Two myths in natural sciences

Natural sciences rest on two fundamental myths (the term is not used in a derogatory senses)

In the first myth man/woman "turns around" and moves towards the past. The past is approached and so it comes "closer" and as it comes "closer" it reveals richer and richer details

In the second myth man/woman approaches and object getting smaller at the same time. He/she is siphoned in the object and in the process the object gets larger and larger revealing richer and richer details

There are also the inverted movements (I move towards the inverted past, the future, but now I can change things- I expand, I become huge, I can grab the solar system in my hand)

Το παρελθόν κρίνει το παρον

"Turning attention toward the body gas the historical merit of having balanced our views of the world of consciousness. If these focuses of attention, however, are radicalized to the point of negating all structures of consciousness that are not directly determined by the body, if basing consciousness in the body hypertrophies into the causation of consiousness by the body, then the radicalization and hyperbolization reveals an attitude that is characterized as morbid in the pneumato-pathological sense of Plato's nosos. The world of consciousness becomes a wasteland (of different degrees in different thinkers), and the facination with the vital sphere -sensuousness and vital forces, their growth and decline- dominates philosophical attitudes"
Voegelin, E. (1990). Anamnesis (Vol. 6). University of Missouri Press. (pg 17)

AIME continuing the dialogue between Ricoeur and Changeux

I think that the dialogue between Changeux and Ricoeur

Changeux, J. P., & Ricoeur, P. (2000). What makes us think. Trans. MB DeBevoise. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

is very interesting and illuminating. Changeux was at the time in his 60s and Ricoeur in his eighties and to my understanding they are not just two people that are arguing (politely) on some important issues. It seems to me that they are also arguing on the significance of their lives, on what they have heartily promoted through their lives.

Ricoeur talks in this book about the great difficulty to devise another discourse, one that is neither the discourse of the phenomenology nor the discourse of scientists but that somehow can make clearer the connection between the other two discourses(for example in page 69).
In my opinion one way to see the contribution of AIME and the Modes of Existence Book is as a way to devise such a different kind of discourse.  Even if it turns out that the effort does not deliver it still feels like the right way to go, a way that allows various sciences and experiences in life to communicate, a way that speaks at the same time about a variety of changes that need to be coordinated and that does not leave the scientific observer and her context, the scientific signs, the fragility and bizarness of human communication outside the account of "objective" knowledge.

A strage sense of self-understanding

In the Modes of Existence Book
pg 410
"the individual is second and secondary, entirely dependent on the multiform roles left in the wake of the courses of contraqdictory injunctions that can never aseemble these roles in a round, solid, full, subject....the agents ... must.. beg from the value meters to which bthey are connected the alms of fragments of approximate reasoning...What do we find in its place? Quivering little beings wandering around groping in the dark while waiting to receive something from the passage of scripts: sometimes fragments of projects, sometimes allocations of preferences, sometimes suggested roles, sometimes quittances"

I am also reminded of Seferis' "Last stop" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737258?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents)

humankind is tender, a sheaf of grass;
 lips and fingers yearning for a white breast
eyes half-closed against the glare of day
and legs that would run, be they never so exhausted,
at the slightest whiff of gain.
Humankind is tender and thirsty as the grass,
insatiable like the grass, its nerves are roots that spread;

(though later:
Can humankind be something different?
Is it not that which transmits life?
A time to sow, a time to reap. )

I am also reminded how much in our experience is a stage and a dream. How much for example is our visual experience full of estimations and coverups, a cloth full of holes and yet feeling so full and complete.  Yet fullness and completeness is not the most basic. The flow of true communication is the most basic and we can learn to accept to live with very limited means if we feel we can secure this.

Similar reading experiences

A similar reading experience when reading the Modes of Existence book and when reading the account of categorical logic and new Axiomatization of Mathematics in Rodin’s book

Axiomatic Method and Category Theory (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1478v1.pdf)

As a reader when I read MOE I have the feeling that I am called to peal out layers of my subjectivity that get externalized into ways of discourse-movement that follow their own specifications (the modes of existence with their own specification) while “me” is left with quite a little “Equipment”.  Perhaps with just dispositions.

Me, a Thomas-Anderson-like figure,  wanting to wake up from the dream  “the  World of the Western Moderns” and wandering in what body I will find what self.

Similarly when I read in Rodin’s book the presentation of how in Categorical Logic in Mathematics , a general “universal” logic is abandoned in favor of  local logics connected to the matter at hand, I have this feeling that “my” logic has stopped being in my head but it now runs “in front of my eyes”,  being projected in perceptible inscriptions.

Πορνεια και διακίνηση γυναικών στην γειτονιά μας (τη στενη και την ευρυτερη)

Going undercover as a sex worker

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/magazine-undercover-sex-worker-human-trafficking-150610072623672.html

For the past decade, photographer and filmmaker Mimi Chakarova has covered global issues examining conflict, corruption and the sex trade. Her film The Price of Sex, a feature-length documentary on trafficking and corruption premiered in 2011.

How to read the final table in the MOE book

After putting a lot of effort I arrived to the following formula that is helpful to me


A line can be read like this:

The mode [#MODE#] extracts out of being-as-other (which I imagine as a short of a beehive, a mess of activity) the alteration of #alteration# (so I imagine out of this undifferentiated mess, which reminds a bit the "Waters" at the beginning of the Bible, coming forth the #alteration#)  which is brought forth through the extension of trajectories of #trajectory#  that constantly overcome the hiatus that consists of #hiatus# , and these trajectories move on when the flow of the mode #felicity condition#  rather than #infelicity condition# and finally the flow of the mode in the trajectories leaves in its wake #beings to institute#.


For example

The mode [FIC] extracts out of being-as-other (which I imagine as a short of a beehive, a mess of activity) the alteration of multiplying worlds (so I imagine out of this undifferentiated mess, which reminds a bit the "Waters" at the beginning of the Bible, coming forth various "worlds"- actually the type "world" together with multiplicity, rather than worlds with specific details)  which is brought forth through the extension of trajectories of triple shifting (time, space, actant) that constantly overcome the hiatus that consists of vacillations between material and form , and these trajectories move on when the flow of the mode makes something hold up, makes believe  rather than causes to fail, loses and finally the flow of the mode in the trajectories leaves in its wake dispatches, figurations, forms, works of art.


I still have questions though:

A.When a being tries to pass the hiatus of [FIC] but the felicity condition is negative does this mean that the trajectory stops there or does it mean that the trajectory continues but the quality is somehow compromised?
If for example I am a director, can my theatrical play fail "partially" to move fictionally?

B.How do [FIC] trajectories (to take an example) begin and end? In what whay can an assembly bring forth the beginning of a [FIC] trajectory when nothing was there?
(Experientially it must be like at some point finding suddenly myself in medias res: I was a person holding a pen and now I am somebody who already remembers a recent past of having been visited by the Muse)

C. Beings circulate and achieve their subsistence through passes through other beings but also beings are instituted and left at the wake of the flow taking place in the trajectories and also it seems that there are beings that "Visit" collectives (?) (for example humans, like the [MET] beings) to articulate on them the alteration that they carry.
So there are beings of different compositions (single or multimodal) and having different functional roles relative to the trajectories.
"Being" seems like a term that does too many things in the MOE book.