RE: [-empyre-] Raquel Paricio opening statement

["Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>]

> tradition that clearly defines this phenomenon: wu-wey.
> Even if the direct translation of this word means doing 
> nothing, it really means doing without expectations, just being.
> It is in this "just being" where nothing is accidentally, 
> where, as Jung would say, things happen in relation to 
> something, things are synchronous, they are not accidental, 
> but causal. There is where we can feel that everything in the 
> cosmos is interrelated, that the cells of every living being 
> are just an extension of ours, and in understanding this we 
> can achieve a higher level of consciousness.

Just adding some speculation, for what it's worth: 
I wouldn't  know about the scientific perspective but from a philosophical
point of view "causal" might be a wrong word here, reducing a synchronicity
to (again) a temporal sequence of cause and effect. I'd also object to
'achieving a higher level of consciousness' since you seem to be talking of
apperceptions of perceptions that are already present. 
As far a i know, the taoist dictum wu-wey (also) refers to an acceptance
(apperception) of the reality of nothing, so the expression refers to
acting-in-accordance-with-the-presence-of-nirwana, an acting out of
nothingness (in both senses/combinations: acting out nothingness and acting
from nothingness), where all the recursive steps or levels as you discern
them from a distance collaps in the simultaneity of the act.
 Next, if you prefer to stick to western thought, i think avoiding the trap
of negative theology ( if one can call it that) here may become a difficult
exercise, as it is in any discourse on what you refer to with Qualia, as
Derrida has shown throughout his career. This might become a problem when
you're after establishing a higher level that acts in a
now-you-see-me-now-you-don't way. Basically the 'trap' consist in the fact
that once you introduce it into logical reasoning or a coherent theory,
there's no way of falsifying it anymore within your discourse. Bad stuff if
you're in a hurry.

Perhaps, closer to the problem at hand,  here we need to distinguish between
the process as it goes through its recursive cycles and the effect it has on
the affected consciousness, i.e. the trace it leaves as a (measurable) time
sequence of affected matter, points in space you can point at. In such a
context you can only speak of levels 'after the facts', reducing
consciousness to an object for scientific purposes, making representations,
modelling etc. that can all be very useful and has proven to be so, but in
the end stays fictional because its approach is basically a-temporal.You
speak of levels of consciousness where i can only see a continuum, a gradual
process from deep sleep to highest vigil state. Instances of hysteresis may
occur and be discernable dividing lines but wouldn't that be like saying a
tree counts our 365 days instead of just showing a ring every year?

It's curious how many turns in this discussion come extremely close to the
turns Leibniz took in constructing his monadology system, a system that as
you might well know is 'also' a mix of animism and determinism. 

Next, I don't see this line of reasoning as necessarily leading to a
holistic interpretation, though, as David seems to suggest. I'd rather just
conclude it (re)enables a holistic interpretation, which is not very
surprising from a philosophical-historical point of view where the spiraling
effect in the evolution of theories can be seen as enabling some
interpretations to gain and loose dominance as science moves along its path.
Furthermore,i'd  be rather reluctant to jump to holistic conclusions in view
of how some powerful institutions are very eager to claim any procedural
philosophy like the Whitehead strain of thought to justify their power on
what can be perceived as a scientifically valid basis. 

kindly,
dv