Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No such thing as self-actualization

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 12:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.

For me, I need to live up to my full potential in order to be happy. That's to say, I need to be able to do what I do best (which happens to be what I love to do) to be happy. Also, what I love to do has little to do with societal rewards. For example, I'm not self-actualized in my current employment. If self-actualization meant simply being rewarded by my employeer, I could achieve it my maximizing my potential in my current employment. But if I did that, I would feel like a douche even though I would be rewarded (I don't like the company I work for, in other words). What I really love doing (writing quality software) would maximize my potential and make me happy but that happiness wouldn't depend on society. I just enjoy the process of coding and using the final product.

So for me, Maslow's hierarchy is valid though I'm not sure it is for everyone else. I'm not sure what kind of empirical research has been done to support his theory anyway.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 5:05:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:53:10 PM, vbaculum wrote:
For me, I need to live up to my full potential in order to be happy. That's to say, I need to be able to do what I do best (which happens to be what I love to do) to be happy. Also, what I love to do has little to do with societal rewards. For example, I'm not self-actualized in my current employment. If self-actualization meant simply being rewarded by my employeer, I could achieve it my maximizing my potential in my current employment. But if I did that, I would feel like a douche even though I would be rewarded (I don't like the company I work for, in other words). What I really love doing (writing quality software) would maximize my potential and make me happy but that happiness wouldn't depend on society. I just enjoy the process of coding and using the final product.

So for me, Maslow's hierarchy is valid though I'm not sure it is for everyone else. I'm not sure what kind of empirical research has been done to support his theory anyway.

I'm going to make the bold statement that nothing you said counts as a legitimate argument against my point.

I'll illustrate with these questions:

1. How can you be sure that making software and coding makes you happy only because somewhere along your development, you picked up the notion that coding software is socially acceptable or positive?

2. How do you know that your happiness is derived simply from your self actualization and not from my explanation: That society has given you the value of "being the best YOU you can be", and is rewarding you whenever you think you're accomplishing that?

3. Though the company rewards you, society in general has a very widespread message that being an employee is bad, that freedom is good, that we should all revel in independence, freedom, and innovation, etc.

Do you think people can revel in the happiness of doing something that society deems BAD? And even if you could, could you not attribute it to an individual wanting to lash out at a society that he deems unjust, unfair, or evil in and of itself?

A good summary question would be:

Do you think that people can ever truly know why it is they do things, why they derive happiness from those actions, and whether or not they can know themselves?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 6:49:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 5:05:44 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:53:10 PM, vbaculum wrote:
For me, I need to live up to my full potential in order to be happy. That's to say, I need to be able to do what I do best (which happens to be what I love to do) to be happy. Also, what I love to do has little to do with societal rewards. For example, I'm not self-actualized in my current employment. If self-actualization meant simply being rewarded by my employeer, I could achieve it my maximizing my potential in my current employment. But if I did that, I would feel like a douche even though I would be rewarded (I don't like the company I work for, in other words). What I really love doing (writing quality software) would maximize my potential and make me happy but that happiness wouldn't depend on society. I just enjoy the process of coding and using the final product.

So for me, Maslow's hierarchy is valid though I'm not sure it is for everyone else. I'm not sure what kind of empirical research has been done to support his theory anyway.

I'm going to make the bold statement that nothing you said counts as a legitimate argument against my point.

I'll illustrate with these questions:

1. How can you be sure that making software and coding makes you happy only because somewhere along your development, you picked up the notion that coding software is socially acceptable or positive?
One can't be sure of anything.

The first time I started programming, I became entranced. It's like a drug and when you finally get your code right, it can be euphoric.

When I started, I didn't think I would ever be doing it professionally because, at that time, I didn't want to go to college. But in the end, I was able to make a profession out of it.


2. How do you know that your happiness is derived simply from your self actualization and not from my explanation: That society has given you the value of "being the best YOU you can be", and is rewarding you whenever you think you're accomplishing that?

I'm pretty sure I simply enjoy programming for its own sake. Commercial software development is funny. Noboby cares how good you program just as long as the software works. I'm always at odds with this. Most programmers write bad code but somehow get it to work in the end. I could be like them. They get rewarded by society as much as I do. But there is an aesthetic pleasure to be had in seeing ones own work done ones own way.


3. Though the company rewards you, society in general has a very widespread message that being an employee is bad, that freedom is good, that we should all revel in independence, freedom, and innovation, etc.

Do you think people can revel in the happiness of doing something that society deems BAD? And even if you could, could you not attribute it to an individual wanting to lash out at a society that he deems unjust, unfair, or evil in and of itself?
The punk rock movement comes to mind but your second question nullifies that adduction. I'll have to think more about that.

A good summary question would be:

Do you think that people can ever truly know why it is they do things, why they derive happiness from those actions, and whether or not they can know themselves?
No, of course not - "tip of the iceberg" and all that. It doesn't stop us from trying though.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:56:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think any telic view of humanity, according to which humanity has an "essence" or an ultimate "goal" to which our actions must subordinate themselves, is just poop on a platter.

I suppose if I try and fall victim to this illusion I'm no worse off than anyone else.

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

I would say most of society's values are antithetical to self-actualization.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 7:15:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:56:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think any telic view of humanity, according to which humanity has an "essence" or an ultimate "goal" to which our actions must subordinate themselves, is just poop on a platter.

Maslow isn't telic, advice gurus who cite him are. Maslow's hierarchy is no more essentialist than any other modern psychological theory.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 8:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maslow's Hierarchy works pretty well when you consider how living without certain essential needs affects your ability to self-actualize. The question is what counts and what doesn't... having a job that you like (using the previous example) may or may not contribute to your ability to self-actualize. I wouldn't know I guess because I have never had a good job and I may never have a good job... But there are other things that I definitely see affect my ability to be happy, like being able to have my basic needs taken care of, having outlets for my energy (sports) and my hobbies (music). I also require a fair amount of socialization with friends (which I get from going out to the bars) and a good lover. I have been struggling in relationships for the past year or two and it has decimated my ability to be productive. I have lost all motivation in my studies and have all but given up on building a career. I cannot self-actualize because I have been in and out of bad relationships and that pinches off my potential at some basic level, and until I resolve this issue I am probably going to be quite lost, unfortunately.
Rob
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 12:47:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 6:49:58 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/9/2012 5:05:44 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:53:10 PM, vbaculum wrote:
For me, I need to live up to my full potential in order to be happy. That's to say, I need to be able to do what I do best (which happens to be what I love to do) to be happy. Also, what I love to do has little to do with societal rewards. For example, I'm not self-actualized in my current employment. If self-actualization meant simply being rewarded by my employeer, I could achieve it my maximizing my potential in my current employment. But if I did that, I would feel like a douche even though I would be rewarded (I don't like the company I work for, in other words). What I really love doing (writing quality software) would maximize my potential and make me happy but that happiness wouldn't depend on society. I just enjoy the process of coding and using the final product.

So for me, Maslow's hierarchy is valid though I'm not sure it is for everyone else. I'm not sure what kind of empirical research has been done to support his theory anyway.

I'm going to make the bold statement that nothing you said counts as a legitimate argument against my point.

I'll illustrate with these questions:

1. How can you be sure that making software and coding makes you happy only because somewhere along your development, you picked up the notion that coding software is socially acceptable or positive?
One can't be sure of anything.

The first time I started programming, I became entranced. It's like a drug and when you finally get your code right, it can be euphoric.

When I started, I didn't think I would ever be doing it professionally because, at that time, I didn't want to go to college. But in the end, I was able to make a profession out of it.


2. How do you know that your happiness is derived simply from your self actualization and not from my explanation: That society has given you the value of "being the best YOU you can be", and is rewarding you whenever you think you're accomplishing that?

I'm pretty sure I simply enjoy programming for its own sake. Commercial software development is funny. Noboby cares how good you program just as long as the software works. I'm always at odds with this. Most programmers write bad code but somehow get it to work in the end. I could be like them. They get rewarded by society as much as I do. But there is an aesthetic pleasure to be had in seeing ones own work done ones own way.


3. Though the company rewards you, society in general has a very widespread message that being an employee is bad, that freedom is good, that we should all revel in independence, freedom, and innovation, etc.

Do you think people can revel in the happiness of doing something that society deems BAD? And even if you could, could you not attribute it to an individual wanting to lash out at a society that he deems unjust, unfair, or evil in and of itself?
The punk rock movement comes to mind but your second question nullifies that adduction. I'll have to think more about that.

Socrates enjoyed asking uncomfortable questions which society deemed bad (to such an extent that he was executed for heresy). The fact that he is admired as the father of philosophy would seem to imply that many people think his example is worth following.


A good summary question would be:

Do you think that people can ever truly know why it is they do things, why they derive happiness from those actions, and whether or not they can know themselves?
No, of course not - "tip of the iceberg" and all that. It doesn't stop us from trying though.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 1:35:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.

That does not negate the fact that self-actualization is a need. You are correct that everyone's "full potential" is different. However, everybody has a need to be superior at what they desire most. It could be based off society, but that doesn't negate the fact they desire it most.

As far as being derivatives of each other they all derive from the previous need. It is a different need from esteem. Esteem, essentially, is the need to make other people like you. On the other hand, self-actualization is working on yourself. Regardless if it is based off society it is a need to work on yourself.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:33:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.

You're simply describing self-realizationist thinking after it's been misappropriated by and reductionistically reinterpreted through an egoistic-cynical, crassly anti-humanistic conceptuality.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:59:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:56:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think any telic view of humanity, according to which humanity has an "essence" or an ultimate "goal" to which our actions must subordinate themselves, is just poop on a platter.

A telic view of humanity and reality needn't involve the concept of a substantialist essence or a Teilhardianly ultimate goal. Rather, there's another ontological point of view, according to which the fundamental nature of human and all being is becoming, i.e., pure process striving to express itself and actualize the possibilities of its expressions. This view allows for purposefulness without grounding it in any manner of essence, as all apparent essences boil down to the concrescence of process. Also, this ontology doesn't entail any aiming of process at any eschatologically final goal, the teleological drive of all embodiments of process is for creative integrativity and the self-actualization of their potentialities in the now. That is, there's no linear journey of the universe to some grand omega point at the end of time, just an infinite succession of little omega points as individual incarnations of process fulfill their intrinsic promise and contribute it back to the cosmic unity that we're all integral members of. Well, in a nutshell, this is my personal ontological conceptuality, I hope that you will be able to distinguish it from the sort of "poop-on-a-platter" essentialist teleology that you refer to.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:02:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:59:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:56:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think any telic view of humanity, according to which humanity has an "essence" or an ultimate "goal" to which our actions must subordinate themselves, is just poop on a platter.

A telic view of humanity and reality needn't involve the concept of a substantialist essence or a Teilhardianly ultimate goal. Rather, there's another ontological point of view, according to which the fundamental nature of human and all being is becoming, i.e., pure process striving to express itself and actualize the possibilities of its expressions. This view allows for purposefulness without grounding it in any manner of essence, as all apparent essences boil down to the concrescence of process. Also, this ontology doesn't entail any aiming of process at any eschatologically final goal, the teleological drive of all embodiments of process is for creative integrativity and the self-actualization of their potentialities in the now. That is, there's no linear journey of the universe to some grand omega point at the end of time, just an infinite succession of little omega points as individual incarnations of process fulfill their intrinsic promise and contribute it back to the cosmic unity that we're all integral members of. Well, in a nutshell, this is my personal ontological conceptuality, I hope that you will be able to distinguish it from the sort of "poop-on-a-platter" essentialist teleology that you refer to.

I do not accept that ontological characterization. While I certainly do not agree with Western conceptions of time--particularly as grounded in the figure of the "instant" which is problematic in the way that it divides and yet ensures continuity between "past and present" while nevertheless robbing us of a "now" because of the negativity introduced by reduction of the present to an intangible, unlivable "instant"--I also do not accept your "ontology of becoming". Whether you explicitly set a goal or not, the very notion of "self-actualization" presupposes two things: first, it supposes that there is something like an "inner self", perhaps in both Man and individuals, to be actualized. Hence, your ontological paradigm can ground itself only by presupposing a transcendental, essential element waiting to be irrevocably consigned to actuality.

The second presupposition is in the dismissal of potentiality as the essence (and proper dwelling place) of the human. This is by no means to say that there is something like an essence to be returned to or (re)discovered--rather, the essence of the human consists precisely in its having no essence. Hence, the manufacture of a class of being which is consigned always to some becoming some particular being or identity--that is, to the perpetual giving up of potentiality, or the giving of potentiality to itself in the form of suspending the capacity for impotentiality, the potentiality not to be, and hence, the capacity to renounce always-becoming as the human's proper dwelling place.

Hence, I suspect you remain trapped in the fundamental negativity of Western metaphysics. In your attempt to ground a live of "purposiveness without purpose", you have not abolished the negative character of metaphysics which has produced fruits of essentialism, and have therefore been captured by it.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 1:39:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 9:02:05 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2012 6:59:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:56:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think any telic view of humanity, according to which humanity has an "essence" or an ultimate "goal" to which our actions must subordinate themselves, is just poop on a platter.

A telic view of humanity and reality needn't involve the concept of a substantialist essence or a Teilhardianly ultimate goal. Rather, there's another ontological point of view, according to which the fundamental nature of human and all being is becoming, i.e., pure process striving to express itself and actualize the possibilities of its expressions. This view allows for purposefulness without grounding it in any manner of essence, as all apparent essences boil down to the concrescence of process. Also, this ontology doesn't entail any aiming of process at any eschatologically final goal, the teleological drive of all embodiments of process is for creative integrativity and the self-actualization of their potentialities in the now. That is, there's no linear journey of the universe to some grand omega point at the end of time, just an infinite succession of little omega points as individual incarnations of process fulfill their intrinsic promise and contribute it back to the cosmic unity that we're all integral members of. Well, in a nutshell, this is my personal ontological conceptuality, I hope that you will be able to distinguish it from the sort of "poop-on-a-platter" essentialist teleology that you refer to.

I do not accept that ontological characterization.

That is, of course, your prerogative.

While I certainly do not agree with Western conceptions of time--particularly as grounded in the figure of the "instant" which is problematic in the way that it divides and yet ensures continuity between "past and present" while nevertheless robbing us of a "now" because of the negativity introduced by reduction of the present to an intangible, unlivable "instant"

Time is quite simply the constantly-interminably ongoing succession of the events of experience and creativity, the moments of process that are incarnate installments of novelty in the kaleidoscopic odyssey of a never-ending genesis of life and existence, in the eternally-unfolding epic of the cosmic gestalt that is the universe. Time is the progression of such creative eventities and the transition from one to the next, their perpetual configuration into newness.

--I also do not accept your "ontology of becoming". Whether you explicitly set a goal or not, the very notion of "self-actualization" presupposes two things: first, it supposes that there is something like an "inner self", perhaps in both Man and individuals,

Not at all. No solid & permanent essence is presupposed, only temporary configurations of experience and creativity into minds in the case of higher life-forms.

to be actualized. Hence, your ontological paradigm can ground itself only by presupposing a transcendental, essential element waiting to be irrevocably consigned to actuality.

Creativity, i.e., creative process, is fundamental but not essential, not essential in the sense of being a bit of tangible stuff at the center of a thing. Which is to say that the potential of a thing derives not from some central stuff or hard ground of being, but rather from the integrative process of units of process forming into an entity that embodies and expresses creativity in some fashion. A particular entity's capabilities of expressing creativity are, of course, what is meant by its potentialities.

The second presupposition is in the dismissal of potentiality as the essence

If we are speak or think in terms of a human being or any being having an essence what we're really referring to is a fundamental configuration of process into a matrix for potentiality and its self-expression.

(and proper dwelling place) of the human. This is by no means to say that there is something like an essence to be returned to or (re)discovered--rather, the essence of the human consists precisely in its having no essence.

Yes, agreed, the fundamental nature of reality is nothingness, in that, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there's no substantial there there. Mm-hmm, at the essence of things is no tangible-permanent being-essence, only creative becoming, which indeed in the strict sense of being pure unsubstanced activity rather than materialistic stuff is utternothingness.

Hence, the manufacture of a class of being which is consigned always to some becoming some particular being or identity--that is, to the perpetual giving up of potentiality, or the giving of potentiality to itself in the form of suspending the capacity for impotentiality, the potentiality not to be, and hence, the capacity to renounce always-becoming as the human's proper dwelling place.

What you're decrying here as an unfortunate giving up of potential and impotentiality is in fact selectivity, the creative selection of certain possibilities for actualization and the renunciation, as you term it, of others. Such selection-choice is in fact of the fundamental nature of creativity; although it's a principle of limitation, leading to the embodiment of creativity in certain forms rather than others, it does lead to the embodiment of creativity! Without such a principle of limitation, without the selecting and renouncing of possibilities nothing would be be realized, creativity would remain in permanent abeyance form its actualization. This would make for an barren bit of paradoxicality, i.e., a stagnant state of creative affairs!

Hence, I suspect you remain trapped in the fundamental negativity of Western metaphysics.

I hope that I've succeeded in allaying this erroneous suspicion.

In your attempt to ground a life of "purposiveness without purpose", you have not abolished the negative character of metaphysics which has produced fruits of essentialism, and have therefore been captured by it.

I beg to disagree, and would respectfully suggest that it's you whose worldview is so riddled through with substantialist preconceptions that your thinking can't help but recur to them and misinterpret & misconstrue my process ontology in terms of tangible essences. This is perhaps a limitation of your own thinking that you're genuinely unaware of.

Btw, thanks for some, dare I use the word, substantive feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 12:05:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 1:39:59 AM, charleslb wrote:
Time is quite simply the constantly-interminably ongoing succession of the events of experience and creativity, the moments of process that are incarnate installments of novelty in the kaleidoscopic odyssey of a never-ending genesis of life and existence, in the eternally-unfolding epic of the cosmic gestalt that is the universe. Time is the progression of such creative eventities and the transition from one to the next, their perpetual configuration into newness.

While I sympathize--heavily--with the project of a concrete time of human experience, particularly as it survives time as a series of quantified, negative parts (i.e., as a series of instants), I still suspect that your focus on a time which is still painfully captured by process, or the giving away of potentiality to itself in the form of its own suspension (i.e., the giving away of its potentiality not to be), fails to account for itself. Between the dichotomy of an always being, which you reject, and an always becoming (something new), which you here advance, there is nevertheless a presupposition whose abolition is required to truly reach a time grounded concretely in experience as such. This peculiar element is that actuality to which I have earlier alluded, and to which we are, by your conception of time as always-becoming, irreparably consigned. To live in such a way that one can properly "be whatever", without presupposition or needless predication (particularly in the form of the expropriation of experience as some external property to be attributed as a predicate), we require nothing less than a giving up of the actual as the necessary realm into which we, like Heidegger's Dasein, are immediately thrown. Currently, the appropriate project concerns not only one's potential to be this or that with the capacity to change at will; rather, it concerns also the originary power of potentiality, which is the potentiality not to be, in which one can always become something else but also nevertheless become nothing at all, suspending the process of infinite becoming and reconfiguration precisely by becoming willed non-becoming. This specific realm, which escapes consignment to actuality--even in the form of always becoming some new actuality or identity--is precisely that realm which, being able to decouple itself from actuality, cannot be grasped in your ontology.

Not at all. No solid & permanent essence is presupposed, only temporary configurations of experience and creativity into minds in the case of higher life-forms.

Creativity, i.e., creative process, is fundamental but not essential, not essential in the sense of being a bit of tangible stuff at the center of a thing. Which is to say that the potential of a thing derives not from some central stuff or hard ground of being, but rather from the integrative process of units of process forming into an entity that embodies and expresses creativity in some fashion. A particular entity's capabilities of expressing creativity are, of course, what is meant by its potentialities.

This creativity is precisely the essence which you take to be the originary metaphysical activity. Where the only true telos is the very final "principle without presupposition"--a world of pure means not subjugated to a transcendental end--your expression of creativity, which always reconfigures itself through the figure of the Human as an endless stream of different identities or actualities, operates through a "process" (which seems to me to retain some sinister "progressive" element of the dialectic) according to which true potentiality is always already exhausted as a perpetual passage from potentiality to always-shifting actualities.

If we are speak or think in terms of a human being or any being having an essence what we're really referring to is a fundamental configuration of process into a matrix for potentiality and its self-expression.

Yes, agreed, the fundamental nature of reality is nothingness, in that, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there's no substantial there there. Mm-hmm, at the essence of things is no tangible-permanent being-essence, only creative becoming, which indeed in the strict sense of being pure unsubstanced activity rather than materialistic stuff is utternothingness.

And this nothingness is precisely the negativity by which your ontology finds itself captured. There is no essence, no fundamental identity to which humanity is consigned--but we cannot likewise ground humanity in a nothingness, a negativity, or an ineffability. This merely repeats the old mistakes, on the ground of which something like "always-becoming" can manifest itself as a method of always suspending potentiality in its infinite reconstruction as a different actuality. And hence, the notion of "actualization" is essentialist precisely because it constitutes metaphysics as a sphere of always becoming some identity, without reflection on the possibility of being without predication, or, more concisely, being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity and the political/ethical implications which, as epiphenomena of metaphysical identity operations, attend those designations.

What you're decrying here as an unfortunate giving up of potential and impotentiality is in fact selectivity, the creative selection of certain possibilities for actualization and the renunciation, as you term it, of others. Such selection-choice is in fact of the fundamental nature of creativity; although it's a principle of limitation, leading to the embodiment of creativity in certain forms rather than others, it does lead to the embodiment of creativity! Without such a principle of limitation, without the selecting and renouncing of possibilities nothing would be be realized, creativity would remain in permanent abeyance form its actualization. This would make for an barren bit of paradoxicality, i.e., a stagnant state of creative affairs!

Incorrect--it is not to say that there will always be a perpetual state of static creativity. Rather, it is that, by consigning being always to a realm of some or other identity, the error is precisely in suspending the potentiality to not be by making otherwise-being a being whose only possible form is the form of only a different identity. It is more than the renunciation of other possibilities--it is nothing less than the renunciation of the capacity for non-actuality, the destruction of potentiality by delimiting a potentiality whose only power is to be something. My account of potentiality, with which your ontology has not reckoned (and with which it perhaps cannot ever reckon), produces a realm of "being whatever", not "always-becoming-something".

I beg to disagree, and would respectfully suggest that it's you whose worldview is so riddled through with substantialist preconceptions that your thinking can't help but recur to them and misinterpret & misconstrue my process ontology in terms of tangible essences. This is perhaps a limitation of your own thinking that you're genuinely unaware of.

It is not necessarily that you find some kind of essence in Man in the traditional teleological sense--that you find some "destiny" in man which he must meet on a singular path; rather, the process ontology which you advance is, I argue, trapped by the same metaphysical negativity which produces that essentialism. It is, to appropriate your terminology, reconfigured negativity.

Btw, thanks for some, dare I use the word, substantive feedback.

I sometimes wonder whether I'm the only one on the site who sees the content below the sea of language (i.e., below the surface level onto which most people grasp firmly, never letting go), and who therefore can engage it properly.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 4:55:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 12:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
While I sympathize--heavily--with the project of a concrete time of human experience,

Btw, my ontology is not merely one of human experience. Rather, human experience is merely one instantiation of the creative-processive-panexperientialist nature of being, from which we can extrapolate to reach a fundamental understanding the general nature of existence.

particularly as it survives time as a series of quantified, negative parts (i.e., as a series of instants), I still suspect that your focus on a time which is still painfully captured by process

Well, these days there are many pop-quantum-physics-babble-spouting pseudosophers who try to sound deep by denying the linearity of time, making it out to be some sort of philosophically flatlanderish, metaphysically mundane concept. However, if we analyze the experience of time we find that the pseudosophers are overcomplicating it, that it in fact is something quite simple, i.e., a one-way successive, sequential stream of experience, i.e., it boils down to the forward march of change, creativity, and novelty, the processive production of eventities (events of the embodying forth of process-creativity). In a word, time is evolution, ever advancing evolution (advancing but not necessarily ascending, there's no steady Teilhardian ascent to an omega point of ultimate perfection, just the constant striving after actualizing the best possibilities available to a given entity). And personally I find the notion that time is perpetual evolution to be more liberating than captivating. Mm-hmm, if I'm "painfully captured" by it I'm certainly not feeling the pain.

, or the giving away of potentiality to itself in the form of its own suspension (i.e., the giving away of its potentiality not to be), fails to account for itself.

Well, potentiality is only potentiality if it can and does "give itself away", as you phrase it, to actualization. If potentiality didn't do so, didn't ever make the self-limiting move from being potentiality to becoming actuality, well, then it wouldn't be potentiality any more, you'd have the paradox of absolutely inert potentiality, and this would be one of those instances in which the word "paradox" would just be a highfalutin philosophical euphemism for contradiction. Yes, the actualization of potential must always involve selectivity and limitation, i.e., creativity must get off the ontological fence, as it were, on the side of concretizing itself as this, or on the side of concretizing itself as that, it can't keep all of its options open in an individual eventity. There must always be a "giving away of potentiality" and a "giving away of the potentiality not to be" in the form of whatever embodiment it becomes.

Between the dichotomy of an always being, which you reject, and an always becoming (something new), which you here advance, there is nevertheless a presupposition whose abolition is required to truly reach a time grounded concretely in experience as such. This peculiar element is that actuality to which I have earlier alluded, and to which we are, by your conception of time as always-becoming, irreparably consigned. To live in such a way that one can properly "be whatever", without presupposition or needless predication (particularly in the form of the expropriation of experience as some external property to be attributed as a predicate), we require nothing less than a giving up of the actual as the necessary realm into which we, like Heidegger's Dasein, are immediately thrown.

Not at all, actuality is the fruit constantly being borne by creativity-process, a never-ending succession of moments of temporarily-coming-into-existence actuality and its perishing and giving way to new fleeting moments of actuality.

Currently, the appropriate project concerns not only one's potential to be this or that with the capacity to change at will; rather, it concerns also the originary power of potentiality, which is the potentiality not to be, in which one can always become something else but also nevertheless become nothing at all, suspending the process of infinite becoming and reconfiguration precisely by becoming willed non-becoming. This specific realm, which escapes consignment to actuality--even in the form of always becoming some new actuality or identity--is precisely that realm which, being able to decouple itself from actuality, cannot be grasped in your ontology.

Creativity is, by definition, not the striving after "willed non-becoming", but rather the drive to creative actualization. Here you're continuing to fail to fully grasp the implications of the insight that the fundamental nature of reality is creativity-experience-process, and to veer into the paradox of trying to conceptualize reality-creativity as somehow not being "consigned" to an orientation toward actualization.

This creativity is precisely the essence which you take to be the originary metaphysical activity.

Nope, you're interpreting my concept of creativity-process through the essentialist filter of your own ontological preconceptions.

Where the only true telos is the very final "principle without presupposition"--a world of pure means not subjugated to a transcendental end

Well, one might describe process as a principle, an ontological quantity of pure creative dynamism featuring a drive to perpetual actualization, as opposed to the attainment of some presupposed eschatological, supreme goal at the end of time, hence its telic but not "subjugated to a transcendental end" character.

--your expression of creativity, which always reconfigures itself through the figure of the Human

And all other entities.

as an endless stream of different identities or actualities, operates through a "process" (which seems to me to retain some sinister "progressive" element of the dialectic)

No, process is evolutionary rather than progressive. If you've studied biological evolution, for instance, you know the difference between evolution and progress.

according to which true potentiality is always already exhausted as a perpetual passage from potentiality to always-shifting actualities.

Again, potentiality is only potentiality if it's engaged in the business of actualization, otherwise it becomes a useless contradiction.

And this nothingness is precisely the negativity by which your ontology finds itself captured. There is no essence, no fundamental identity to which humanity is consigned--but we cannot likewise ground humanity in a nothingness, a negativity, or an ineffability.

Nothingness, as I use the word and concept, refers to no-thing-ness, to the ontological fact that reality is ultimately not composed of solid objects of any kind, but rather is pure creative activity. But of course, as we know from residing in a universe full of entities, this pure creative activity is constantly corporealizing itself in configurations of itself that pass for solid beings, and in which identity and humanity and whatnot can and are grounded.

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 4:57:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 12:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
This merely repeats the old mistakes, on the ground of which something like "always-becoming" can manifest itself as a method of always suspending potentiality in its infinite reconstruction as a different actuality. And hence, the notion of "actualization" is essentialist precisely because it constitutes metaphysics as a sphere of always becoming some identity, without reflection on the possibility of being without predication, or, more concisely, being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity and the political/ethical implications which, as epiphenomena of metaphysical identity operations, attend those designations.

Again, potential, by definition, involves it's "suspension", concretization in its actualizations, incarnations. Mm-hmm, the actualization of potential always entails the selection of certain potentialities to actualize, and the sacrifice, the "giving away", as you phrase it above, of others. Without such selectivity and sacrifice all potential would be doomed to remain forever fallow, unrealized, and you would indeed have the ontological nihilistic situation of "being without predication", "being without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity", which care out anything. In other words, you'd have absolute vacuity. This would hardly be preferable, nor is it possible-conceivable, though you're apparently endeavoring to rationalize it. But really, one simply can't even imagine pure and utter vacuity or nothingness. The Buddhists certainly don't, their concept of sunyata, for instance, is not really that of a simple and abject void. Yes, I would defy you to visualize and describe a state of true and absolute nonexistence. If you manage to do so you'll be the first in the history of either Western or Eastern philosophy! And you'll be able to accomplish the neat feat of nontautologically answering the ultimate cosmological question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Incorrect--it is not to say that there will always be a perpetual state of static creativity. Rather, it is that, by consigning being always to a realm of some or other identity, the error is precisely in suspending the potentiality to not be by making otherwise-being a being whose only possible form is the form of only a different identity.

Once again, creativity is creative choice, it's choosing and settling on a particular form to take and pursuing the actualization of that choice. For example, we of course see this in the case of human artistic creativity. Michelangelo didn't balk at "consigning" the stone that he was working with to one form or another, at "suspending" its potentiality by actualizing his creative choices-vision. Certainly not, if he had the result would have been to impoverish the universe of his creations, of works of aesthetic genius and beauty such as his David or Moses. Well, Michelangelo's artistic MO epitomizes that of all creativity, all creativity involves sculpting itself into definite forms. The alternative, ", being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity" would mean a bleak ontological scenario devoid of true creativity; which, as ontological scenarios go, is as inconceivable as absolute nothingness.

It is more than the renunciation of other possibilities--it is nothing less than the renunciation of the capacity for non-actuality, the destruction of potentiality by delimiting a potentiality whose only power is to be something. My account of potentiality, with which your ontology has not reckoned (and with which it perhaps cannot ever reckon), produces a realm of "being whatever", not "always-becoming-something".

See my above comments.

It is not necessarily that you find some kind of essence in Man in the traditional teleological sense--that you find some "destiny" in man which he must meet on a singular path; rather, the process ontology which you advance is, I argue, trapped by the same metaphysical negativity which produces that essentialism. It is, to appropriate your terminology, reconfigured negativity.

I find only infinite possibilities, not their negation, in my ontological worldview.

I sometimes wonder whether I'm the only one on the site who sees the content below the sea of language (i.e., below the surface level onto which most people grasp firmly, never letting go), and who therefore can engage it properly.

Alas, I too fear that we may be the entire exclusive membership of your below-the-sea-of-language seers, not because we're so much deeper or more gifted than the others here, but because so many of them are prickly ideologues who tend to reflexively-defensively balk at anything not consistent with their economic, social, ethical, and ontological preconceptions.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 5:30:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In terms of my above use of Michelangelo's artistic MO as an example of the MO of creativity, it occurs to me that the ontological perspective that you're arguing for here, i.e., your effort to "escape consignment to actuality" and to rationalize "being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity", results in the picture of a big ole boring cosmic block of unsculpted stone, as it were, i.e., permanently neutralized and unrealized creative dynamism. Now then, to prefer such a blockish universe, shall we say, would indeed be a blockheaded thing, and as we both know that you're no blockhead I strongly suspect that you're not exactly a genuine subscriber to the oppositional ontological stance that you're defending. Am I correct?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Btw, it also occurs to me that in ancient religions and cosmologies the unsculpted block of existence, the unformed and fallow potentiality that you're arguing is the ideal ontological state of affairs, and that you're playfully(?) putting up against my ontology, was called chaos, and in all ancient religions it was understood that chaos always gives way to creation and cosmos. Why, how do we know that this is the case, well, we know this quite empirically because we, products of creativity, exist in this cosmos! That is, we know quite empirically that it's the nature of creativity to actualize! Yes, dear Cody, your very existence sufficiently refutes your position, but I'm enjoying our exchange even if it is indeed the case that your good-natured playing at a nihilistic ontology is a matter of serving up "poop on a platter".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:47:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:55:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/11/2012 12:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
While I sympathize--heavily--with the project of a concrete time of human experience,

Btw, my ontology is not merely one of human experience. Rather, human experience is merely one instantiation of the creative-processive-panexperientialist nature of being, from which we can extrapolate to reach a fundamental understanding the general nature of existence.

Oh, fair enough--the focus on "human experience" is merely convenient for our purposes, since we belong to homo sapiens.

particularly as it survives time as a series of quantified, negative parts (i.e., as a series of instants), I still suspect that your focus on a time which is still painfully captured by process

Well, these days there are many pop-quantum-physics-babble-spouting pseudosophers who try to sound deep by denying the linearity of time, making it out to be some sort of philosophically flatlanderish, metaphysically mundane concept. However, if we analyze the experience of time we find that the pseudosophers are overcomplicating it, that it in fact is something quite simple, i.e., a one-way successive, sequential stream of experience, i.e., it boils down to the forward march of change, creativity, and novelty, the processive production of eventities (events of the embodying forth of process-creativity). In a word, time is evolution, ever advancing evolution (advancing but not necessarily ascending, there's no steady Teilhardian ascent to an omega point of ultimate perfection, just the constant striving after actualizing the best possibilities available to a given entity). And personally I find the notion that time is perpetual evolution to be more liberating than captivating. Mm-hmm, if I'm "painfully captured" by it I'm certainly not feeling the pain.

Correct--I'm suggesting precisely a more profane concept of time, in which the measure of time no longer become quantification through the isolation of a negativity (i.e., the instant, which both divides past and present while uniting them as an ensurer of continuity, despite the instant being seemingly unidentifiable and unthinkable). Specifically, it is a time of pleasure, or of pure experience, or, more specifically, of a now which has never yet been lived and accessed as such. I'm inclined to think that our respective projects are not so far apart.

, or the giving away of potentiality to itself in the form of its own suspension (i.e., the giving away of its potentiality not to be), fails to account for itself.

Well, potentiality is only potentiality if it can and does "give itself away", as you phrase it, to actualization. If potentiality didn't do so, didn't ever make the self-limiting move from being potentiality to becoming actuality, well, then it wouldn't be potentiality any more, you'd have the paradox of absolutely inert potentiality, and this would be one of those instances in which the word "paradox" would just be a highfalutin philosophical euphemism for contradiction. Yes, the actualization of potential must always involve selectivity and limitation, i.e., creativity must get off the ontological fence, as it were, on the side of concretizing itself as this, or on the side of concretizing itself as that, it can't keep all of its options open in an individual eventity. There must always be a "giving away of potentiality" and a "giving away of the potentiality not to be" in the form of whatever embodiment it becomes.

The argument, however, is that whatever being requires nothing less than impotentiality as the potentiality not to be--as the potentiality to decouple oneself at will from some particular identity or form of life. The confusion, perhaps, is that this is primarily a political and ethical statement. Rather than arguing that a whatever being is one which can opt entirely out of existence (which seems to be a notion giving rise to the idea of the paradox of inert potentiality), I argue, rather, that it is a being which, while being, can, properly speaking, be whatever. Hence, the ontology of the whatever being is not that it is always consigned to a process of becoming, because it can suspend that process, through its very use, by becoming nothing in particular, which is a direct precondition for being whatever. Being is always the case--the whatever is what is of particular importance.

Between the dichotomy of an always being, which you reject, and an always becoming (something new), which you here advance, there is nevertheless a presupposition whose abolition is required to truly reach a time grounded concretely in experience as such. This peculiar element is that actuality to which I have earlier alluded, and to which we are, by your conception of time as always-becoming, irreparably consigned. To live in such a way that one can properly "be whatever", without presupposition or needless predication (particularly in the form of the expropriation of experience as some external property to be attributed as a predicate), we require nothing less than a giving up of the actual as the necessary realm into which we, like Heidegger's Dasein, are immediately thrown.

Not at all, actuality is the fruit constantly being borne by creativity-process, a never-ending succession of moments of temporarily-coming-into-existence actuality and its perishing and giving way to new fleeting moments of actuality.

The basis of the presupposition, however, is this transcendent notion of creativity integrated into your ontology. You seem to attribute some kind of intent or teleological quasi-consciousness to the universe, according to which the process of always-becoming affects itself, "bringing itself into being", so to speak. Just as, with the traditional metaphysical, political, and ethical categories, we cannot allow ourselves to be tripped up or captured by abstract fictions like "Man", "human rights", "sovereignty", "natural law", "citizenship", "dignity", etc., so too can we not allow ourselves, in any proper ontology, to posit as the foundation a transcendent creativity which operates as a place of negativity (a negativity upon which I argue that your ontology, as with Western ontology generally, grounds itself). It is an entirely unparticipated realm posited as the existence prior to the essence of the forms of creativity which manifest in the process of becoming-actual, but which cannot be thought in itself. If there is anything in our ontologies pointing to a nihilistic paradox, it is precisely this notion of creativity as the "absolute potentiality"--it never exists or manifests as such, in its own right, but must always interfere with the realm of the profane, in which it is always reconfiguring itself into some different temporary form. Hence, I think, your ontology does, in fact, rest on a fundamental negativity which, being the foundation, cannot be escaped by its progeny (i.e., by your ontology).
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:47:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:55:04 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/11/2012 12:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Currently, the appropriate project concerns not only one's potential to be this or that with the capacity to change at will; rather, it concerns also the originary power of potentiality, which is the potentiality not to be, in which one can always become something else but also nevertheless become nothing at all, suspending the process of infinite becoming and reconfiguration precisely by becoming willed non-becoming. This specific realm, which escapes consignment to actuality--even in the form of always becoming some new actuality or identity--is precisely that realm which, being able to decouple itself from actuality, cannot be grasped in your ontology.

Creativity is, by definition, not the striving after "willed non-becoming", but rather the drive to creative actualization. Here you're continuing to fail to fully grasp the implications of the insight that the fundamental nature of reality is creativity-experience-process, and to veer into the paradox of trying to conceptualize reality-creativity as somehow not being "consigned" to an orientation toward actualization.

See my comments on creativity.

This creativity is precisely the essence which you take to be the originary metaphysical activity.

Nope, you're interpreting my concept of creativity-process through the essentialist filter of your own ontological preconceptions.

This cannot be the case, because my ontology does not include essentialism. The reason that this filter exists is precisely because Western metaphysics falls victim to precisely this problem of a fundamental negativity. Hence, if it is true, as I argue, that your ontology falls victim to this very same problem, a critique of essentialism is here absolutely proper.

Where the only true telos is the very final "principle without presupposition"--a world of pure means not subjugated to a transcendental end

Well, one might describe process as a principle, an ontological quantity of pure creative dynamism featuring a drive to perpetual actualization, as opposed to the attainment of some presupposed eschatological, supreme goal at the end of time, hence its telic but not "subjugated to a transcendental end" character.

I will orient the inquiry a bit differently--what is there to say about the taking place of this process? For this process of always-becoming, what can we make of this becoming, and by what phenomenon do we arrive at one form preferable to another?

--your expression of creativity, which always reconfigures itself through the figure of the Human

And all other entities.

Certainly.

as an endless stream of different identities or actualities, operates through a "process" (which seems to me to retain some sinister "progressive" element of the dialectic)

No, process is evolutionary rather than progressive. If you've studied biological evolution, for instance, you know the difference between evolution and progress.

I am unaware of what distinction you, personally, are drawing between them.

according to which true potentiality is always already exhausted as a perpetual passage from potentiality to always-shifting actualities.

Again, potentiality is only potentiality if it's engaged in the business of actualization, otherwise it becomes a useless contradiction.

I suspect not--potentiality can always be represented for being as "I can". There is always the capacity to be actualized for some duration in some or other identity or form of being; yet, there is also always, in this capacity to be something, also the capacity in all cases to be whatever, which demands necessarily potentiality not to be.

And this nothingness is precisely the negativity by which your ontology finds itself captured. There is no essence, no fundamental identity to which humanity is consigned--but we cannot likewise ground humanity in a nothingness, a negativity, or an ineffability.

Nothingness, as I use the word and concept, refers to no-thing-ness, to the ontological fact that reality is ultimately not composed of solid objects of any kind, but rather is pure creative activity. But of course, as we know from residing in a universe full of entities, this pure creative activity is constantly corporealizing itself in configurations of itself that pass for solid beings, and in which identity and humanity and whatnot can and are grounded.

This is exactly the negativity to which I refer--the negativity of the transcendent creativity. It is something ineffable, unspeakable, and unthinkable. It is praxis that belongs to no agent, but is instead isolated as a self-grounding negativity which is used to ground the possibility of corporeal forms. This is precisely the same fracture that exists in the philosophical territory of the West, permeating it at every level--it is as the fracture between nature and culture, zoe and bios, inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion, violence and right, constituent power and constituted power, phone and logos, Man and animal. Just as the anthropogenic machine which produces man must exclude his animality to produce something metaphysically distinct as "Man"; just as the political community founds its own bios, qualified, political life, on the exclusion of natural, violent, pre-political life; just as discourse, often thought proper to humans, founds itself on the negativity of the suspension of phone to achieve meaning in discourse, in logos; so too does your ontological concept of creativity actualized through process repeat the creation of a negative dimension--the process--through which the passage between creativity and creation, much like the passage between constituent and constituted power, can take place. The inclusive exclusion founding Western philosophy in every other case also sees its manifestation here: creativity is included in the corporeal solely through its exclusion. In other words, pre-physical creativity, which must, as potentiality, be suspended to bring something like the created, the actual, into existence, is excluded from the realm of the created, just as natural, pre-political life, zoe, must be separated from bios to found the political community. Hence, as zoe is what politics, paradoxically, founds itself upon while excluding it, so too is creativity that which corporeal existence, in your ontology, founds itself upon while nevertheless excluding it as an exceptional case (when actuality collapses into potentiality to be actualized through a new suspension of potentiality). The dimension of negativity, as such, is not only the presupposition of some transcendent entity which grounds existence, but also the very process inherent in your ontology according to which creativity must be suspended and excluded in order for existence to take place.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:48:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 4:57:56 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/11/2012 12:05:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
This merely repeats the old mistakes, on the ground of which something like "always-becoming" can manifest itself as a method of always suspending potentiality in its infinite reconstruction as a different actuality. And hence, the notion of "actualization" is essentialist precisely because it constitutes metaphysics as a sphere of always becoming some identity, without reflection on the possibility of being without predication, or, more concisely, being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity and the political/ethical implications which, as epiphenomena of metaphysical identity operations, attend those designations.

Again, potential, by definition, involves it's "suspension", concretization in its actualizations, incarnations. Mm-hmm, the actualization of potential always entails the selection of certain potentialities to actualize, and the sacrifice, the "giving away", as you phrase it above, of others. Without such selectivity and sacrifice all potential would be doomed to remain forever fallow, unrealized, and you would indeed have the ontological nihilistic situation of "being without predication", "being without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity", which care out anything. In other words, you'd have absolute vacuity. This would hardly be preferable, nor is it possible-conceivable, though you're apparently endeavoring to rationalize it. But really, one simply can't even imagine pure and utter vacuity or nothingness. The Buddhists certainly don't, their concept of sunyata, for instance, is not really that of a simple and abject void. Yes, I would defy you to visualize and describe a state of true and absolute nonexistence. If you manage to do so you'll be the first in the history of either Western or Eastern philosophy! And you'll be able to accomplish the neat feat of nontautologically answering the ultimate cosmological question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

My ontology does not advance potentiality as nonexistence. It does, however, suggest that there is some error in defining potentiality in such a way so as to repeat the fracture between the "no longer" of creativity and the "not yet" of created in which the central element, the process of suspension upon which the latter founds itself through exclusion of the former, rests.

Incorrect--it is not to say that there will always be a perpetual state of static creativity. Rather, it is that, by consigning being always to a realm of some or other identity, the error is precisely in suspending the potentiality to not be by making otherwise-being a being whose only possible form is the form of only a different identity.

Once again, creativity is creative choice, it's choosing and settling on a particular form to take and pursuing the actualization of that choice. For example, we of course see this in the case of human artistic creativity. Michelangelo didn't balk at "consigning" the stone that he was working with to one form or another, at "suspending" its potentiality by actualizing his creative choices-vision. Certainly not, if he had the result would have been to impoverish the universe of his creations, of works of aesthetic genius and beauty such as his David or Moses. Well, Michelangelo's artistic MO epitomizes that of all creativity, all creativity involves sculpting itself into definite forms. The alternative, ", being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity" would mean a bleak ontological scenario devoid of true creativity; which, as ontological scenarios go, is as inconceivable as absolute nothingness.

Beings with the power of praxis--the power to grasp and control their own potentiality without reference to some transcendent creative power--are nothing like statues or slabs of stone.

It is more than the renunciation of other possibilities--it is nothing less than the renunciation of the capacity for non-actuality, the destruction of potentiality by delimiting a potentiality whose only power is to be something. My account of potentiality, with which your ontology has not reckoned (and with which it perhaps cannot ever reckon), produces a realm of "being whatever", not "always-becoming-something".

See my above comments.

Indeed.

It is not necessarily that you find some kind of essence in Man in the traditional teleological sense--that you find some "destiny" in man which he must meet on a singular path; rather, the process ontology which you advance is, I argue, trapped by the same metaphysical negativity which produces that essentialism. It is, to appropriate your terminology, reconfigured negativity.

I find only infinite possibilities, not their negation, in my ontological worldview.

The argument I in turn advance is that the realm of possibility which your ontology carves out is one which repeats and grounds itself upon a Western-style negativity.

I sometimes wonder whether I'm the only one on the site who sees the content below the sea of language (i.e., below the surface level onto which most people grasp firmly, never letting go), and who therefore can engage it properly.

Alas, I too fear that we may be the entire exclusive membership of your below-the-sea-of-language seers, not because we're so much deeper or more gifted than the others here, but because so many of them are prickly ideologues who tend to reflexively-defensively balk at anything not consistent with their economic, social, ethical, and ontological preconceptions.

I think you're at least partially right. I don't think many people here have the patience, which is really a shame, because I actually like engaging with you.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:50:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 5:30:03 PM, charleslb wrote:
In terms of my above use of Michelangelo's artistic MO as an example of the MO of creativity, it occurs to me that the ontological perspective that you're arguing for here, i.e., your effort to "escape consignment to actuality" and to rationalize "being whatever, without the inclusive/exclusive operations which carve out identity", results in the picture of a big ole boring cosmic block of unsculpted stone, as it were, i.e., permanently neutralized and unrealized creative dynamism. Now then, to prefer such a blockish universe, shall we say, would indeed be a blockheaded thing, and as we both know that you're no blockhead I strongly suspect that you're not exactly a genuine subscriber to the oppositional ontological stance that you're defending. Am I correct?

I think you misrepresent my ontology to an extent--it is not some nihilistic conquest of the actual by its reduction to nothingness--rather, it is merely recognition of the negativity in the constant suspension of the potential, and of the necessity for acknowledging a potentiality, which expresses itself in every actuality, not to be.

Btw, it also occurs to me that in ancient religions and cosmologies the unsculpted block of existence, the unformed and fallow potentiality that you're arguing is the ideal ontological state of affairs, and that you're playfully(?) putting up against my ontology, was called chaos, and in all ancient religions it was understood that chaos always gives way to creation and cosmos. Why, how do we know that this is the case, well, we know this quite empirically because we, products of creativity, exist in this cosmos! That is, we know quite empirically that it's the nature of creativity to actualize! Yes, dear Cody, your very existence sufficiently refutes your position, but I'm enjoying our exchange even if it is indeed the case that your good-natured playing at a nihilistic ontology is a matter of serving up "poop on a platter".

I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding to call it nihilistic. We aren't so far apart.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.

I think you're confusing true self-realization with ego. Our true potential is innate, but many people get lost in ego games and build a false mountain of reality to stand upon based upon their societal impressions. Coming to realize one's true nature as the essence of conscious matter, apart from society, structure, and ideas, is what I would call self-realization.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 5:29:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:47:56 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, fair enough--the focus on "human experience" is merely convenient for our purposes, since we belong to homo sapiens.

Yes, that's certainly something that we can readily agree on, i.e., we're members of the species Homo sapiens. However, we are not, as such, ontologically islanded entities in the cosmic sea of experience-existence, we're not sequestered from the rest of reality in our humanity. Rater, our life-form is in fact and quite literally a speciation, a biological incarnation of the mystery of creativity-reality, and so by examining our human experience we can extrapolate to and arrive at genuine and profound insights about the bigger, tranhuman picture of life and existence.

particularly as it survives time as a series of quantified, negative parts (i.e., as a series of instants), I still suspect that your focus on a time which is still painfully captured by process

Correct--I'm suggesting precisely a more profane concept of time, in which the measure of time no longer become quantification through the isolation of a negativity (i.e., the instant, which both divides past and present while uniting them as an ensurer of continuity, despite the instant being seemingly unidentifiable and unthinkable). Specifically, it is a time of pleasure, or of pure experience, or, more specifically, of a now which has never yet been lived and accessed as such. I'm inclined to think that our respective projects are not so far apart.

Yes, our ontologies are not all that antagonistic to one another. However, although I'm a panexperientialist, i.e., it's my view that the fundamental nature of reality is individualized quanta of experience-creativity-process engaged in the perpetual process of integrating into all of the entities, experience, actualized potential, and beauty of the universe, although this, in a nutshell, is my ontology-cosmology, I would also assert that experience never presents as a characterless abstraction and neutrality, as a timeless "time of pleasure, or of pure experience, … a now which has never yet been lived and accessed as such.

Well, to conceptualize experience in such an etherealizing fashion is to make of it an otherworldly absolute, "a barren tautological absolute, with a dream of life and motion" (to quote Whitehead, peace be upon him). In my vision experience is not at all this sort of infecundly, transcendentally, and solipsistically self-satisfied proposition. Experience-creativity, rather, is constant engagement and expression, engagement and expression issuing in forms that crystallize, particularize, and personify; that do, effectuate, and make; that feel, love, and live. Alas, you seem to be struggling to conceive of a form of experience that's somehow beyond experience in its purity and timelessness, but pure experience is actually experience in the trenches of actualization and concretization in our temporal cosmos. This is where we seem to philosophically part company.

Mm-hmm, a "concept of time, in which the measure of time no longer become quantification through the isolation of a negativity (i.e., the instant, which both divides past and present …", well, such a concept of time would paradoxically (and I remind you that the word "paradox" is often just euphemistic philosophical-speak for "contradiction") eradicate time in our empirical sense of the word. That is, if there is no longer a division of instants into past and present, then time in the intuitive sense of a changeful successiveness and progression gives way to a counterintuitive static state, to the aforementioned "barren tautological absolute" that you would apparently like to reduce experience to. Yes, in your metaphysical project all reality, all time and experience is inadvertently neutralized into a feckless and fallow, nugatory and nonprolific nihility. Personally, I would rather not go there, but to each his own.

The argument, however, is that whatever being requires nothing less than impotentiality as the potentiality not to be--as the potentiality to decouple oneself at will from some particular identity or form of life. The confusion, perhaps, is that this is primarily a political and ethical statement. Rather than arguing that a whatever being is one which can opt entirely out of existence (which seems to be a notion giving rise to the idea of the paradox of inert potentiality), I argue, rather, that it is a being which, while being, can, properly speaking, be whatever.

Being is the process of becoming something, settling down to becoming something specific, not remaining in a state of impotentiality and whateverness.

Hence, the ontology of the whatever being is not that it is always consigned to a process of becoming, because it can suspend that process, through its very use, by becoming nothing in particular, which is a direct precondition for being whatever. Being is always the case--the whatever is what is of particular importance.

Creativity is about becoming something, about the drive to actualize, not about suspending that drive and process and opting to become nothing in particular.

The basis of the presupposition, however, is this transcendent notion of creativity integrated into your ontology.

It's not a portrayal of creativity as transcendent in the sense of supernatural. Rather, it's a portrayal of creativity as transcendently fundamental to the reality that we partake of, not alien to it.

You seem to attribute some kind of intent or teleological quasi-consciousness to the universe,

Mentality and intentionality, not consciousness. Consciousness is a high-level formation of mentality, complete with self-consciousness and discursive thought processes and possessed only by embodiments of creativity with the necessary neurological equipment. By mentality I mean simply subjectivity and sentience (people, especially sci-fi writers, often use the word "sentience" as a synonym for "consciousness", they're quite incorrect to do so), sensitivity and responsiveness, the ability to feel and to modify and adapt. By intentionality I mean simply selectivity and directedness, the ability to prefer and direct oneself at this response and actualization rather than another possibility.

according to which the process of always-becoming affects itself, "bringing itself into being", so to speak. Just as, with the traditional metaphysical, political, and ethical categories, we cannot allow ourselves to be tripped up or captured by abstract fictions like "Man", "human rights", "sovereignty", "natural law", "citizenship", "dignity", etc., so too can we not allow ourselves, in any proper ontology, to posit as the foundation a transcendent creativity which operates as a place of negativity (a negativity upon which I argue that your ontology, as with Western ontology generally, grounds itself).

I would assert that creativity isn't transcendent in the sense that you're using the word, rather it's supremely down-to-earth, i.e., foundational to our material existence. And rather than an intellectual abstraction or philosophical fiction, it's the supremely empirical quantity that we encounter when we analyze our experience of existence.

It is an entirely unparticipated realm posited as the existence prior to the essence of the forms of creativity which manifest in the process of becoming-actual, but which cannot be thought in itself.

Not so, creativity is the, is manifest in the processes of existences that we all live, and move, and have our being in. That is, it's constantly and supremely participated!

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 5:34:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:47:56 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If there is anything in our ontologies pointing to a nihilistic paradox, it is precisely this notion of creativity as the "absolute potentiality"--it never exists or manifests as such, in its own right, but must always interfere with the realm of the profane, in which it is always reconfiguring itself into some different temporary form.

This constant configuring and integrating is creativity. Reality-creativity is this process, this integrative process, all the way down. Mm-hmm, creativity, it turns out, is really all that's manifest; the "realm of the profane", as you term it, i.e., our world of substance, is creativity doing its thing. The "realm of the profane" then is actually the realm of the sacred, of creativity's actualization of value. Hence the fundamental sanctity of existence and life; and the intrinsic preciousness of all human life, human life being a higher-level speciation of creativity (a topic, btw, that I deal with in my thread in the economics section on the concept of earning vs. the principle of the equal intrinsic sanctity of every human being).

Hence, I think, your ontology does, in fact, rest on a fundamental negativity which, being the foundation, cannot be escaped by its progeny (i.e., by your ontology).

Creativity is not a negativity, unless misconceived.

See my comments on creativity.

Back atcha

This cannot be the case, because my ontology does not include essentialism. The reason that this filter exists is precisely because Western metaphysics falls victim to precisely this problem of a fundamental negativity. Hence, if it is true, as I argue, that your ontology falls victim to this very same problem, a critique of essentialism is here absolutely proper.

Well, your ontology may not consciously include essentialism, but I still suspect that your fixation on identifying my ontology as essentialist may be a case of projection.

I will orient the inquiry a bit differently--what is there to say about the taking place of this process? For this process of always-becoming, what can we make of this becoming, and by what phenomenon do we arrive at one form preferable to another?

That it takes place within and without us; that it is the nature of nature; that it, its embodiments, are all that there is, all the way down. Ergo, we can discover and analyze its true forms by examining the existence that we partake of.

Certainly.

Agreed, then.


as an endless stream of different identities or actualities, operates through a "process" (which seems to me to retain some sinister "progressive" element of the dialectic)

I am unaware of what distinction you, personally, are drawing between them.

Progress is linearly-sustained movement toward a fixed-final-future, ultimate-ulterior goal; evolution, on the other hand, is simply development, the accumulation of creative developments, resulting from the striving after creative adaptation, expression, and betterment as its own and only goal. And of course evolution is not an ever-forward moving proposition, things can and do go south, species go extinct, suns go nova destroying worlds, it's not a constant progression toward the kingdom of heaven on earth, so to speak.

I suspect not--potentiality can always be represented for being as "I can". There is always the capacity to be actualized for some duration in some or other identity or form of being; yet, there is also always, in this capacity to be something, also the capacity in all cases to be whatever, which demands necessarily potentiality not to be.

Potentiality entails selectivity, i.e., eventually choosing to become this rather than that, to adopt this identity rather than the alternative. That is, potentiality must lead to "I can" giving way to "I did", "I have become"; of course with the potential for further change until an entity perishes.

This is exactly the negativity to which I refer--the negativity of the transcendent creativity. It is something ineffable, unspeakable, and unthinkable.

No, merely something irreducible.

It is praxis that belongs to no agent,

Not at all, creativity is not some ethereal abstraction unto itself belonging to no agent. Rather, creativity is the production of entities, creativity-process only presents as entities integratively interacting with other entities producing new entities and experience.

but is instead isolated as a self-grounding negativity which is used to ground the possibility of corporeal forms.

Creativity is not at all a negativity, it's the choice for actualization as positive, tangible entities that engage in the fundamental business of realizing their particular potentialities.

This is precisely the same fracture that exists in the philosophical territory of the West, permeating it at every level--it is as the fracture between nature and culture, zoe and bios, inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion, violence and right, constituent power and constituted power, phone and logos, Man and animal. Just as the anthropogenic machine which produces man must exclude his animality to produce something metaphysically distinct as "Man"; just as the political community founds its own bios, qualified, political life, on the exclusion of natural, violent, pre-political life; just as discourse, often thought proper to humans, founds itself on the negativity of the suspension of phone to achieve meaning in discourse, in logos; so too does your ontological concept of creativity actualized through process repeat the creation of a negative dimension—

Again, I don't conceptualize creativity as any manner of a negativity; nor is my ontology prone to fracturing our view or experience of reality, rather it's quite integrative.

the process--through which the passage between creativity and creation, much like the passage between constituent and constituted power, can take place. The inclusive exclusion founding Western philosophy in every other case also sees its manifestation here: creativity is included in the corporeal solely through its exclusion. In other words, pre-physical creativity, which must, as potentiality, be suspended to bring something like the created, the actual, into existence, is excluded from the realm of the created, just as natural, pre-political life, zoe, must be separated from bios to found the political community. Hence, as zoe is what politics, paradoxically, founds itself upon while excluding it, so too is creativity that which corporeal existence, in your ontology, founds itself upon while nevertheless excluding it as an exceptional case (when actuality collapses into potentiality to be actualized through a new suspension of potentiality). The dimension of negativity, as such, is not only the presupposition of some transcendent entity which grounds existence, but also the very process inherent in your ontology according to which creativity must be suspended and excluded in order for existence to take place.

To put it succinctly, creativity =/= a negativity; transcendent =/= supernaturally airy or alien, but rather ultimately internal (without any essentialist implications of a separate stuff residing inside of us); and what you term suspending ad excluding creativity = selectivity and actualization, without which reality would be that ole "barren tautological absolute".

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 5:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 11:48:04 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
My ontology does not advance potentiality as nonexistence. It does, however, suggest that there is some error in defining potentiality in such a way so as to repeat the fracture between the "no longer" of creativity and the "not yet" of created in which the central element, the process of suspension upon which the latter founds itself through exclusion of the former, rests.

What you're disapprovingly conceptualizing as "fracturing" and "suspending" is choosing and actualizing, which is simply de rigueur for creativity to be creative.

Beings with the power of praxis--the power to grasp and control their own potentiality without reference to some transcendent creative power--are nothing like statues or slabs of stone.

Yes, the beings that populate reality are not at all like statues or slabs of stone, precisely because what they are is creativity. Creativity, after all, always presents as entities engaged in praxis, in the expression of creativity; creativity is not to be misconceived as a free-floating fruitless abstraction hovering above the corporealizing fray of the universe. That is, the entities of the world, my configurations of creative dynamism, whose configuration in turn consists of configurations of configurations of configurations of creative dynamism, are in fact your "beings with the power of praxis", entities with and actualizing "the power of praxis" is what it's all about, and that power of praxis is the creativity that I'm touting.

See my above comments.

Indeed.

Mm-hmm.

The argument I in turn advance is that the realm of possibility which your ontology carves out is one which repeats and grounds itself upon a Western-style negativity.

I don't wish to rehash, see my responses to this above.

I think you're at least partially right. I don't think many people here have the patience, which is really a shame, because I actually like engaging with you.

Thank you.

I think you misrepresent my ontology to an extent--it is not some nihilistic conquest of the actual by its reduction to nothingness--rather, it is merely recognition of the negativity in the constant suspension of the potential, and of the necessity for acknowledging a potentiality, which expresses itself in every actuality, not to be.

If I've indeed misrepresented your ontology I sincerely apologize. However, what you recognize and seem to decry as some manner of "negativity" in the "suspension" of potential is merely, as I've said above, choice and concrescence, i.e., the selection and materialization of possibilities, without which the universe really would be a big ole boring cosmic block of unsculpted, undifferentiated potential. Isn't a universe full of entities preferable, what's to decry?!

I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding to call it nihilistic. We aren't so far apart.

If I've offended you with the epithet "nihilistic" I again apologize.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 7:04:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.

I agree with your actual premise, but disagree with the way you presented it.

In other words, I do believe that there is a such thing as self-actualization, although it isn't necessarily what we figure it is. Indeed, self-actualization seems bastardized, most often, becoming the actualization of another's or several other's ideal. Indeed, the majority of what humans pursue throughout life is a fallacious appeal to purely abstract social systems that have no real innate value.

However, we can physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually self-actualize, and it doesn't necessarily require that we appeal to any external interpretation of what we should be.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:33:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:10:02 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places self-actualization at the top of the pyramid. I posit that what he labels "self-actualization" is simply a derivative of the need for "esteem".

The aspects of "self actualization" are merely values that are enforced and imposed by society. We are pre-programmed to grant ourselves societal reward and punishment for our acts simply by being exposed to society.

In other words, one's "Full potential" is not innate, nor is the drive to achieve that "full potential". It is actually a drive to do what you think society would approve of to your maximum capacity in order to derive the maximum societal reward you are programmed to grant yourself.


You're simply describing self-realizationist thinking after it's been misappropriated by and reductionistically reinterpreted through an egoistic-cynical, crassly anti-humanistic conceptuality.

whaaaaaa??
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.