This initial essay in Opening Fields of Contact begins with a chapter that justifies an interest in Systems Theory from a first principles grounding of reality as constituting of systems.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I really began trying to distill this kind of integrated clarity since i was like 13, and its really powerful, cause once there is a foundation of simple statements about the things in the world in the most pared down form, you can really go about any idea and sense where they fit into the map of reality.
Literally! That’s usually how I link multiple fields of studies in my articles 😊 I’ve never been able to see anything as separate without noticing the underlying mechanisms
I worked through your piece on the Cogito, it was truly beautiful. I think we share an important thought: one must get before Descartes and realize that Cartesian solipsism is the source of entire libraries of European philosophy that produce alienation of the self from the world. I think this is the Heideggerian move, perhaps explicitly but definitely implicitly, in a Dasein thats geworfen into the world.
The way I articulate it, at least, is that what one realizes first in consciousness is not that I exist, but that there is something that exists beyond me, before me, of which I am a part. It is the partiality of consciousness that strikes one before individual identity. But the Cogito begins with I think, and then everything outside I think is an illusion, happening somewhere — wherever resides this hallucinating entity. And then one can never touch the world, even with Kant’s noumena and phenomena: it is like asymptotically lessening the gap, but there is always a foundational gap. What you are doing is showing that the source of that gap becomes a cage, based on an initial fallacy about the beginning of experience. That's what I'm trying to express in beginning systems theory with those three facts, is starts with being, then you as a part exist, then you relate to a world. Its the ordering of that ontology to get behind Descartes that I think we share. I was also super appreciative of the historical context, I don't think I was ever exposed to that framing.
I’ve naturally had this way of thinking since I was a kid and I used to think it was broken software 😭
Yeah, I know what you mean. I really began trying to distill this kind of integrated clarity since i was like 13, and its really powerful, cause once there is a foundation of simple statements about the things in the world in the most pared down form, you can really go about any idea and sense where they fit into the map of reality.
Literally! That’s usually how I link multiple fields of studies in my articles 😊 I’ve never been able to see anything as separate without noticing the underlying mechanisms
Thats why i subscribed
Thanks! I won’t disappoint 😊
I worked through your piece on the Cogito, it was truly beautiful. I think we share an important thought: one must get before Descartes and realize that Cartesian solipsism is the source of entire libraries of European philosophy that produce alienation of the self from the world. I think this is the Heideggerian move, perhaps explicitly but definitely implicitly, in a Dasein thats geworfen into the world.
The way I articulate it, at least, is that what one realizes first in consciousness is not that I exist, but that there is something that exists beyond me, before me, of which I am a part. It is the partiality of consciousness that strikes one before individual identity. But the Cogito begins with I think, and then everything outside I think is an illusion, happening somewhere — wherever resides this hallucinating entity. And then one can never touch the world, even with Kant’s noumena and phenomena: it is like asymptotically lessening the gap, but there is always a foundational gap. What you are doing is showing that the source of that gap becomes a cage, based on an initial fallacy about the beginning of experience. That's what I'm trying to express in beginning systems theory with those three facts, is starts with being, then you as a part exist, then you relate to a world. Its the ordering of that ontology to get behind Descartes that I think we share. I was also super appreciative of the historical context, I don't think I was ever exposed to that framing.
Yeah exactly people always forget to include historical context, because people are a product of their time which means so are beliefs.