Instances of Reactivation, Part V
To clarify, I will briefly return to the first sequence from my previous post,
1. The first ambiguity here is the status of these “I’s” which make up a flock. (I may be better served by using a more conventional term than flock…I will call this a population of “I’s” so that the scientific and statistical nature of the problem becomes more apparent.)
2. Can an “I” be a particle, a part, or is a subject always some sort of unity, a whole? To be honest about it, I have assumed that the designation of the “I” did refer to a unit of some sort, even though I saw the unit designated as more or less arbitrarily designated. In other words, I see this unit as subject to further subdivision, into yet other “I” populations which could be said to compose it.(These smaller "I's" would also yield to further subdivision,to infinity.) So far, we have failed to broach the issue of the level Totalization is occurring or what the significance is of it happening simultaneously, congruently, and analogously on several levels which, as having different scales and dynamics, wouldn’t be expected to “clump” in the same manner.
3. That the population of “I’s” stands at the narrow mouth of a forking path implies an inside and an outside. It also implies that the narrow mouth of a forking path is objectively existent, that it is a given. What happens if I take that away—take away the idea of the choice being pre-existent and there to confront, challenge, impede and interrupt the “I’s” who also, apparently, have been pre-formed as “I’s”? I really want to take this away—I don’t want choices to be primary or preliminary to the choosing “I”.
4. The “I’s” singly or as units (elements or counts) within a population, as they stand before the fork of the path, appear to be conscious—in bewilderment, consternation, frustration, or reflection. This has to be an artifact of our conventional way of viewing—a projection we make upon this tableau. Interestingly, we don’t (I don’t anyway) as readily make the same projection onto the population, (we don’t automatically think of the population as being conscious.) But each single “I” is also a population.
5. “None can pass or allow any other to pass.”—this implies an intentionality of the “I’s”. I have to find a way to block this implication because I don’t want it.
A bunch, a flock, a crowd of “I”s stands at the narrow mouth of a forking path which is in turn at the mouth of a Galton’s Quincunx. None can pass or allow any other to pass.
1. The first ambiguity here is the status of these “I’s” which make up a flock. (I may be better served by using a more conventional term than flock…I will call this a population of “I’s” so that the scientific and statistical nature of the problem becomes more apparent.)
2. Can an “I” be a particle, a part, or is a subject always some sort of unity, a whole? To be honest about it, I have assumed that the designation of the “I” did refer to a unit of some sort, even though I saw the unit designated as more or less arbitrarily designated. In other words, I see this unit as subject to further subdivision, into yet other “I” populations which could be said to compose it.(These smaller "I's" would also yield to further subdivision,to infinity.) So far, we have failed to broach the issue of the level Totalization is occurring or what the significance is of it happening simultaneously, congruently, and analogously on several levels which, as having different scales and dynamics, wouldn’t be expected to “clump” in the same manner.
3. That the population of “I’s” stands at the narrow mouth of a forking path implies an inside and an outside. It also implies that the narrow mouth of a forking path is objectively existent, that it is a given. What happens if I take that away—take away the idea of the choice being pre-existent and there to confront, challenge, impede and interrupt the “I’s” who also, apparently, have been pre-formed as “I’s”? I really want to take this away—I don’t want choices to be primary or preliminary to the choosing “I”.
4. The “I’s” singly or as units (elements or counts) within a population, as they stand before the fork of the path, appear to be conscious—in bewilderment, consternation, frustration, or reflection. This has to be an artifact of our conventional way of viewing—a projection we make upon this tableau. Interestingly, we don’t (I don’t anyway) as readily make the same projection onto the population, (we don’t automatically think of the population as being conscious.) But each single “I” is also a population.
5. “None can pass or allow any other to pass.”—this implies an intentionality of the “I’s”. I have to find a way to block this implication because I don’t want it.
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 1:17 PM
3 Comments:
Many things are a unity and cannot be said to be an 'I'.
I think a criteria for being an 'I' is that one is constituted as an 'I' by itself for itself, and possible for others as well.
I think your criteria boils down to the question of consciousness, of its paramount importance.
-Y
I agree.
It is not a branch of philosophy that I am interested in. It is called Philosophy of Mind in the USA, and Phenomenology in the EU. Two different approaches toward a common goal of understanding what consciousness is, and what a self is.
I think cognitive psychology can give much more qualified answers.
Post a Comment
<< Home