent in the real world -which is to say, our body is organized by precisely different principles - we live in a world where everyone is assumed to be "responsible for themselves" - individuals and "free agents" - competitors in the "game of life" - and yet, isn't the game rigged?




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
And don't the victors get ahead through manipulating the system they exist within? More-over, isn't the human body-mind a system? And aren't they subtly manipulating themselves, even as they manipulate others?

The take-home moral of this thread: the ecology of our development determines our behavior. If this is so - shouldn't we care to learn how it is were determined - and thus, learn to assume a more responsible relation to the world of others - since, in fact, what we do changes both ourselves as well as others?



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Would you mind reiterating your closing point...the moral of your post. I'm not sure that I am fully grasping your point. I do feel that your post very much applies to myself. ..and as such I want to make sure that I profit from your words.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

People are not complicated. This video is more representative than your over intellectualized analysis.

www.youtube.com...

Desires must be programmed over needs.
edit on 9-1-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
You mean you would prefer this?




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Follow through, aesthetics in philosophy, based on metaphysical subjective narrative.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Somebody been reading too many Robert Anton Wilson books.




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The only constant in life is change. Its better to be more like water, than a rock. Water even wears down the biggest rock given enough time.

I do believe that given enough time systems tend towards extropy, an increase in novelty, as opposed to entropy. I think that's what we're seeing in a lot of areas of society today. People winning the lottery 3 times in a row etc.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Finally you can see what I've been trying to warn you against with chaos theory.

"ORDO AB CHAO" is a spirit they follow - it is a desire to liberate themselves from God. Well, it is a deception, I should say - a great deception.

The reason it works on them is kind of like you say: it is their fetish, their hope, their will - it is a spirit they have taken in.

They cannot see the Spirit and so they are deceived by a spirit of false hope. They need to get baptized so they can take in the Spirit and see the Truth. (Then they can conceive the Truth.) i.e. Just as you were translating the spirit of love and were then able to see "uncertainty" for what it was, they can see the Truth if they get baptized and take in the Spirit.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Fetishizing Uncertainty

The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
www.sciam.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
Shouldn't we embrace uncertainty as only one of the few certain things in life, like death and change and maybe some might add taxes? Doesn't uncertainty makes life more interesting?

a reply to: namelesss
My apologies to the OP but going back to your thread The Middle Way, isn't uncertainty a rudiment of the middle way or to use another term, the gray area? Isn't the Socratic tradition of cross-examination all about knowing that there is a limit to what we know, it's not just a pedantic trick to plant the seeds of doubt, to nitpick or poke holes? Isn't what we know or think we know is inversely proportional to what we don't know or ignorant of?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Kotov Syndrome much?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
If you haven't done so already i'd suggest reading "The Way of the Human Being" by Calvin Luther Martin.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

"Trying to warn you with chaos theory".

There is an even deeper problem: unjustified faith.

Chaos theory - a term which may activate a negative image or feeling in someone who mythologizes everything - is essentially the same as complexity theory, or systems theory - its a mathematical and conceptual approach to the study of systems: there is nothing I need to be "warned of".

Yes - I very much see that the powers that be are infected by a very unreal belief - not anywhere close to being based in reality - but nevertheless works because of ecology.

I do not subscribe - or posit - anything i.e. your description of them hating "God" could be rephrased as them hating reality - which to me is a far more serious accusation. Since God ultimately is a philosophical faith in the meaning of existence, reality - as studied and knowable through the scientific method - only shows the sorts of dynamics that regulate our existence - and those dynamics, irrefutably, incline towards the creation of order, the extraction and use of useable external reality - but most of all, the GENERATION OF SYMMETRY.

It is unfortunate that all the PTB care about - or pay attention to - is precisely what their advantaged ecology (LUCK!) has afforded them - and alas - because there is a systemic division within society between the minds and culture propogated by elites - and the social effects of persuasion - and the mass of humankind.

So what is occurring is perfectly explicable without invoking God, or religion - which to me is very much a part of the problem: the over-investment in reality, to the point that a naive, unidimensional faith is handed over to some "concept" - here, the fetishiztion of the concept of uncertainty - and in other people, there are other, less morally offensive "fetishizations" which nevertheless present a stumbling block to human communication.

For example, you often communicate with me this implied superiority - based on nothing but your personal religious views. That is, because of a religious certainty in your views, you can speak to me not through a sensitivity to the conditions that influence us, but as someone who is "wrong" -and is wrong simply because in your brain, chaos theory has been branded "evil", and I, in your imagination, have been coded as someone who is "being misled", and needs to be guided back through some religious affiliation. In short, METHOD reveals much about a persons blind-spots: if you're identified with a religious view without any higher-order framework to mediate an equal relationship, you will always be acting out some quality of denigration to your interlocutor, inasmuch as you are not offering him a description that refers to some higher, epistemologically valid form of communication i.e. through the language of philosophy, as opposed to religious fundamentalism.

An intellectual, cognitive, or theoretical orientation that relies on an equal-access epistemology - refers to the facts of reality, and - like Teilhard de Chardin showed - trusting that the natural world can speak louder than any religious or theological proposition.
edit on 10-1-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MaxTamesSiva




Shouldn't we embrace uncertainty as only one of the few certain things in life, like death and change and maybe some might add taxes? Doesn't uncertainty makes life more interesting?


I never said don't appreciate uncertainty. This thread is specifically focused on the "fetishization" of it - as if you could base your relation to reality on this principle alone, without any complementary balance to help balance what your instinct i.e. your autonomic nervous systems's natural tendency to seek its advantage, will stereotype your awareness as.

In other words, people who trust their instinct are REALLY trusting the non-conscious - though completely open - flows of information that come from the external world and enter their unconscious. Thus, in earlier times, it may have been legitimately believed that living purely in the form of "flow" meant following a deeper reality; and yet today, experimental psychology, neuroscience and complexity theory show that the mystical interpretation towards ones own affects (see Chip Taylors "angel of the morning" for a typical story about the choices people make; and the defense they give i.e. the mythological narrative of the "angel of the morning" being some-sort of protecting force) is nothing but a higher-animal naively confabulating its systemic advantage in such a way as to control the negative affects that arise from its very normal feelings of guilt and shame that arise from a recognition that your advantage comes at a cost to others.

In short, humans are delusional - and the ones who foster a philpsophy that makes them unresponsive to the suffering of others - are the most tragically deluded of all:


“Consciousness of an external event takes substantial time to develop, at least several hundred milliseconds. The early parts of a visual or auditory signal may reach the neocortex in 10 milliseconds, and it takes about 30 milliseconds for signals to cross the entire brain on cortico-cortical fibres. These white matter fibres connect different parts of the cerebral cortex to itself, with the so-called gray matter forming the outer layer of the brain, the cerebral cortex.” – Paul L. Nunez, The New Science of Consciousness, pg. 65, Promotheus, 2016


You only experience consciousness at a specific threshold - but what makes it in, is intrinsically related to what enters the shorter-waves of activity in your brain - operating at below the 500 millisecond scale - which I hope works to express what kind of creature we are, and how intensely absurd it is for a creature made out of trillions of cells - a democracy of cellular relations - to hate and exploit other people.

This cultishness only works because of a non-real belief - a faith - in some secret power of uncertainty, as if the collective dynamism of reality wasn't essentially more real than the advantageous insights that arise in rote - as nothing more impressive than a lizard that goes after a little scurrying animal.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Did I say the alternative to fetishizing uncertainty is to fetishize certainty?

I may not have emphasized this, but no - I am recommending a pluralistic epistemology in which presence is used to maintain awareness of undesired consequences to actions - and so, an ontology that embraces BOTH certainty and uncertainty - but NOT a certainty IN uncertainty, or vice-versa.

There really are intelligent choices to be made in life.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte


I never said don't appreciate uncertainty. This thread is specifically focused on the "fetishization" of it - as if you could base your relation to reality on this principle alone, without any complementary balance to help balance what your instinct i.e. your autonomic nervous systems's natural tendency to seek its advantage, will stereotype your awareness as.

I wouldn't call it a principle, more like a rule of thumb I adopted as a rough guide and if I was a betting man I bet I could've made a considerable sum betting against the smug know-it-alls that they can't be certain about certain things that they are certain about. I'd like to keep it simple and cut to the chase. To balance this I'm certain that the odds are in my favor. I find the uncertainty fetish really sexy and could be kinky at times.



In other words, people who trust their instinct are REALLY trusting the non-conscious - though completely open - flows of information that come from the external world and enter their unconscious. Thus, in earlier times, it may have been legitimately believed that living purely in the form of "flow" meant following a deeper reality; and yet today, experimental psychology, neuroscience and complexity theory show that the mystical interpretation towards ones own affects (see Chip Taylors "angel of the morning" for a typical story about the choices people make; and the defense they give i.e. the mythological narrative of the "angel of the morning" being some-sort of protecting force) is nothing but a higher-animal naively confabulating its systemic advantage in such a way as to control the negative affects that arise from its very normal feelings of guilt and shame that arise from a recognition that your advantage comes at a cost to others.


I partly agree, but what right do we have to question the validity of someone's uncommon personal experience that are sometimes even profound and their personal interpretation or rationalization of it? If we try to find out what happened and make sense of it can we really be certain, near certain or will it be more like guesswork?




In short, humans are delusional - and the ones who foster a philpsophy that makes them unresponsive to the suffering of others - are the most tragically deluded of all:

“Consciousness of an external event takes substantial time to develop, at least several hundred milliseconds. The early parts of a visual or auditory signal may reach the neocortex in 10 milliseconds, and it takes about 30 milliseconds for signals to cross the entire brain on cortico-cortical fibres. These white matter fibres connect different parts of the cerebral cortex to itself, with the so-called gray matter forming the outer layer of the brain, the cerebral cortex.” – Paul L. Nunez, The New Science of Consciousness, pg. 65, Promotheus, 2016

You only experience consciousness at a specific threshold - but what makes it in, is intrinsically related to what enters the shorter-waves of activity in your brain - operating at below the 500 millisecond scale - which I hope works to express what kind of creature we are, and how intensely absurd it is for a creature made out of trillions of cells - a democracy of cellular relations - to hate and exploit other people.

This cultishness only works because of a non-real belief - a faith - in some secret power of uncertainty, as if the collective dynamism of reality wasn't essentially more real than the advantageous insights that arise in rote - as nothing more impressive than a lizard that goes after a little scurrying animal.


The fun part is the attempt to figure it all out, the power of uncertainty is no secret, yet we often refuse to be humble when confronted by it.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: namelesss

Did I say the alternative to fetishizing uncertainty is to fetishize certainty?

I have no clue.
I didn't see it, if you did, I missed it.
(As opposed to.. 'certainly'! *__- )


I may not have emphasized this, but no - I am recommending a pluralistic epistemology in which presence is used to maintain awareness of undesired consequences to actions - and so, an ontology that embraces BOTH certainty and uncertainty - but NOT a certainty IN uncertainty, or vice-versa.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

There is no sure 'border' between any opposite dualist pairings.
You can say that there is no 'cold' in 'hot' (even the word 'in' gets pretty wiggly when examined), but when you start to examine the 'boundary' that definitively separates the one from the other, the closer we look, the more that it vanishes!
As True of the (apparent) 'boundary' between all things!
Science affirms that it has never established such an... imaginary... definitive/'certain' place as that border.
'Certainty' exists, but it is not 'healthy', and comes with insanity/suffering.


There really are intelligent choices to be made in life.

There are no 'choices'.
That would be impossible sixteen ways from sunrise!
One would be relevant to the 'it's All One!' crowd and goes like this;
If the Universe is One Universal Self!/God, then anything that 'you' might imagine that you are setting in motion, must necessarily alter the entirety of existence... Balance must be maintained!
So, if we really did have free-will/choice', to 'enact' this 'choice', we would have to, literally, remake/alter the Universe! That would be rather like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise!)
It is ego, thoughts, where we find such things.
Insanity to 'believe' it.
Yet, oddly enough, having us loonatiks stumbling about on the Earth, at this moment, is one of the ALL inclusive 'features' of the One Reality, Perfection!

Another reason against 'choice' is that in the 'scientific/philosophical Reality', all existence, every single unique moment of Universal existence, exists Here! Now!

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

(A 'moment' is a unit of perception, a 'percept'!)

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

Which means that Reality (other than in thought) is literally timeless!
If no time, no motion!
If no time and no motion, no 'doing' which means no 'choices'.
Every moment already exists, none can ever be 'changed/otherwise'!

Perhaps I'm biased, somehow, because I Love the 'uncertainty' that accompanies life because I Love 'life'!
I'm enjoying Reality!

"Intelligent choices", ones that we feel that we make when the 'results' are pleasing/comfortable?
What about that damned fool thing that you'll do that quantumly leaps your evolution on all fronts?
If we really had a choice, we'd have few Blessings!
It's the Pain that we need, that few would ever 'choose'.
Thank the Universe that we get it whether we want it or not.

"Sometimes we get what we desire (and like the rooster...), but we always get exactly what we need.

Okay, I'm done. *__-



edit on 12-1-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: namelesss
My apologies to the OP but going back to your thread The Middle Way, isn't uncertainty a rudiment of the middle way or to use another term, the gray area?

"The 'Middle Way' refers to a point equidistant from all Perspectives!" - Zen Kahuna
Only Perspectives buried in a ... 'single Perspective', unaware of the "equal and opposite Perspective", would 'feel' (feelings are thoughts) 'certain'.


Isn't the Socratic tradition of cross-examination all about knowing that there is a limit to what we know, it's not just a pedantic trick to plant the seeds of doubt, to nitpick or poke holes? Isn't what we know or think we know is inversely proportional to what we don't know or ignorant of?

The 'cross-examining', from this Perspective, is about experiencing as many Perspectives as possible, and thus, having a greater Perspective of Reality!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

All unique (Perspectives/perceptions) 'knowledge' is perceived by 'One' Consciousness.

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I agree completely with that....Thank you for sharing that info....I interpret the all seeing eye to represent the eye that sees from every perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join