Replying to LO24340 --
> >On this becoming issue I propose we are not becoming
> >anything at all this is a pure figment of the human imagination
> >hoping there is some reason for our existence in this chaotic
> >looking universe
>
> Thank you for responding so strongly. Yes, "becoming" is a figment of the
> human imagination. But so is every other concept, even the concept of
> "being". I do not know about you fellow learners, but for me it is
> impossible to think without imagination. To imagine is for me to
> construct mentally, to let past mental constructions evolve into future
> mental constructions.
Yes that is called perception the classical mental model.
> >This is all spiritual guess work going nowhere this being and
> >becoming.
>
> Perhaps it is more a case of spiritual exploring than a case of guessing.
> Anyway, to guess is merely another form of imagining!
>
> I cannot help thinking of the history of physical sciences like biology,
> chemistry, geology and physics. Their evolution through many centuries as
> sciences is a gripping story of observations, wild guesses and weeding out
> the unsuitable ones. Their object of study is invariably a physical rather
> than spiritual system. In the evolution of all of them the
> "becoming-being" imagination is now essential.
I think the concepts of scientific thought will not take the same road as
it did in the last 500 years because of what we now know from all the
sciences. You might be referring here to alchemy and chemistry astronomy
and astrology, but I think that metaphor does not exist in our modern
world as it did hundreds of years ago. Although on the other hand we have
spiritualists talking to heaven knows what and coming up with bizarre
ideas. Remember we make it essential because we deem it to be so. It is
like a value it is valued for the reason it has value.
> Although it entered the
> scene unobtrusively a couple of centuries ago, it became increasingly
> important to to make sense out of mountains of data. A biologist will
> seldom, if ever, use the words "becoming"-"being", but his/her
> articulations are rich in words such as "physiology" (for becoming) and
> "morphology" (for being). It is the same for a chemist who rather uses the
> words "process" (for becoming) and "structure" (for being). The physicist
> is perhaps the most eccentric of them all, using "time" (for becoming) and
> "space" (for being).
>
> Should we explore the humanities, we will find this same duality unique in
> its asymmetry. For example, think of "verb" (becoming) and "noun" (being)
> in languages, "methodology" (becoming) and "model" (being) in management,
> "practice" (becoming) and "theory" (being) in philosophy. What are we
> really trying to understand with the concept "action research"? Why are so
> relatively few people sensitive to "action research"?
>
> The hot questions for me are:-
> (1) What do we actually perceive with these many instances of
> "becoming-being"?
> (2) Is it possible to think without making use of this asymmetrical
> duality?
Yes it is.
I see this slightly differently, humans are motivated to have, be or do
focused on a particular value which creates the need to action. Generally
processes (functions) structures are created to deliver the the need
(desire). e.g. we have roads to move our resources, structures to fulfill
needs and wants. If the process is not needs based it generally becomes
extinct. e.g. locomotives, horses
> Let us contemplate briefly question (1). It may be quite possible that
> "becoming-being" is purely something of the imagination (i.e. a mental
> construct) which all the specialists of the material world imagine INTO
> the objects which they study, but which actually does not exist in these
> objects. This may then very well imply that specialists of the abstract
> world have to honour this "becoming-being" so as not to fell victim to
> materialism.
>
> On the other hand, this awareness to a mental "becoming-being" may be the
> very reason why we fail to understand the material world and thus cannot
> pay more attention to the spiritual world! Perhaps the only becoming is
> the spiritual world with the physical world merely the being. But I do not
> think that this is the case. Why?
>
> One of the things which I focus very much on, is the "awareness" of
> living species other than humans on "becoming". My won observations led me
> to the conclusion that each species has its own "awareness of becoming".
> Each species responds in a manner typical of that species to external
> forces on its becoming. That is why cats will never behave like dogs,
> parrots like eagles or succulents plants like petunias.
This is my point I do not think that we have any awareness above the basic
needs to survive (plus a whole host of so called higher values derived
from the death instinct) which in the animal kingdom is food, protection,
procreation. These are the motives.
Animals cannot bind time they can only effect each others nervous systems
within space-humans however are effected by those long dead. ( were is the
continual, succession in animals (only in the gene structure)- I think
becoming is not the correct term here)
> When we get down to the level of elementary particles, we have a most
> extradinary categorisation of them into "fermions" or "bosons". For
> example, electrons are "fermions" whereas photons are "bosons". When
> brought together under the same conditions, "fermions" will become
> "differently" while "bosons" will become "similarly". That is why photons
> can give rise to laser technology whereas electrons cannot! That is why
> electrons can give rise to semiconductor technology whereas photons
> cannot.
>
> >Maybe we are totally motivated by our needs, desires and >fears, losses,
> hopes and this has nothing to do with becoming. >How do we know that all
> religions, cultures are not outputs of >human motivation?
>
> Gavin, how do we picture human motivation? As for me, I try to picture it
> as an essential part of a much richer picture involving the whole of
> reality. When we think of human motivation, we already assume the
> principle of causality -- an effect has a cause.
Human values (motivations) are extremely easy to identify.
I do not think so. Cause effect is just a processes one cannot assume
this. I have tested this with my motivational profiles on hundreds of
subjects. I can get people to act independent of this process.
However everything we do at some point must have been a causes or an
effect or maybe an effect. This comes back to time binding again. It is
like having a continuous field [cf] and when we look at it it is a
discriminated object [DO] but really it is of the continuos field. What we
do is, we either observe one or the other with the one in the background.
There is an entire theory on this subject
> But what do we have
> between the cause and the effect? If we see cause and effect as beings,
> then what is between them if it is not "becoming"? If that between them is
> a "being", then what are the cause and the effect if not "becoming"? If
> all of them are merely a string of "beings", is the stringing itself then
> not a "becoming"?
I think what you are doing is trying to give the continuos field and the
discriminated object meaning.
Like the "bosons" a discriminated object and the structure the continuos
field. Although I do not think this is such an accepted metaphor.
For me it is a very large jump from here to there. But okay if that's how you
see it.
> What I do know about me is that when somebody else begins to prescribe my
> own motivation, a deep unrest begins to unlash within me which I have to
> control very much otherwise I lash out destructively. Therefor I resist to
> prescibe somebody else's motivation. This causes a great tension within
> myself -- I would love to see them change for the better, but I would hate
> to see any prescriptions from me causing them to change for the worse.
I do understand this however, for me to first understand my motivations
was the most releasing feeling, I felt like dying and being reborn.
Understanding ones personal motivation is the first step to releasing one
from the binding of time, it releases the shackles of the past and
unleashes a burst of energy that is fantastically creative. Tension is
purely the product of our fears and the value of our desires, hopes, put
neatly the feared disadvantages and our hoped for advantages. if one knows
what our motivations are one can utilise that gap between our thinking,
perception and action with eloquence.
> I am now able to describe my own motivation in terms of "free energy". My
> "free energy" is that part of all my energy which is not locked up in
> sustaining my present personality. It is my "free energy" which I use to
> make further changes to my personality. Thus for me in terms of myself
> there is a direct connection between motivation and personality. But I
> also know through close observations that many other people has never even
> though of any possible connection, even distantly, between personality and
> motivation. Why not?
Here's the simple answer, each role we play mother, father, teacher,
brother, etc we respond differently, each has different values. I
calculated there are over 60 000 million million personality combinations.
So why bother it is like trying to count all the grains of sand on a
beach.
> >I now know that there is no such thing as personality, how
> >do we measure the so called 2500 personality traits. We can't!!!!!
>
> I will rather say "there is no such thing as FIXED personality TYPES". My
> own observations allow me no other conclusion as that each human has a
> unique personality which evolves through time. A person meanders
> (transform) from type to type according to his/her personality, some
> faster or deeper than others.
See my answer above. I believe we do not have personalities but rather
role responsive, value laden concepts within our mental representations-
phew there I managed to get it out.
> What I also do know is that the more I become involved with the whole
> personality of a particular person, the more I understand the motivation
> of that person. In other words, the personality of a person is for me the
> key to understand the becoming of that person.
We can never know the whole personality what we can know very simply is
the motivations.
> >I have not found one scrap of evidence from all this to suggest
> >that we are becoming this is that.
> >
> >I also suggest that if this gives meaning to ones life then that
> >is fine. Whatever we believe to be true is true for us. (see the
> >other thread on human expression- Frankels meaning of Life
> >or Logo therapy)
>
> I cannot say the same. There is overwhelming evidence for me
> that there is indeed a "becoming pattern" with the form
> DIFFERENCE times CHANGE "becomes more than nothing"
> rather than
> DIFFERENCE times CHANGE "is nothing"
As I mentioned above you trying to give meaning to these concepts which if
this gives meaning to you that is fine and actually healthy, but I cannot
see or intuit this to be so for me it is a huge leap of faith for me to
say that process (continuos field) is "becoming" the discriminated object
"being".
Take care
Gavin
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.