The hedonistic eroticization of wisdom that goes under the garb of Pan-psychism or Intelligent Design or Value Ontology or Experientialism, etc. as "philosophy" is more properly termed, Erosophy: "A more intimate love of wisdom", found in the title of one [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Ainsophy is an erosophy that loves its pre-possessed truth - truth is love is value.
Quote :
"Eros was the term more closely associated with erotic love. It is a possessive love. It is the love that wants to have its object for itself. The eros lover objectifies his object and subjectifies himself. "She is mine." "Philosophy" is not "erosophy" because the love of wisdom we intend is not one which presumes to have wooed and caught wisdom, like a trophy wife, like an achievement.
Agape is the selfless type of love. It is the love that wants to be had by its object. The agape lover subjectifies her object and objectifies herself. "Take me. I give myself to you." "Philosophy" is not "agaposophy" because the love of wisdom we intend is not one which places wisdom on such a high pedestal that it sacrifices everything else for it.
Storge is the love for your family, which came automatically to you from childhood. It is instinctual allegiance. It is natural bias, unintentional preference. "We are together because we have always been together. I have always loved you. I never had to begin to love you." "Philosophy" is not "storgesophy" because the love of wisdom we intend is not something which comes naturally to us, as though we did not have to be deliberate and patient and thoughtful.
So, we begin to see a picture of that love of wisdom which really is meant by compounding philos and sophia.
Philosophy is not about taking knowledge, as though you could actually attain it and own it, as certain, as a possession of your own.
It is not about giving up your individuality in the search for knowledge, submitting yourself to serve reason, to be mastered by logic.
And it is not something you do not have to will, or to work for, which you have automatically, from birth.
Philosophy is about coming alongside Wisdom (Knowledge, Reason, Logic, etc.) as a peer, rising to the challenge —what is neither Wisdom nor against Wisdom: uncertainty and will."
The drive towards efficiency can easily became a case for "intelligent design", but these are lessons from nature.
Didn't they have bound feet for girls in China? The intelligent foot was growing into the shape for which the binding allowed.
There's 'domestication', and there's also nature's own self-organization around optimal stability [not too fixed, not too fluid],, and these moulds they prepared, reveal how the first domestication or culturing of rice and other crops would have occurred. The discovery of agri-culture is exploitation of such natural tendencies of root-networks organizing around/towards/from stable templates - furrows?.
I dont know, if this would also explain the crop-circle phenomenon, although can't explain why it has errupted only during these modern times. Better than citing Intel. Design theories to explain it.
I think somebody made those crop-circles. Sure, some of them could be argued to resemble proportions and structures which are found elsewhere in nature as well, but they are too perfect for that large of a scale. They are an idealised form which was then recreated on a field, probably by men.
As for the moulds, Some plants do well in a jar, maybe even need the security and care of a jar and a gardner while others don't do that well. That's selection upon selection, generation by generation by a gardner looking for certain results.
It also happens in nature where some plants have become adapted to growing in small moulds, on a cliff or on a tree, in that case also at times parasitical as well.
I think somebody made those crop-circles. Sure, some of them could be argued to resemble proportions and structures which are found elsewhere in nature as well, but they are too perfect for that large of a scale. They are an idealised form which was then recreated on a field, probably by men.
The staggering proportions make me think there are two sets,, possibly the really occuring ones due to magnetic fields, and then hoaxes imitating them,, of course you wouldn't get something like [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] naturally…
Quote :
As for the moulds, Some plants do well in a jar, maybe even need the security and care of a jar and a gardner while others don't do that well.
Yes. So, I would say, there "is" no order in chaos, but "we" can detect intelligent patterns in the spread of the most irrational self-organizings. How plant root-networks tend to resourcefulness in the most 'haphazard' way show Our limits of self-organizing in this world. Of course stochastic science is all about detecting this.
On the other hand, Intel. design and Deleuze's spinozaism show the clear mesh of how alternate creationism and "escape from moulds" can go hand in hand and work side by side:
In terms of entropy, The entropy of a system increases over time. The level of entropy can be decreased locally at the expense of increasing the level of entropy somewhere else. For example, as the sun is emitting its light, the entropy in the solar system overall increases but locally on this planet, self-organising organisms decrease the level of entropy in the form of being alive as an organism.
In that sense, when I compare two things in terms of entropy, I call the thing with a lower level of entropy less chaotic than the thing at a higher level of entropy.
There is a level of order present in a thing but if it's not alive then it's usually always decreasing in its level of order over time. Exponentially so, meaning that a lot of matter in the universe can be considered to be roughly on the same level of entropy, which we can then put into the same category and call it chaos.
Self-organising is in most life-forms irrational, if by rational we mean this capability of an organism to be self-reflective and delay immediate reactions to stimuli.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3985 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Hm, don't know about what I just wrote about putting a lot of matter into the "chaos" category because it has the same level of entropy, that's actually not true.
What we call chaos seems to be more often about whether or not it serves us in some recognisable way or form. The compost heap itself is a place of decay but in relation to the overall garden it serves its purpose and so we would probably not call it something chaotic. It's part of the overall eco-system which as a whole produces life, e.g. order, locally in the plants and organisms.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
The level of entropy can be decreased locally at the expense of increasing the level of entropy somewhere else.
Its also called sacrifice in theo-philosophical terms.
What I am saying is not every ordering is a positive/life-enhancing order.
An organized order doesnt automatically indicate intelligence, as Intel. Designers would like to argue, continuing in the foot-steps of neo-Plotinus that Nature = Order = God.
Not just plant roots, but land-masses too, and geo-"graphics", show why some arrangements, in interaction with so many factors of environmental currents, possess "the best fit", while some don't, even if we managed to find an order to its chaos.
Every sustaining is going to possess some pattern of logic, but we can't conclude every pattern of logic is intelligent since life is more than about self-sustaining logic or merely coping in a given condition. Its why I say lessons of excess from nature don't automatically translate to proof of ID.
"The second theory, which is presented in the investigations of Japanese scientists on the Tricholoma matsutake species, shows that fairy rings could be established by connecting neighbouring oval genets of these mushrooms. If they make an arc or a ring, they continuously grow about the centre of this object."
Quote :
"A Japanese pufferfish makes an extraordinary sand sculpture to attract and win a mate."
In these matters, remember that it is necessary diligently to shun this fauly, and to avoid it cautiously, as a most grievous error; the fault, namely, of supposing that all the parts of animals were formed with a view to the uses to which they have been adapted; lest you should suppose that the bright luminaries of the eye were produced that we may be able to see with them; and that the pillars of the legs and thighs, built upon the feet, were united for this purpose, that we might take long steps on the road; and, moreover, that the fore-arms fitted to the stout upper arms, and the hands ministering on either side, were given us that we might perform those offices which would be necessary for the support of life.
Other suppositions of this sort—whatever explanations men give— are all preposterous, reasoning being thus perverted. For nothing was produced in the body to the end that we might use it; but that which has been produced, being found serviceable for certain ends, begets use. Neither was the faculty of seeing in existence before the light of the eyes was made, nor that of speaking with words before the tongue was formed; but rather the origin of the tongue long preceded speech, and the ears were made long before any sound was heard; and, in fine, all members as I think, existed before there was any of them discovered. They could not, therefore, have been produced for the sake of being used. [The Nature of Things]
preposterous (adj.) 1540s, from Latin praeposterus "absurd, contrary to nature, inverted, perverted, in reverse order," literally "before-behind" (compare topsy-turvy, cart before the horse), from prae "before" + posterus "subsequent." Related: Preposterously; preposterousness.