edited

edited

I started working on my animated series again tonight lol. Trying to put my philosophy into an entertaining format. I think you're right. And personally I'm not smitten with Academia. Its a good gig and all- I see that. There's lots thats great about it. But you've heard the metaphor of Odysseus tied to the masts of the ship- he could listen to the call of the sirens as long as he was tied and couldn't do anything about it. And to a Nietzschean thinker like myself- I just feel like I've got to wager my life to make a change. Academia seems far too comfortable for that. And the context of thinking directs the course of the thinking- some views can't be seen until you've taken a few steps outside. Like Hunter S Thompson says about journalism- Gonzo- You've got to meet and confront reality- try to push it a little and feel it push you back- to really understand it. Like Lacan says about Fantasies... you've got to live them out, really go through them, so you can move on with what's real and leave behind what's illusion... rather than living your life in pursuit of them. Discussion and books can teach a great deal- and of course we're all living lives- but I think to really understand philosophy you have to live it and feel the push and pull of reality. And besides- people like us- and the academics- like you say- they're only one type of person. One type. To understand reality and move beyond our own bubble a bit its probably best to try to avoid just leaping into another one. Can you communicate your philosophy to a kid from the hood?

Are you in Academia? Is Philosophy your hobby? What do you do?

I remember too growing up in Florida and just feeling like my soul was being cramped. Extinguished. And then when I discovered philosophy and really began to live my life- yeah- I jumped into a different game- different rules- and whereas before I was always a sore fit- suddenly I could breathe. I don't think it means that we're so much better than others- just that we emphasize a side of humanity that's less respected in certain societies- and its an important side. So here's to finding ourselves and our lives and not trying to be something we're not. "Become that which though art ;)"

Probably not that much is at stake. It won't rock your world ethically if you suddenly see where I am coming from. It'll only change your mind that Heidegger was indeed saying something fresh. — macrosoft

I definitely agree Heidegger was saying something fresh. And your comparison with Hegel is a good one too. Right- I've benefited a lot from reading the phenomenology.... and hearing other people explain it to me especially lol And yes, I do not believe we live in the time of the clock either. For me a lot of this came from discussions of being and becoming and questioning how it is that I experience time... as well as Bergson's theorem that when we say time we're really talking about space. Love me some Bergson!

It may well be that 999 out of 1000 humans speaking in new ways are really wasting our time with their own confusion. But occasionally 1 of them really has grasped something new. — macrosoft

All my talk of Being and Becoming has got to cue you in that I'm down for the difficult language of philosophical thought. In my demand that philosophy talk in common language as well- there's a deeper demand there.

Philosophy has got to lead to something!

Obviously some views could disagree. But I really think philosophy is something to be embodied and lived. It has to enter into our conversations. Its like a new eyeball. When you're describing this eyeball to someone- it may be very difficult language and very scientific. But when they've learned it they put this eyeball in their head- and now they see things differently. Once we've expanded our meaning of concepts like truth, etc- we don't need to explain them again each time. We just use them with a different sense.

Basically what I'm really getting at here is- Philosophy for what? How come? Why philosophy at all?

This isn't a fully honest question because I know my what and why. Philosophy was the forge that changed my thought and my life. I'm grateful to it.

Sometimes its punctuated equilibrium- you've got to spend a lot of time in the dirths of abstract thought for seemingly no reason but to find all the things you disagree with or else don't understand. But the reason you're down there is because- yes- you like it. But more than that- because of those punctuated moments of truth! Epiphany! And Truth changes our world- our lives.

When I look at the world around us- politics in america and the world- the "liberal elites" of the media- the ones who used to protect us from our own worst instincts- and subject us to theirs- they've been rocked by the populism of social media and the flattening of information in general. Its a more populist world of information. So we can't rely on protection anymore from those who "know better'. The democracy is a more true democracy- which means just as dumb as its people.

So philosophy- truth- all these things become more important than ever. And one thing I like about my perspective on things is that it helps breed a philosophical humility. TLDR- we're just animals bro... animal brains. We only see from our own tiny perspective. Respect and love differences, etc, etc yadadya- And at the same time- Demistify your intellectual concepts on God that think they KNOW to make room for the mystery of true spirituality.

So I come on to this forum as a- hmmm. its been 10 years lying dormant all these thoughts. And I feel like they have legs. I feel like they should go somewhere. Even if every single thought within this has been said before- its something of a new center. I've searched for it in writings and I've seen parts and pieces here and there, etc. But the big picture of it- the central thrust of it- It feels like Nietzsche to me but it doesn't sound like Nietzsche at all. It echoes Bergson, Deleuze, Rorty, so many, so many others of course. But its got its own identity.

So what to do?

I'm working on an animated series. Just writing it. Its been a long project. It is sooo difficult.

I find myself in the weird situation of thinking that I have something important to communicate and share in the world of philosophy. At this point I'm convinced that I do. Even if you disagree you can just play along with a- "supposing you did have something new to communicate..."

It's the "what now". Can I meet some professor and partner with him and have him do all the dirty work because he's chosen a career in academia anyways? Is that a kind of shortcut for me? Is that realistic.

Or should I just keep plugging away at this animated thing and try to reach a broad market.

The Acedemic world or the popular world?

What do you do with a problem like Maria?

If this was Athens I would walk into the town center and debate with Socrates I suppose....

— Terrapin Station

most definitely lol

How precise is this present? And where does this notion of a perfectly precise present come from if not from clocks? — macrosoft

A precise present is a way I wouldn't describe the only everything "present" of the flux. There's a difficulty in having to use the very words you're trying to redefine. Of trying to talk about things beyond the limits of our language using language. The mind needs past present and future to make sense- I'm arguing these don't exist outside of the mind but of course I need to use these words to talk because I am using my mind.

I'm not sure its worth chopping up more on this particular subject. The differences- the stubbornness of the disagreement will probably reflect in some other area of conversation as well. Maybe it'll be clearer then- what is at stake?

For me, my sense, my feeling when I talk about our different concepts of time- is that I feel like I am reaching for a demystifying of this time process- and you believe you are speaking of a time concept that has greater depth than what I am speaking of.

When you talk about the importance of "reclaiming your time" ;) It sounds bizarre to me that this could be accomplished through abstract talk of time unless there's a sort of white magisters wig put upon the concepts. Maybe I just don't see it and its there (probably the case). But also I think there's a wall being erected against the power of other's values and opinions using a doped up philosophy concept that sometimes urges for obscurity (as you say Heidegger's later years)- which does not seem in good faith. The philosopher doesn't want to be subject to the opinions and juddments of others. Some would say Philosophy began with this battle over who's judgments shall reign- "I will tell you what you value is base, and what I value is the true good!".

When I hear heidegger talk about time it seems to me like he's tracing out the complicated specifics and minutiae of how different things can be related to each other- almost like a joke that goes too long into the specifics. I feel like I could imitate/mock Heidegger's style and talk earnestly about the relatioinships of past present and future ad nauseum- but this detailed tracing of the tangled web of our experience to me doesn't seem to have much of a point besides feeling very smart and philosophical posturing. Here's my example-

" Sometimes the Time of our present is experienced as the living past as its understood and conditioned by a future that is already constitutive of this past-experienced-in-the-present in so far as the future proscribes certain possibiliities and impossibilities (such as mortality) and thus the lived-past in the present is torn from the socially bequeathed heritage and given new life in our own future's forge. But of course this future is itself experienced as a condition of a societal past and its only by trying to break free from all the possible influences of the past that permeate the future- through the fringe extreme example of say death- or nothing- (which as an abstraction is of course always the most difficult to really understand and be self aware of how our social conditioning past still constitutes this notion because when we say nothing-ness- its very difficult to talk about exactly what this means....) that we can get the illusion of a more personal present birthed out of the abstraction of the death or nothingness. But of course, its in the apparently most content free concepts of death or radical freedom that the greatest vagueness can breed since they are so difficult to talk about and we can project onto its empty surface our most problematic concepts."

Now maybe this uber-philosophical conceptualization is a tool box and a mine- and by tasking our mind to plunge into it we come out with diamonds of every variety- and you've come out with such diamonds and I haven't and that's why we fall on different sides of it. And surely I don't understaand what's down there since I haven't really plummeted its depths just tried sometime years ago and felt like I was entering into such a foggy morass it couldn't have been erected in good faith with the attempt at clarity.

(Yes- I know clarity can not be used as an attack on ideas which are necessarily difficult. But it can be used as an attack on ideas which could be clearer but are purposely not).


I see the "remember- we're all going to die and cease to be" part of it- and the attempt to live that feeling and the freeing up of our pressures upon ourselves that comes with it- the feeling of being free that accompanies it. And this is related to the winning back of our phenomenal experience from the "le mot et le mort de le chose"- "The word is the death of the thing" from society... i.e. society replaces our unique experience with its generic expectations. And this freedom is a kind of poetry and music yes. Its a kind of disconnection from others as well- but that can potentially lead to a greater connection by rediscovering ourselves so that we can then bring this rediscovered selves to others to more authentically connect.

I'm ok with all that- a moment in the dialectic of our life- at times we need to disconnect and rediscover our own lived experience- through poetry and music and the like. And at times I also think we need to face the music and live within our ego in society- to be held accountable for how others see us because language and appearances are the fabric of society- and though we aim for jesus like purity of experience we have to do the best with our realistic capabilities.

But where that mistifying mist rises up in philosophy... only look what ugly thoughts can hide behind these abstractions in the case of Heidegger! I think its important to speak plainly when we can.... this goes for philosophical writings in general. We say that if we speak plainly (like Nietzsche) we'll be misunderstood (like Nietzsche). But if we speak only in this tortured complex language we'll be even more misunderstood. Didn't delueze have a dichotomy of these two language- common language and more philosophical? I see them as common language is easy to relate to the rest of life and judge- but difficult to know the author's true intention because its so easy to substitute it with our own. Why philosophical language is more precise and distinct as to the author's intention- but so difficult to bring it to bear upon every day life and connect and really understand it- and this itself forms a kind of mask by separating it out from the world it must refer to.

I think both are necessary. And where someone seems so fanatical about only ever speaking in one sense or another- I suspect bad faith.

Terrapin- What you are replying to is different than what I am writing. Disagreeing is one thing but a disagreement only means something when one first sees the contours of what one is disagreeing with. If you can't see the contours its not that helpful to make arguments against it.

I am almost 100 percent sure you wouldn't be able to paraphrase my position.

I love Bob Dylan.

Peace. :)

ope I haven't been too annoying. I just get excited about these ideas and want others to enjoy them with — macrosoft

the feeling is mutual. i want to brush up against the borders of what i don’t understand because that’s where the growth is. thank you for all the explication. i think i need to revisit Heidegger.

When you talk about how the the living past is how we do the now- are you saying for example- like the way foucault reinterprets the past how that changes our present? Are you saying-

"He who controls the present now- controls the past.
He who controls the past now- controls the future!"
-Rage against the machine :)

If this is the case- maybe I'm not effected by this thought because I could say- right- reality is a narrative. Why describe it in such a complicated manner.

So the past is 'still here' in that sense. And the future is already here to as the words pour out toward the end of the sentence. — macrosoft

Lets try the pheonomenal approach.

Look around you right now. Nothings going anywhere. Its just our mind struggling to preserve impressions for comparisons. The world does not need everything that ever was preserved and laid out in sequential order of time. We're the ones who need this.

Ok- Its definitely time for sleep lol But this is a sticking point and the following-

t. But perhaps the most important part of the past is the way we interpret the 'present' and the 'future.' The 'living' past is how we do 'now'. — macrosoft

I just don't know how I can use these thoughts. I mean yes- our present is created by our past and future (whichever way we mean this) in various ways- There are eloquent and complicated ways to describe the way this happens- how all are intertwined. But is this anything more than an impressive trick? Does it change us?

I know its unfair to pull it out of the system- the book- the long discussion- and ask for it to speak in seclusion for its effects.

I still retain the impression that what Heidegger is concerned with more than anything else- is just turning everything into philosophy! lol These sophisticated descriptions... is this really embodied and lived philosophy?

If he is right (and you will have to decide for yourself), then we've been locked in a 'presentist' illusion (useful fiction) for centuries, beguiled by one of our own inventions, asleep to its apparently necessary but actually merely contingent dominance. — macrosoft

Lets not talk about the present or the flux because this is too hard I think. Let's talk about the past and futre.

Don't we always experience the past and future as concepts- as things that are imagined? We do something with some idea that it'll lead to some future but of course that future is never reached because future is always imagined. The reality of what comes next is always different because its always real?

Instaed of present- lets just say reality. When we consider our reality- our experience- in terms of something in the "past"... isn't this past constructed just like a movie by our minds? We try to be faithful to what we were recording but its still a movie.

Speaking phenomenally- it seems we are always in a reality that can't be pinned down (flux) and we strategize and contemplate based on constructed memories and projected imaginations which are also part of this unpinnable reality.

Can you explain to me how it is otherwise?

I think what maybe that statement neglects is the connectedness of mental life. It's not pure noise, for instance. The past is reinterpreted in terms of a future project. The future is projected in terms of what has already been. What is the dynamic here? Is it a simple forward flow? — macrosoft

And here we go again trying to think the impossible lol The eye tries to turn in and see itself seeing! I want to take up this question because I'm curious what I can say.

First off- when ever I talk about becoming I'm always conflicted because it does seem like there is something that persists. Consciousness. Maybe this talk of becoming is really just trying to understand how change is constitutive of identity. I don't really know if I fully gras what I'm speaking in these conversations. So lets proceed in good faith :)

I don't believe in a fourth dimension called time. I don't believe there's a space (Everything that exists all at once)- that moves through this fourth dimension called time. I don't believe that we experienced at another time exists anywhere back there. I don't believe that what we haven't experienced yet exists anywhere up there.

"What's the dynamic here? Is it a simple forward flow?"

No there's no dynamic. We're all changing. Nothing has to flow anywhere- There's no where to go.

Its impossible to really think this thought because to think we need to compare things. Its like- imagine if everything was just a rock. There'd be no past. Nones' thinking about it. It just doesn't arise. This rock is going through changes. That rock is going through changes. They're not even in the same "world" because what's a world but a perspective? Instead I think of it like Leibniz's monads- Each thing is experiencing its own unique version. when people talk about "space" it's like "god's perspective"... "Everything that exists all at once at the same moment!" But there is no god's perspective. Just each individual perspective. And "Time" is like God's memory. But a memory must exist right now and it is not what was anymore than a photograph is what was. A photograph is ink upon a paper. It just looks like something that was real. but that photograph is right here right now. The way we interact with the past and future to me is just the way we interact with our imagination. It doesn't strike me with awe. A "future" is always imagined- A "past" is always imagined. The present is always real. So the three are not equal- Past and future all exist in the present- and the present is just flux. Reality.

"But things will change!"
Yes Change happens all the time.
"But they will change in the future!"
No they won't. The future's always imagined. They will change right in the present.
"but things were different before."
Yes they were.
"So this was the past!"
No this was a different present. It doesn't exist at all to be compared- except the picture of it that we've created and call our past. But this picture is a picture. It is not the reality. The past that we encounter is always a picture/ a memory/ a bit of our imagination. It is never real. Things change and they leave nothing behind.

Death allows us to see our entire existence from the outside, from nothingness. Nothingness lets beings be against a background of their possible not-being. We can see the entire world (the meaningful world with others) from the outside, imaging ourselves gone. — macrosoft

What you're describing here- isn't the feeling of it a kind of lessening of seriousness? A kind of- Shit since we're all gonna die anyway- I'm not as caught up in the gravity of it all?

In my life- when I was about 20- I decided the future that I was taught to hold sacred and fear missing out on- getting a good job- the american dream etc- was a crock of lies. So I felt a kind of lessening of the seriousness of these shared perspectives and was freed to embrace my own. Is this talk of death having a similar effect?

Heidegger is trying to show us that our notion of the present is mostly inherited baggage that doesn't do our first-person experience of meaning justice. — macrosoft

Of course when I say that everything exists in the present- my word "present" cant be the same as common sense present- because there's no past or future I believe in to place my present in between. In a sense I don't believe in time at all. Just constant change. There is constant change- let us give up on the idea of trying to seize everything all at once and then passing it through some medium called time. etc.

That being said- forget whatever it is I believe lol. What does Heidegger believe and why is it important?

It sounds to me a good deal like what I am describing- even if i'm not being precise with my words. But what to me is a kind of demystifying (no you can't travel back in time- our understanding is creating a past and future- not discovering it)... For Heidegger and you it seems like there is something more profound supposedly there. Does this view of time impact your life in some kind of way? can you describe how?

Maybe the better contrast, however, is between 'our' cards (the tribes cards) and 'my' cards. Because authentic means 'own,' just as one's death is one's 'own' more than just about anything else can be. It is literally the end of the world, a personal apocalypse. It exists now in the form of possibility. What does it mean to look at it and take it into account, as a constant possibility and not as distant event that one buys insurance for? — macrosoft

My short answer is... I don't know. lol I don't have this experience. I've been talking a lot about how different ways of seeing the world create ourselves in different ways. This way of seeing the world- of one's own death as a possibility- I'm not sure I'm familiar with it.

I can sit here right now and think about if everything just ended. If my own personal experience was gone. And what do I get from that thought? Personally I get a kind of peace. There's some famous christian who said to an atheist- "come here and see me upon my death bed. I want you to see with what peace a christian dies." I'm not christian but I'm spiritual. I see my life as a sort of mission in some ways. I'm doing my best. If I'm gone... well shit I sure tried. but since I don't feel like I have to control everything- the sense of me vanishing doesn't leave me with some great anxiety about what I leave behind. That was never up to me to begin with. I was just doing my best and proceding with trust.

This is what trying to feel the possiblity of my own death brings up in me. I'm not sure if this experience coincides with what you speak of. Neither does it make me feel necessarily more like this life is my own rather than shared with others. My spirituality still makes me feel like I am part of something shared....

Speak on this- what am I not understanding that makes Heidegger so hard for me to grasp :)

My sense of time is a flux without remainder. Julius Caesar never stepped out of time. He died. His bones transformed. They remained in the flux of the now because the flux is all there ever is. I don't believe in time, just constant change. There is nothing back there- There is nothing up there. Memories are present creations, recreated time and again and exist only so long as they exist in our synapses. The future is a similar story. Consciousness created "the Thing that Persists in Time" so that it could compare different impressions and draw conclusions. But my belief is that past and future only live in one's consciousness.

So if this is what Heidegger means to say by time- then yes I agree.

And then Sartre though man was a futile passion to be God. — macrosoft

This reminds me of Sartre's take on love- the impossibility of trying to dominate the subject, etc etc. Its not that relevant to what we're talking about except to say- how foolish is it that we try to elevate our own experience to the universal? A lot of times our philosophies describe us better than they do the world.

I guess that depends if one believes in an afterlife or counts fantasies of starting from zero. — macrosoft

Hmmm. So there's two contexts of not accepting our thrownness. Thinking that we are an original causa sui- or believing a metaphysical story. These days it seems this is less common. Now people just don't believe in anything lol. Distraction has replaced faith.

What allows the way we are caught up in time to become visible? In stronger terms, what allows us to see that existence 'is' time? — macrosoft

I'm not sure that I understand this importance of time as you and Heidegger are using it. IN my own reasoning when I speak of time- its always a sort of foundational abstract discussion that then, through many degrees- leads to some way of looking at the world that resonates with us. I don't think my arguments that time be seen through the lens of becoming not being in itself really are useful to somebody's life. But this building block ends up leading to many applicable perspectives- for example- by many links further in the chain of reasoning we begin to see each of our truths as different ways of being in the world- like different animals- or different art forms- and therefore each has its place. discussing time got us there- but discussing time itself seems to abstract in itself to alter how we see the world.

When you use heidegger's concept of time i think you mean this concept itself should alter how we approach the world. But that hasn't hit me yet. I can't feel it or understand it. Can I ask you to try to explain it in a way that feels less abstract? How does it change one's life?

When do I decide that I can only play the cards that were dealt with me? When do I choose a project in terms of what is possible given those cards and not imaginary cards that let me do anything? What is it to get serious with a kind of sober joy that embraces the world I was thrown into? Arguably this adds more to the text than the text gives. — macrosoft

I'm hearing Sartre's decision here in a way. Maybe Sartre presented his decision more as a radical break than this- there seemed to be a kind of unnatural randommness required for him- you don't decide for reasons but simply because to decide is to be free... I'm less impressed with Sartre in general lol. But it was fundamental that one choose one's decision- and here I see a choosing- a choosing of one's thrownness. Would you say the two are similar or different? Am I putting it correctly.

What does this really mean- this choosing of our thrownness? Do you think that we often live our lives with imaginary cards?

In my mind it seems the great decision to be authentic is between truth and distraction. People live a noisy life of distraction and then their truth is seen as something unwelcome because it disrupts their distractions. Would you say distractions are imaginary cards? Distractions certainly dont embrace the world we're thrown into- they seek to create a pleasant shallow and above all busy noise to drown it out.

Facing mortality can give you distance from what is petty in one's community. In that sense it is isolating, especially if most don't want to face embarrassingly deep issues while there are gadgets to collect and while there is respectable worldly position to enjoy. On the other hand, the terror of death forces us to flee from what is petty or less important in ourselves. Flee where? To universal virtue which is more like poetry or music than a fixed idea — macrosoft

These heidegger ideas- as well as the one you mention with how our time is lived historically- I just can't get inside these ideas to feel them. So I know I don't really understand them.

Let me first voice my suspicions- and then maybe once i get that out of the way I can try to figure out what 's really being said.

I can see two things in this idea. 1- distancing yourself from what is petty in society. 2. Facing death.

A philosopher always has an ego and the grandiose abstract nature of philosophy can certainly play to this ego. So we don't know how to dance or dress fashionable or make social conversation but all this is "petty" and we are above and beyond these "petty things".... I can't help but see philosopher's like Heidegger in this manner. I understand that everything's not equal- that depth and authenticity are worth more than superficial talk and false appearances. But as Deleuze would probably say- the Skin and surface of a person is just as important as his bones and muscle. Beauty and materialism in their right place are fundamental parts of a good life- even though some are more sensuous when it comes to these things and some are more enamored with thought and other aspects of life. The Carpenter values working with your hands, the philosopher values work of the mind, and the concierge or fashion designer values the art of comfort and appearance. All are valuable and have their place.

My suspicion is that when Heidegger appeals to these fringe extreme concepts like the fact we all will die one day- its an attempt to render these parts of life worthless. Nietzsche criticized this a good deal when he was talking about those who raise a god only to cast a shadow upon life. Who are the lovers and who are the haters of life- Nietzshce who often asked. This is too simplistic because Nietzsche was of course full of hate and he admitted it himself- but the question has some validity. And where do we put Heidegger in terms of this question?

It reminds me a little bit of the Platonic forms and all the Christian concepts that came after- the Platonic argument that "Is something truly good if it is only temporary.... don't we want that which is Good Always?" And here is that supposedly beautiful god who's perfection only serves to reject everything in life by turning reality, by turning our beautiful mother nature herself into simply- "imperfection". Oh the arrogance! lol

So what of Heidegger's Being that is Revealed? Does this play some role like this- a sort of world despiser?

So there's my suspicions.

Now let me try to really be open to these concepts (that I don't understand lol)

What does it do to us to face our mortality- to face death? Again- recognizing I'm ignorant here- this calls to my mind Nietzshce's project with the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. To face death- or the idea that all must return inevitably- is to reject the teleological ideas of life- that we're trying to get somewhere. Where? We all wind up dead anyway. Or in Nietzsche's case- we all wind up repeating everymoment of life so why should the place we end our life matter any more than each moment of it?

To face death and our own mortality seems like it throws us more into the now- the present moment- and here is how I understand your talk of musicality and poetry. There's no point to it per se- its not to get somewhere. As a guru once said to me. "So you seek enlightenment. Where will you find it... over there?" Our life can not be justified by some imagined goal- it must be its self justification at each moment- like music or poetry.

Tell me if I'm on the right track with any of this. What I'm missing and not understanding. I've always felt like an outsider looking on Heidegger's thought.

I'll only add from my perspective- music or poetry also reach that dialectical ideal of becoming- where we are not trying to exploit or control but are equally putting ourselves in the mixture. The embodied cognition, as you called it, also means that our bodies and ourselves are at stake in our thought and actions. And isn't this what is truly Authentic?

(Keeping in mind that personally I think both are horrible authors as is.) — Terrapin Station

They're horrible writers like Bob Dylan is a horrible singer. He doesn't do many of the things we enjoy and maybe wish he could. But what he does do- he does better than anyone else. So he both sounds like a goat and possibly is the G.O.A.T. Isn't life funny like that?

. It's not possible to just have "motion of nothing," or "just potential motion of nothing" which is even more nonsensical. — Terrapin Station

Who said the word "nothing?" I know I didn't. This is a really difficult concept so I'm happy to talk about it even though I feel like you're not reading what I'm saying very carefully... Prove me wrong Mr. Jerry Garcia!

What does it mean to think that the reality of all is becoming or flux, and not being? Its not that nothing is in motion- its that the "motion" that you "add" to the "Thing"... is not separate at all. the motion is what makes the thing the thing. There is no thing without the motion.

What do I mean?

Take the entire world- and instantly freeze it. Would would happen? A great detonation than any nuclear weapon. Something akin to the violence of a black whole. The fact that an elecron orbits around a nucleus is not incidental to the nature of the atom. Its that tension that creates the atom. We may not see all the movement inside something because our eyes don't see it... but take water. Heat is really just movement. Water molecules at a certain rate of movement/ heat- are a gas. then they slow down and become liquid. Then they become ice. And theres states far different than these two. The movement is not incidental to identity.

This is what saying the world is "becoming" tries to get at. Its the constant change at the root of all things that makes them what they are. The change is not incidental or added on to it. Nor is it just temperature. From our view a chair is just a chair. easy enough. But zoom in further and you see atoms and molecules and organsims and ecosystems- Whole solar systems worth of activity within each chair. This is also the chair just as surely as our perspective is. Just as surely as this chair is just a spec to an eneromous giant- so too this chair is solar systems worth of independent atomic and subatomic activity to the tiniest creatures. So what is this chair? What can be said about it? The chair has no color because color science tells us is nothing but our eyes separating the wavelengths of light that hit the surface to draw clues about where that light has been. (We don't see the chair, we encountar light waves and draw inferences based on how its been changed and altered in its path to project an image in our experienced world). This is pretty agreed upon science. The chair has no hardness or softness to speak of since this is just relative to whatever's touching it- A diamond finds it soft- water would find it very hard! So what is this thing called "chair"? We can't even circumscribe where the chair ends and the air around it begins, because molecules are constantly entering and leaving it, and the chair itself is undergoing changes on a molecular level. If we see the chair over 100 years there might be a point when it is so rotted through we no longer call it a chair but a heap of organic waste. But if we were the size of a virus we would see how that process is taking place in every instant and parts of this chair world as big as our house is to us suddenly decompose into nothing. So to us what is very stable and constant- to different perspective is something completely different. And when we see it from the closest perspective- this self identical thing is revealed to be constant change.

So on the one hand- science teaches us that what we use to describe the world- basically, our senses- tell us more about how our body codes the world than about the world itself. The tree in the forest does not make a sound if it falls when no one's around. It simply vibrates the air. Neither does it have a color or a smell (Smell is created by a nose that enocunters molecules from the things around us and codes them into our different smell categories) or taste or texture in itself. And science further teaches us that the one thing we know truly about the world- is that it is always constantly changing. The supposed "thing" that is self identical and then can "change"- only gains its properties by the qualities of its foundational constant change.

Now on the other hand- we have to understand that language and senses- to talk about anything at all- can't simply report back the data of the vibrations of lightwaves crashing agianst the eye, the vibrating air pressure that hits the ear, the clusters of molecules passing into the nose, etc etc... No. All these constantly changing stimuli must be translated into a code that can be deliberated upon. So all these crashing waves of light against a pupil become- the color red. The million vibrations of the ear drum become the steady note- C. Our senses are that which say the "same" of the "different". Our senses create a steady world of "being" and the "self-identical" which can be deliberating upon- and filter out all the million differences in wave variation that strike our eyes and other senses based on what's relevant to us or not- based on our size and density etc. So even though our language needs the self-same and identical to speak at all- to compare a horse to a cow we need a fixed image of each- and so even though we must speak in terms of "things that change in time"... in reality- it seems like the change is inherent to the identity and not separate. The world is a world of "becoming" not "being" is an important attempt to consider how change is inherent to the very nature of our world- not incidental- and point out that everything we try to ascribe to the object itself that is "self same" or "Identical"- is actually our own senses- code. Just like a green sonar image upon a screen is not the submarine itself- so too the evidence of our eyes ears mouths and language do not tell us what the thing is itself.

This is of course important when we ask such difficult questions like... what is truth?

The fact that our language needs to speak of unchanging identities while reality seems to be constant change itself- this is what makes these thoughts difficult to think.



and again-

"To stamp Becoming with the character of Being - that is the supreme will to power."

Why is it the will to power? Because it replaces this world of constant change around us "becoming" with a world of static identities that allows us to alter ourselves in a way leads to our greatest thriving. This world of "being" animals create through their senses and language is I think what Nietzsche references again when he says-

“Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live."

Without this world of being we create... we might encounter the world as if we were standing in the midst of a great waterfall. Not complete chaos as you'd like to say- but can you describe and make sense of what you experience while standing completely engulfed in the great waterfall of becoming?

So......

Even if you just disagree- do you see how this is a coherent argument?

In my view the world is dynamic ("becoming"/changing), but it's not nothing that's dynamic, there has to be something ("being") that is changing, or the notion is incoherent — Terrapin Station

Hello Terrapin-

We're probably using different definitions of being and becoming. To me becoming is referencing a constant change- while being is referencing that which remains the same. My argument is that there is no "thing that remains the same" that becoming is created out of. Our language needs to posit a thing so there is something to talk about- our sight has this need as well so crashing constant change waves are turned into static colors and identities. My point is that becoming and change does not arise out of or is added to a base thing that remains the same. Just like atomic science when they posed all change came from unchanging base units- atoms. But instead it was later seen that these atoms were actually energy- waves- which is constant change with nothing staying the same.

This is I believe the common argument of philosophers who posit becoming as original. Its a difficult concept but not an impossible one.

It seems weird to me here that you jump from nuts and bolts ontological ideas to specific issues in philosophy of perception. — Terrapin Station

It may seem weird to you but if becoming is primary- then how does being arise at all? In what state is "being" real? And again, I'm saying that being is a creation of becoming- that "being" is stamped upon becoming to paraphrase Nietzsche and Deleuze and others- and this act of treating "constant change" as if it were "the identical" is something created by life. Thus the move from Ontology to perception. My argument is there is no "self same identical in ontology"- to find it we have to speak about how life acts towards becoming.

So now that we have two different ways of being in the world- if this is done at random,

This is not a mini-rant directed specifically at you. You just brought it up. ;-) — Terrapin Station

Brother- I did not bring this debate up. You picked out a clause in a sentence you didn't even quote the entirety of and ran with it. When I said random- I meant random in regards to the benefit of the organism- and I said this was unlikely. Of course scientifically nothing is random. But if in this case, the animal was changing itself- moving this way or that- without some means to "know" when one should move this way, when one should move that- it wouldn't make sense. if someone is blindfolded and told to walk a maze- on the strictest sense, no, none of its movement are random. On the other, for common understanding, we can say that they are. Keep in mind there's a philosophy called deconstructionism that could raise a potential problem to every single word or concept used in the english language. "What is a problem?" "What do we mean by potential?" "What is language?" These are all important questions but they're not relevant to every discussion.

But creatures easily do discriminate between such things, regardless of whatever interpretational apparatus you're relying on to parse them as "complex." — Terrapin Station

Creatures don't discriminate between "Blue" or "red" when they don't have eyes. The world we experience with the identities we experience our not universal- they are an effect of our ear drums registering vibrations- our eyes parsing light waves- etc etc. Creatures navigate a world- but it is not our world with our identities.

I almost wish there was something like a twitter limiter on post length. — Terrapin Station

We've all got our rights to opinions and I understand the difficulty of responding to longer posts. On the other hand- what can be said in a full page can not be said in a few sentences. Do you think Hegel or Heidegger could have made their impact through twitter? What is common and already widely understood is easily communicated through a sentence or two. What is different and doesn't want to be understood through old perspectives requires explanation.

In short, we don't start from zero. We start within some kind of 'circle' of the meaning of existence. It's a circle because it is the meaning for us of the world in which we live. I'd say that we extend and brighten that circle. — macrosoft

After Studying philosophy I decided to go try and live it and basically- start revolution lol These days I'm primarily a musician and community organizer. For Community Organizing/Revolution I thought of it in this way. You start in a king of circle of existence. You can work on this problem or that- but you're going to meet up against the same circle that keeps things as they are. The self reinforcing aspects of a society. Now the goal of Revolution is to piece by piece- leap off into a new circle. You start with Circle A- and at first everything you throw up must contend with that Circle's Orbit. But the more pieces you throw into the air- the better chance you have that they may coalesce and form a new orbit. Now you have twin stars lol. Still effecting each other but there is a second society to refer to.

This is my view of revolution in both thought and society. You work on one aspect- and then another- and then another- and its only after enough aspects have been altered that the big picture begins to emerge.

I notice that you don't speak of two circles- you speak of brightening the one. Which is beautiful. And I think this metaphor works too. And here instead of two separate circles- you add enough to its rings that suddenly the whole circle starts to rotate around a different center. For me this circle we're born into is often very isolationist and solitary- from the individual to the nuclear family. And the new center I seek- is also the old center. Tribe.

I work to create radical grassroots community centers- new genres of music- (my band- www.bukubroux.com- I play the african harp instrument) and I also help organize the Mardi Gras Indian Tribes of New Orleans.

http://bittersoutherner.com/wild-creation-mardi-gras-indians/#.W-pbZS3Mw_U

Ah I was trying to place where the talk of time but not the time of the clock and "care" came from... Heidegger! Heidegger's interesting for me because when I was really reading this stuff I was an atheist and very Nietzschean and I followed Heidegger in all his thrownness, Neitzschean resonating talk- But then when he got to the sort of disclosure more Eastern sounding aspects I was "thrown" off lol. But then after my philosophical journey came my spiritual journey- and I began to believe after arguing for only beliefs- that there was capital T Truth... Only we don't possess or create it. We can only listen to it.

And it fit well with the philosophy only as if coming from the other side. Beginning not with small b becoming, but big B Being. To put it clear. I believe from my own experiences, that among the other experiences of spirituality- there is a kind of knowing that one can listen to. It is very quiet, especially at first. But the more one listens, the louder it gets. To me it is an obeying, but I'm also Jewish and I've noted different peoples seem to have a different relation/concept of spirituality (Christians go to India and they still talk all about love and christ consciousness lol). So here in philosophy- I think there's only beliefs. But in Spirituality- I think there is a Truth- and its not a truth for us to understand- but to "obey" for me- or for others to channel or harmoniously merge with.

Now this opens up a chilling line of thought for me as a Jew discussing Heidegger. I always thought about this spiritual voice- that like Kierkegarrds discussion of Abraham and Isaac- the Big T Truth is anything but Humanist! It follows no rules at all that we can proscribe. The chilling prospect of giving up your will to it is that it could tell you to do something monstrous.

Can you imagine what a monstrous possibility that is?

What if God told Heidegger all the Jews should be sent to camps!!!

That being said- I wonder if I reread Heidegger now if I'd have a much different understanding of it having had spiritual experiences myself. Although when you've been out of the world of dry abstract books for a while its not as easy to dive back in I think...


In regards to Truth as metaphor- yes, when we bring philosophy back into real life- people don't just change when the logical button has been pressed. Often it takes repetition. Art. Music. Its one thing to make an argument and another to make it in a thousand different ways from a thousand different perspectives- weaving all the different perspectives together with this new one. Than it really takes hold and transforms.

And Nietzshce also said the worst crime academics committed was to make philosophy boring. Because if philosophy does not grab you- it can not change you. Speaking of which...

I read the Schiller wikipedia article you attached. and I remember reading some of the pragmatists... here's the thing for me- For some reason I do get excited about some of their ideas- but more often than not, they seem to quiet my thoughts. To replace thinking with common sense. it almost seems like a quieting of philosophy some how. I'm not sure if these are just personal reflections or they have some greater significance.

This is what is great in Heidegger, IMV. What I get from him is not arguments but the revelation of things that were always there without me grasping them conceptually. He analyzes the evolution of human clocks in terms of care. By really looking into the concept of time he opens man's essentially historical existence. — macrosoft

Can you explain this to me?

"Let's say that for your point it is useful here to ignore some radical differences between men and monkeys."
- Macrosoft

I laughed out loud at this one.


I've spent a lot of time writing and rewriting the following- You definitely have me thinking, and rethinking.

Lets talk about the fuzzy operating system of experience :)

I have read William James and so many others but nothing in about the last 10 years so bear with me if I don't know whose arguments I may be using.

I believe I mispoke when I said I switch between pragmatic truth and representational truth.

I think I'm really only using one truth- the common sense truth we all grow up with. This truth doesn't exist in a world where appearances are opposed to the objective reality underneath. It doesn't exist in a world where words can somehow be separated from what they reference. Everything's already connected in this world. Common Sense truth affirms thoughts and says "yes- this is the right thought to have"- and it affirms experience, images, etc. When I see a white draped figure I might think this is a ghost. But then I might think- no this is truly a man in the sheet. So now through my senses I see this as a man in the sheet- I see the bulges as the place his head is etc... and in my thoughts I hold the thoughts that apply to a man in a sheet.

I experience a sense of holding on and discarding in my true and false. Truth feels a lot like belief. And there's a sense too of- this is important- when I say that something is real. It is what I must react to. Where as if something is fake- or false- I can dismiss it- and hold onto instead a different understanding- that which it really is. "This is not an opportunity to get rich- (discard that) its a scam (react to that)!"

Think of the person who says something mean- and everyone feels bad- and then another person who finds this ridiculous- and laughs at it- and then everyone laughs. The mean person's perspective is now discarded in exchange for the perspective of the one who laughs.

We have a certain power to create our shared world. I can see a ghost or a man in a sheet. I can see a get rich opportunity or a scam.

Pay attention to this! React to this! This is what's important! This is what can be dismissed! This is what must be substituted for this!

As Vaunted as our reason is- our 10 digit numeral system came from the amount of fingers on our hands and to say X is Y is just to react to our notion of Y when we lnteract with X. Substitution.

So it seems to me the process of truth is always the same- its drawing connections between, reinforcing, and creating what understanding or image should be affirmed and reacted to.

What is pragmatic truth? I don't think it exist. It seems to be just an adjective describing a possible motivation behind truth. Just like saying a ghost is actually a "man in a sheet" involves you replacing your idea of a ghost with a man in a sheet and responding to that- so too to say truth is pragmatic is to replace the concept of truth with instead the concept of pragmatism. Nothing new is formed- just a replacement. Now instead of deciding if something is true or not- I'm just deciding if something is beneficial. Nothing new is formed so there is no such thing as a pragmatic truth. Only a pragmatic explanation of what drives our truth process or a pragmatic argument for why something should be accepted as true.

So when I argue that something is true- I'm attempting to convince you to see things in a certain perspective. How does this process of convincing work?

"I think language itself is a 'continuous' medium. In other words, meaning is distributed over paragraphs and across a kind of time that is not only the time of the clock."
-Macrosoft

Dialectically- mutually defining- one point in the system helps define another- which in turn defines the original by their relation.

Ultimately I think the process of truth is about affirming the thoughts and visions and imaginings- which altogether make up our experience of the world. Truth is a process that creates our experienced world. It is thus relational. Every argument contains its own criteria of truth.
"That ghost is a man in a sheet because I can see his shoe!"
"So I should accept this because its in my pragmatic best interest to accept it?"
"No you should accept this because you can see his shoe!"
"So when you say the word "shoe" it correlates to the image that I see there or it correlates to the actual reality of a shoe beyond our experience?"
"It correlates to his shoe!"

There are lots of arguments for what makes something true or not. Some try very hard to separate out an objective certain truth from simply our beliefs- (you mention science, religion etc in your comments) but I agree with you that I don't think this is possible. What is True to us is simply a belief that we believe in.

"But I don't think we usually even use the notion of truth we are attacking or defending as we present or attack that same notion. There is something so 'automatic' that we can't bring it into focus. It is too close for us to see it well. Moreover it is holistic. I picked 'macrosoft' to play on the idea of an operating system, the fuzziness or softness of this know-how or mysterious, initial intelligibility, and 'taking a big or wide view, grasping existence and meaning in language as a whole. I think our 'operating systems' grasp existence and language as a whole in a way that can be made more but not finally explicit, to sum things up."
-Macrosoft

One thing about trying to really sketch out a whole system of philosophy is you see how one point from a philosophy will immediately be met with a hundred different objections from a rival philosophy. Its only when we sketch out each part- the epistemology, the psychology, even the politics or ethics- that as it were we construct a mutually reinforcing home for these thoughts to live. We create an operating system.

The parts of our operating system do seem to branch out like neural networks reinforcing and defining each other- but They also function as parts and altering parts. For truth you could appeal to common usage- science- religion- shame or ethics or taboo- predictability/repeatability- pragmatism- passion- lack of passion- etc...and all of these bases of truth might shape your worldview at different moments. So I think its not just that we can't see this operating system because its so big or because we're always in it- but because it is shifting with many pockets and networks and webs of related and mutually determining ideas with varying relations to others. Its multiple.

I'm good with the multiplicity, it shouldn't be replaced. All these multiplicities are reasons why some belief or other should be accepted.

I see now that I am in fact advancing a particular theory of truth- Basically its a deeper pragmatism.

Pragmatism seems to suggest a more exploitative concept of truth- truth is what benefits us. Whereas my animalistic concept of truth suggests that truth is what creates us (hopefully in a manner that benefits us).

We are using the process of truth to create and shape our experienced world which in turn creates us.

One thing that makes this definition of truth unique from pragmatism- is that its hard to argue what is true and what is not based on this definition. Because both the world and ourselves are changing- it becomes more akin to that becoming of flux- not fully- but somewhere in the middle.

It adds a dynamism to our thought- it is the type of thinking that befits the "over-man", the Hegelian-Nietzschean constantly evolving dialectical becoming type of person. And this certainly goes a long way towards warding off shallow pragmatisms and the Last Man.

Ok Macrosoft- I just read your other comments.

"Aren't you yourself trying to see things as they really are by calling other attempts to satisfy that urge illusory?"

Yeah, good point. As some point you get down to questions that don't seem to permit of multiple correct answers. Is the nature of reality beyond thought being or becoming? Well of course- its neither- because both of these are concepts. So seeing things as they really are is always referred to the mystery. But in trying to claim we could see how our own consciousness really acts... the same problem arises. I think ultimately I really do look at these thoughts as useful and true. I do think they're the way things really are, but this belief of mine comes because "for all intents and purposes"- these thoughts have always served me well. I can only appeal to your own experience and everyone will draw different conclusions. We're limited and so is my ability to argue. In the end we're all like members of a democracy with a right to be heard and make our point. And we all probably have different truths the other will never understand, even if we are at the same time flawed.

I realize I keep flipping back and forth between using truth in the representational sense and in the pragmatic sense... I'm not sure if this contradiction can or should be resolved. I think it further demonstrates the limits of thought.


On your comments on spirituality- yes I agree with you there. "Obey" is a highly personal word I chose. I think spirituality is highly personal- like the story of the blind men touching the elephant and one touches the trunk and one a leg and one a tail and they argue over the nature of the elephant. I don't think muslims will reach spirituality better through christianity and vice versa- I think each of us has a different relation and we must find our own piece because we will never see the whole thing anyway.

And yes- lets not make the mind the bad guy- the obstacle to truth. These dichotomies are just as bad as the obverse. You're right to point that out.

"This does seem to be a useful perspective. But is it true?"

I don't know how to quote like you guys do. lol Ok- so these are great replies Macrosoft. You've hit upon a central theme of this theory of truth. What is this truth we seek... this "truth not just for me" but "Truth for all of us"... Just like one god for all of us. One Belief system for all of us... can you tell I'm skeptical already?

Why should philosophy search for a Truth that works in every situation possible? Post Modernism and deconstructionism has had a field day pointing out all the fringe situations where, to put it metaphorically and literally, 2 + 2 does not equal 4. The greatest thing we can say I think is some truth is so useful, its almost always useful for every being. I can imagine a deconstructionist highlighting all these exceptions to the rule and a frustrated analytical philosophy saying "well yes if 2 + 2 is referring to water drops they might just combine and not equal 4- or if we're in a different number system that's not based on the unit 10 but instead three and so counts 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23 then 2 +2 = 11... but come on! Cut it out! "FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES"- 2 plus 2 does equal 4!" To this we would reply, for MOST intents and pupososes- not ALL!.... But really in this phrase I think is the answer to the "truth not just for me". The best we can come up with is "for most intents and purposes" this statement rings true.

But what is this "Rings" true? There's a funny double entendre that happens with a lot of our words... the coin always flips between logic and a certain type of quantitative feeling. Take a look at the word "Real"... and also "really". Or something that's meaningful in a logical sense- but also meaningful in an emotive way. And finally true... and also truly. Why do we keep seeing this quantitative underbelly to our most logical words? Because the Truly- the Really- the emotionally meaningful is what guides the logic to begin with. The baby looking around doesn't know what the word "true" or "real" or meaningful" mean- but they do experience these feelings of the "truly!" "really" and Meaningful". This animalistic theory of truth says that our truths are ultimately evaluated by how they help us change. So even my own writing and yours as well, by this philosophie's standards, must be judged in this way. Now this really opens up the can of worms and you'll see why this is really a fruit from the continental philosophy tree.

Doesn't the way a point is expressed (form) then mean just as much as what is said (content). Our sentences cease being logical points and are reintroduced as interventions in life. Of course we don't want to give way to a shallow pragmatism of truth- Its true because I want it to be true! No instead, we want to get beyond just logic to a deeper source of truth. Truth should not be about control- the urge for the mind to control- to say once and for all "This is that!". We're just animals. Like monkeys. Or turtles. Trying to live our best life. Our words are like inventions, tools that are useful. Our senses are genetic inventions. This urge for a certainty that lasts and allows us to cease thinking or listening- this must be lovingly eased. When you give up the Mooring- the apparent solid grounding of- "Fear not- You can rely on Logic giving you the full truth!" It might be scary at first and make people fear the abyss. But the abyss is not really there- its just the shadow of logic. Look past logic and its shadow and you see love and spirituality and the body and life-- we're talking about living right? Look at your own life- look at politics. Put philosophy back into the perspective of living. No. We don't have certainty. We're just funny little animals. Your mind must be balanced with your heart and your gut and your emotions and your spiritual sense.

I think this is common sense from our lives and yet philosophy often acts as if the full answer can be found within reason alone.

Now macrosoft- you had mentioned the desire for "truth for not just me" and yes. we're deeply social creatures. Look at laughter. One person sees things one way. The other sees things in a different way- and then he emits this loud repetitive hahahahah- that makes people look at him- then look at the thing being looked at and try to see it from his perspective. And if it clicks and forms the same relation of truth for them? "Ha-ha-ha-ha"- this perspective spreads. In this way and others our truths are deeply social.

Hii Terrpain and HKS and Pattern Chaser and Macrosoft-

Thank you so much for taking the time and consideration to engage! So a lot of the questions come up with this theoretical leap I make- "Take the earliest microbe, yadayadayada." Yeah, this is a lot of conjecture- Useful like Macrosoft mentions- but accurate???

Here's where I'm getting at with that- and why I start there (sorta).

Really I start with the idea that the whole world is Becoming- constant flux- change- This is itself an assumption but we're always "thrown"- starting from some type of assumption and besides- this is what Science suggests. Once we thought the world was composed of atoms (beings)- but that was replaced with a world of waves- energy- constant change. So once we assume the world is constant change or becoming- how does being first arise?

My answer is that being doesn't arise. being is just the name for a certain type of becoming. a stability like the stability of an orbit, a change that keeps repeating. Here I'm aligned with Deleuze I think and maybe Nietzsche (In the end- who really knows what Nietzsche thought, right?)

So what is that becoming that creates this type of becoming we call being, or identity?
The point is this- why would any animal or simple organism have any type of perception or awareness if it could not alter its behavior? It would be like a consciousness in a person with a coma. Trapped in a prison to see and not react. Clearly evolution wouldn't favor this. What must come first is an organism that has options- that at one point can extend its tentacle forward, lets say, at another point can extend its tentacle back.

So now that we have two different ways of being in the world- if this is done at random, it wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage either. Instead- it must be able to discriminate.

Now what does it need to discriminate between?

Forget "Trees" or "Speeding Vehicles" or the color "red" or "Blue".. all of these are more complex identities. None of these exist in the world of the simplest organism.

First just imagine the world as all black- or the opposite- like constant energy- shaking, vibrating, nothing remaining- constant flux. Nothing can be decided here. Instead- the organism must divide the world into two- "Things to extend your tentacle towards"- "things to extend your tentacle away from". Visually we can represent these as red and green. So the organisms world is now red and green- and red leads to one behavior and green another. This organism now has an advantage! Now maybe "things to extend your tentacle towards" is what the organism "sees" every time a slight vibration up to a certain intensity is felt. And "things to extend your tentacle away from" is everything at a higher intensity than this. This type of knowledge isn't fool proof- mistakes will be made- but it does seem like it might give the organism an advantage.

Two important points here-
1. This is my hypothesis of the emergence of "Knowledge" which with further complication can become "Consciousness". This emergence does not come from trying to "know the world"... What knowledge of the world is represented by "Things to move your tentacles towards?" It doesn't say much about whats really there... just like "things that burn our skin" or "hot things" doesn't say much about what's out there- just how it affects us. So knowledge or our senses (Which are a type of knowledge) emerges from the need to distinguish between two or more different ways the organism can behave. And back to the baby looking around example- before it knows true or false or any of those higher order things- don't we see consciousness doing the same thing? Trying to find clues on how it should behave.

2. Its not such a random hypothesis really- because once we say the world is senseless flux of becoming- we find ourselves having to discuss how identities come about? Are these identities somehow a freezing of the flux of reality? But the flux wasn't sense to begin with. No. These identities don't come from reality outside us at all it seems. They are the reflections of our possible actions. Action is first order- and knowledge is created in order to stamp upon the world of flux signposts to the actions we should take. Now this is not a solipsism- because we are interacting with this world around us. But the identities we create through our senses out of this interaction tell far more about ourselves than the world around us. Again- look at the simplest organism and instead of thinking of me and you and colors and sounds- just imagine everything there none of this and instead only "Things to move your tentacle towards" or "a thing to move your tentacles away from".... how much does that say about the world? Obviously we've far complicated it since then but if you notice how your mind can not focus on something that does not have some relevance to you and will infact daydream- replace it with something that does if you try... it shows knowledge is still motivated by our own interest and possibilities for action.

Pattern Chaser- I'm not sure I understand your comment but let me try a clarification. I'm saying that "sense" exists for animals that must make decisions- and beyond that is not "Chaos" but simply whatever is. Just like an apple or pear are not oranges but we wouldn't say they are "Non-oranges"..... they're just apples and pears. So too rock- a hurricane- a planet are not "non-sense" or "chaos"... they're just what they are. Personally I feel this philosophy is very friendly to all that is not orderly. It basically approaches reality as beyond our order and understanding- it puts our truths on a more humble level. The world remains a mystery and an often beautiful one at that.