[lbo-talk] RE: (AI), observation, validity, and ethics

James Culbertson albion at speakeasy.net
Sat Nov 22 17:32:53 PST 2003


"The human mind, being a part of the Universe, is bounded by the laws of science, both known and unknown."... The human mind, being a part of the Universe, is subject to the laws of karma, is saved only by Jesus, is a complex biochemical reaction, is a conditioned set of habits, is Shiva's play, is a kind of computer or machine, is the dream of the blue turtle, is a unique phenomena in the history of evolution,...

In my direct experience, the problem here, and in particular with the debate in this thread, is the confusion that arises in the manner with which of the use of the verb "to be" (the Greeks should never have invented it) and the assumption of a common UNIverse and "reality." All of the statements in the paragraph above are correct in their experimental domains (ignoring for the moment ethics/effects). A problem arises when people forget (literally) to acknowledge the "versum" or domain from which they derive their criteria of observation and validation. Currently, most of the human ontological project of validation occurs by circumscribing what are valid answers (or explanations) to questions, what are valid questions, and most importantly, what are valid experiences upon which all this is mapped (and to leave these epistemological criteria or derivations unconscious).

One result of Yogic/Buddhist/Taoist/Sufi/Gnostic... sciences (primarily through experimentation as meditation/contemplation) is to bring forth these epistemological criteria to our conscious awareness. Some in the west have taken on the task of raising this kind of awareness (with mixed results), including: Wittgenstein, Collingwood, Blake, Buber, much of the existentialists, and particularly, Gregory Bateson (see "Steps to an Ecology of Mind" and "Further Steps to..."), Heinz Von Foerster (see the transcribed presentation "Ethics and Second Order Cybernetics," http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/foerster.html), and Humberto Maturana (see the papers, "Ontology of Observing: The Biological Foundations of Self Consciousness and of the Physical Domain of Existence," http://www.inteco.cl/biology/ontology/ ; "Reality: The Search for Objectivity, or the Quest for a Compelling Argument," http://members.tripod.com/enaction/id80.htm ; and "Science and Daily Life: The Ontology of Scientific Explanations.")

Limited forms of validation become intertwined with or (literally) as our "ego" or sense of self, the root of our living, and thus to untangle, uproot, or expand them is to in some sense die to our selves.

To begin to understand this fundamental nature of validation in human relations is to begin to understand why people can come to be so frightened of or angry at those with different belief systems. Hence, the vehemence of disagreement at times, the reactionary trajectory of the current republican "right" (and the fear/anger of many of us on the "left"), domestic violence, religious wars,... you name it.

Such a revolution will be an evolution or expansion of understanding whereby we co-create contexts that circumscribe all our "truths." Greed, selfishness, violence, factory farms, eco-cide, all that is fragmented, shortsighted, and unethical will fall away naturally. Acceptance and compassion will remain. And people will realize that all the debate about political, economic, judicial, revolutionary/evolutionary "systems" was just abstraction from the start.

Truth will evolve to trust to paraphrase the late Heinz Von Foerster.

This evolution is happening gradually. It's "there" or bust I figure.

James



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list