Substance/System/Structure

[past_perfect]

I started this post just a few minutes ago, and had several quotes copied from your ealier statements, and was about to comment on them as a way of prefacing, as I should have, my above post. I'm going to go off the top of my head since I erased each post as I copied it here.

The first thing was that I noted you said something about being actually being bcoming, which I mostly agree with, but not quite the way you put it, if I remember (if I read it again, I may change my mind). We are, there is no doubt about that, though what, other than a collection of atoms, none can say. In this collection of atoms, we certainly become, want or not (we grow physically, we age, we learn, etc.).

It is the human parts that intrigued me. In one post you mentioned the simplicity (my word, maybe yours was actually different, but it was as if the same) of Rombach's explanations of all of this.

If they are simple, I cannot see it in the 3 + 1 structures you mention he has. There is no simplicity, or "ease," I'm sure you said, of his way/method. Also, I didn't see anything in it that specifically pertains to humanity. Perhaps I'm just dense. If so, if you can explain "easily" and "simply," I would appreciate it.

I did have one item that I hadn't erased yet:



In the above, I see, so far, nothing that has to do with "being and reality" in any human way. I'm sure I missed something. Can you explain, or is that to come yet?

You mentioned something about various models, or something like that, that need to come together. From what you're presently saying, I would say that many, from my readings, have already said that. Specifically, Combs and Snygg in my previous post, are taking into account our being a part of the universe, and not apart from it, and thus need to be considered as such. They do not work, of course, from a "structured" methodology such as Rombach has created, but by their own "observations" of what can't be known -- a "field theory" that would lead to what it might be that "operates," and why.

All of the "structures" delved on here are "simply" stated as "organizations" by Combs, who quickly states that humans are an organization also, a collection of atoms, cells, etc. I don't see that yet in Rombach, nor a quick simplicity that is easy to understand, German or no German. Am I being too simplistic, or looking at something in too narrow a scope from what you hope to present? I clearly think that is possible, and if so, my apologies.

Also, many scientists are already saying that there is a "coming together" that is needed in the various disciplines, as well as questioning many of our basic assumptions and tenets, scientifically, and culturally.

In this, it is said with "simplicity" that I so far find absent in Rombach as you display him in your translations.

I don't question, or look at questions such as Roxanne has, as well as others, only what "is," "why" it is, and to "what purpose" it is insofar as being human is concerned, and not "systems" or "schools" or "thought methodologies" it might be that it they create.

I don't see Rombach "going back" in his work, but rather, so far, or as you present it, building a "methodology" that is being looked to as needed to adhere to to make whatever it is he's trying to make sense of, make sense to one and all. This going back without some specific observations seems backward. Is there something I have missed in this as far as humans being humans is concerned?

IOW, there's not yet a "field theory" of observations that lead to any explanation of the basic questions you seem to me to be alluding to that Rombach answers.

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong, but if so, and it is worthy, can you explain it in a "clear," very lucid way? So far it is not easy, nor really clear, but that's probably just me. Thank you.

I can see where the problems must lie at this point - as he is formulating abstracts, the relevance for what we call every day life will not become immediately clear.

In the next parts he will come to the nitty-gritty of it, but I don't think it is spoiling the "aha"-effect if I give you an idea of what he sees as structures. "Personality" or "I" is a structure, "work" is a structure, "society" is a structure.
"Democracy" is a structure. Or, as an interesting abstract, "freedom" is a structure. When I explain those, it will become clearer.

In Germany we divide sciences into two large fields: One is "natural sciences" which would be mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy asf., so basically everything where "laws of nature" come into play. In those instances systems are applicable and therefore rightfully governed by them. Then there are the so-called "humanities" i.e. sociology, philosophy, art, pedagogy, anthropology, politics, economy asf. - psychology pertaining to that group, but being somewhere in the middle, as it has elements of both.

For these Rombach stipulates the structural approach to be the right one, as they are dealing with structures in his view - but what is used there currently are systems. So basically, identifying structures and knowing their pecularities doesn't just mean we are done with that - it means a radical new approach to these disciplines, as well as the above abstracts. In other words, in his view we are currently not adequately responding to our current problems, because our current approach is insufficient by our attempt to apply the logic of systems on something that cannot be contained within those systems. It should be equally clear that responding to "demands" means action, appropriate action for that matter.

This will become clearer when dynamics, genesis and combinatorics are coming into play - so far this is the static, steady-state part of his model.

He is harking back on earlier philosophers - parts of this line of reasoning go back to Nicolaus Cusanus, Blaire Pascal and Gottfried Leibnitz, but they didn't think it through as radical and consequent as he does. The "becoming" part of it will become clearer in the following two sections - that has been beautifully explained and lived by a christian mystic: "Meister Eckhart" who is being regarded as the closest link to eastern thought. There are the other connections - Zen and Tao Te Ching.

Others have tried to introduce the model of an "open system", but he poignantly shows the shortcomings of those approaches - obviously I cannot put everything he addresses in this "abrigded" version, I just want to make sure is model is understood. I hope this answers most of your questions and provides the right mindset to read on.

 

[amicus]

"...I can see where the problems must lie at this point - as he is formulating abstracts, the relevance for what we call every day life will not become immediately clear..."

Another massive dose of bullshit for those unaquainted with the game.

Abstracts...are not for the common man, so all you dummies will not be able to understand my superior (german) logic, so just believe me and follow me.

Yeah, sure, been there, done that, no thanks...

To dismiss the humanities as 'non absolute' as compared to science, is a major error in your presentation.

Although epistemology is not widely accepted as an exact science, it sure as hell is not an 'art' or part of the humanities, and the formation of abstractions or concepts is far more scientific than you let on.

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

"...I can see where the problems must lie at this point - as he is formulating abstracts, the relevance for what we call every day life will not become immediately clear..."

Another massive dose of bullshit for those unaquainted with the game.

Abstracts...are not for the common man, so all you dummies will not be able to understand my superior (german) logic, so just believe me and follow me.

Yeah, sure, been there, done that, no thanks...

To dismiss the humanities as 'non absolute' as compared to science, is a major error in your presentation.

Although epistemology is not widely accepted as an exact science, it sure as hell is not an 'art' or part of the humanities, and the formation of abstractions or concepts is far more scientific than you let on.

amicus...

I am sorry if that sounds dismissive in your ears, but I am under the impression that you don't want to follow Rombach's line of reasoning - I can only speculate why, but I don't want to. I am not letting on - I am explaining his model and leaving all of you to make up your own mind about it - whether you reject or embrace it is entirely up to you. Superior German logic? I have been accused of many things, but nope, I don't think this applies - I am rather modest megalomaniac.

All I want to do now is create a common frame of reference before getting into more serious discussion - as has been rightly said before, we didn't read the same books. As Rombach isn't available in your neck of the woods it appeared to be good choice to explain his model in detail.

 

[amicus]

past_perfect]I am sorry if that sounds dismissive in your ears, but I am under the impression that you don't want to follow Rombach's line of reasoning - I can only speculate why, but I don't want to. I am not letting on - I am explaining his model and leaving all of you to make up your own mind about it - whether you reject or embrace it is entirely up to you. Superior German logic? I have been accused of many things, but nope, I don't think this applies - I am rather modest megalomaniac.

All I want to do now is create a common frame of reference before getting into more serious discussion - as has been rightly said before, we didn't read the same books. As Rombach isn't available in your neck of the woods it appeared to be good choice to explain his model in detail.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~

Let us be just a little up front about this...you are the one who appears here from out of no where to educate us about a little known german philosopher who is not even well enough known to have been translated into English.

You spout and claim a superior and incisive intellect for this man and then we learn he is a Nazi sympathizer and a second rate, follower of his predecessors.

The next level is that you present the philosophy in formal terms which you well know not one of a thousand can comprehend and less so on this forum as few if any are schooled in formal philosophy, I happen to be the exception and I say, full aware of your tactics, that you have some sort of axe to grind and are hell bent to do it.

Nothing you can say or illustrate about Rombach will make an ounce of difference to the flow of humanity and all you are aiming for is that fringe area who cherish chaos and indeterminate theories and structures...to what end, I ask?

If you truly have an insight and the ability to present and discuss, in common terms, some finding about human nature or the philosophy of man, then many here on this forum would be appreciative of your endeavor. As it is, you come across as a university freshman showing off newly discovered, Sidhartha type mentors...no thanks...

amicus....

 

[past_perfect]

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~

Let us be just a little up front about this...you are the one who appears here from out of no where to educate us about a little known german philosopher who is not even well enough known to have been translated into English.

You spout and claim a superior and incisive intellect for this man and then we learn he is a Nazi sympathizer and a second rate, follower of his predecessors.

The next level is that you present the philosophy in formal terms which you well know not one of a thousand can comprehend and less so on this forum as few if any are schooled in formal philosophy, I happen to be the exception and I say, full aware of your tactics, that you have some sort of axe to grind and are hell bent to do it.

Nothing you can say or illustrate about Rombach will make an ounce of difference to the flow of humanity and all you are aiming for is that fringe area who cherish chaos and indeterminate theories and structures...to what end, I ask?

If you truly have an insight and the ability to present and discuss, in common terms, some finding about human nature or the philosophy of man, then many here on this forum would be appreciative of your endeavor. As it is, you come across as a university freshman showing off newly discovered, Sidhartha type mentors...no thanks...

amicus....

I don't know where this anger is coming from - where did I claim that his intellect is "superior"? Where did you get the idea that he was a Nazi sympathizer? I think it is common courtesy to read and digest what others and I have said before attacking - as I feel, baselessly.

My personal approach to life is to understand and evaluate something before dismissing it offhandedly. I cannot and will not suggest that this is the only way of doing that, all I can say, it works for me.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=past_perfect]I don't know where this anger is coming from - where did I claim that his intellect is "superior"? Where did you get the idea that he was a Nazi sympathizer? I think it is common courtesy to read and digest what others and I have said before attacking - as I feel, baselessly.

My personal approach to life is to understand and evaluate something before dismissing it offhandedly. I cannot and will not suggest that this is the only way of doing that, all I can say, it works for me.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~

Sighs...it is not an anger you sense, merely a resignation. Rather than express your hurt at my post, why not respond to it specifically?

and..if you have read all the posts on this thread, as I have, you know exactly where I got the 'idea' that he was a Nazi sympathizer.

Your personal approach to life is of no concern to me, your professional one might be...

amicus....

 

[rgraham666]

Don't bother, past. Our friend can't listen. He knows he's right and there's no sense in discussing it with him.

I had a lot of trouble following your post encapsulating Rombach. My problem rather than yours. I'm not very well educated and not used to reading things such as written there.

But I have been thinking about it though, to the best of my ability.

I keep getting back to Saul. One of the metaphors he uses for balance is the atom. We do have a system for explaining the atom, but it is actually a structure. A structure held in balance by a tension of several forces.

A system tends to fix something in place. As described by the system, an atom is a very static thing.

A structure is a dynamic thing. Something is always occurring inside a structure. Which causes something else to react to it and balance it out. Which invokes another reaction, ad infinitum. Which is, to my mind, a better description of an atom.

From what I can gather Saul and Rombach are on the same page, trying to describe the tension and dynamism of the world, rather than trying to fix it into as Saul puts it, 'narrow bands of logic'.

Interesting stuff, past. Thanks for starting this thread.

 

[past_perfect]

~~~~~~~~

Sighs...it is not an anger you sense, merely a resignation. Rather than express your hurt at my post, why not respond to it specifically?

and..if you have read all the posts on this thread, as I have, you know exactly where I got the 'idea' that he was a Nazi sympathizer.

Your personal approach to life is of no concern to me, your professional one might be...

amicus....

The person embroiled in Nazism was Heidegger, Rombach's precursor. How you can deduct "guilty by association" is beyond me.

My professional approach to life is exactly the same. If you are asking for credentials, you are missing the point I am trying to make.

 

[past_perfect]

Don't bother, past. Our friend can't listen. He knows he's right and there's no sense in discussing it with him.

I had a lot of trouble following your post encapsulating Rombach. My problem rather than yours. I'm not very well educated and not used to reading things such as written there.

But I have been thinking about it though, to the best of my ability.

I keep getting back to Saul. One of the metaphors he uses for balance is the atom. We do have a system for explaining the atom, but it is actually a structure. A structure held in balance by a tension of several forces.

A system tends to fix something in place. As described by the system, an atom is a very static thing.

A structure is a dynamic thing. Something is always occurring inside a structure. Which causes something else to react to it and balance it out. Which invokes another reaction, ad infinitum. Which is, to my mind, a better description of an atom.

From what I can gather Saul and Rombach are on the same page, trying to describe the tension and dynamism of the world, rather than trying to fix it into as Saul puts it, 'narrow bands of logic'.

Interesting stuff, past. Thanks for starting this thread.

I think so too (Rombach and Saul being on the same page) - I received my copy of "Voltaire's bastards" yesterday and am itching to read it - but will continue translating Rombach first, as my experience shows me that I get the best results when I use a certain one-pointedness.

The difficulty you might have is the lack of examples and concrete application of the model. I will provide more as we go along, and some in direct response to questions mismused raised in her first post.

 

[rgraham666]

I think so too (Rombach and Saul being on the same page) - I received my copy of "Voltaire's bastards" yesterday and am itching to read it - but will continue translating Rombach first, as my experience shows me that I get the best results when I use a certain one-pointedness.

The difficulty you might have is the lack of examples and concrete application of the model. I will provide more as we go along, and some in direct response to questions mismused raised in her first post.

I think you'll enjoy Voltaire's Bastards, it really is a very interesting read.

That book uses a lot of concrete examples. I'm a bit of a military history nut and so really got caught when Saul started writing about the effects of Reason on the military art. Especially when he expressed admiration for leaders I have respect for, specifically Guderian and von Manstein. These were people who understood that war is 'unreasonable', that is it's not entirely amenable to rational thought. It's why they were so good at what they did.

But we've made war rational. We use all kinds of things to make it a matter of calculation. Body counts, throw weights, kilometers advanced, Circular Error Probable; numbers are what we use to measure war now.

But you can't measure victory. And victory is something the West's militaries haven't known for a long time now.

Sorry, a bit of a rant. Still, enjoy Saul's book. I found it a real treat.

 

[past_perfect]

If they are simple, I cannot see it in the 3 + 1 structures you mention he has. There is no simplicity, or "ease," I'm sure you said, of his way/method. Also, I didn't see anything in it that specifically pertains to humanity. Perhaps I'm just dense. If so, if you can explain "easily" and "simply," I would appreciate it.

I did have one item that I hadn't erased yet:



In the above, I see, so far, nothing that has to do with "being and reality" in any human way. I'm sure I missed something. Can you explain, or is that to come yet?

You mentioned something about various models, or something like that, that need to come together. From what you're presently saying, I would say that many, from my readings, have already said that. Specifically, Combs and Snygg in my previous post, are taking into account our being a part of the universe, and not apart from it, and thus need to be considered as such. They do not work, of course, from a "structured" methodology such as Rombach has created, but by their own "observations" of what can't be known -- a "field theory" that would lead to what it might be that "operates," and why.

All of the "structures" delved on here are "simply" stated as "organizations" by Combs, who quickly states that humans are an organization also, a collection of atoms, cells, etc. I don't see that yet in Rombach, nor a quick simplicity that is easy to understand, German or no German. Am I being too simplistic, or looking at something in too narrow a scope from what you hope to present? I clearly think that is possible, and if so, my apologies.

Also, many scientists are already saying that there is a "coming together" that is needed in the various disciplines, as well as questioning many of our basic assumptions and tenets, scientifically, and culturally.

In this, it is said with "simplicity" that I so far find absent in Rombach as you display him in your translations.

I don't question, or look at questions such as Roxanne has, as well as others, only what "is," "why" it is, and to "what purpose" it is insofar as being human is concerned, and not "systems" or "schools" or "thought methodologies" it might be that it they create.

I don't see Rombach "going back" in his work, but rather, so far, or as you present it, building a "methodology" that is being looked to as needed to adhere to to make whatever it is he's trying to make sense of, make sense to one and all. This going back without some specific observations seems backward. Is there something I have missed in this as far as humans being humans is concerned?

IOW, there's not yet a "field theory" of observations that lead to any explanation of the basic questions you seem to me to be alluding to that Rombach answers.

It wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong, but if so, and it is worthy, can you explain it in a "clear," very lucid way? So far it is not easy, nor really clear, but that's probably just me. Thank you.

Ok, let me try to explain in more detail. If you take a snapshot of a structure, you have the static constituents of structure. That is the part I have posted yesterday. He then explains the other two principles - the dynamic and genetic side of a structure. Those parts I will post in the next few days (hopefully).

Potential and possibility leading to realisation as opposed to concretion:
In traditional models you have the staircase or ladder analogy. If you reach one step (being a possibility or within your potential before) then you can progress to the next - but only then. To make it clear in terms of the current discussion: Once you have your moral absolutes fixed and in place, you can easily do "the right thing" in each and every situation and can progress to something else. Rombach is saying that if you are confronted with the situation, the situation will unfold in such a way, that you will do what is "right" based on who and what you are or think you are.
A concrete example:
An old lady in a wheelchair forgot to put on her brakes and rolls into an ice-cold lake. Two bystanders react entirely different. One young man is jumping into the lake to save her, irrespective of the probability of success, irrespective of the probability of his own demise. He does what he feels the situation dictates - for him the structure has its own order. There is only one solution for him. He doesn't use logic, rationalism or whatever. But what he does is very human - and many would agree "the right thing to do".

The other bystander is standing there, petrified and unable to assist. That is very human too - he could in retrospect rationalise why he didn't do what he didn't do, but it doesn't matter. The structure of personality the first one had, allowed him to make that decision in a split-second - the structure of personality the other one had didn't . He could equally come to the conclusion that what he did was "the right thing" to do.

That is concretion - a situation presents itself, becomes part of your structure and you deal with it, each and everyone in their own way, because no two structures are alike.

 

[past_perfect]

I think you'll enjoy Voltaire's Bastards, it really is a very interesting read.

That book uses a lot of concrete examples. I'm a bit of a military history nut and so really got caught when Saul started writing about the effects of Reason on the military art. Especially when he expressed admiration for leaders I have respect for, specifically Guderian and von Manstein. These were people who understood that war is 'unreasonable', that is it's not entirely amenable to rational thought. It's why they were so good at what they did.

But we've made war rational. We use all kinds of things to make it a matter of calculation. Body counts, throw weights, kilometers advanced, Circular Error Probable; numbers are what we use to measure war now.

But you can't measure victory. And victory is something the West's militaries haven't known for a long time now.

Sorry, a bit of a rant. Still, enjoy Saul's book. I found it a real treat.

Yes and that is exactly what I am trying to say: Our current or previous approaches do not work. That seem to be the same precepts Saul and Rombach have. As far as I can tell they approach the problem from an entirely different angle and arrive at the same conclusions. For me that is a tell-tale that maybe they are describing something which is true and valid. That is what I understand under "convergence".

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[past_perfect]

Here is one place where I have a great difficulty with what you suggest Rombach says (I try not to say that "Rombach said" because I haven't read him). As you detail it here, you're stipulating that we all have "structure" that is locked in. Did you mean it that way, or just in this situation?

The reason I ask is that from a "field theory" of personality, as espoused by Dr. Combs in "Being and Becoming," we each have a perceptual field that can, or does change by the moment, sort of like the ever changing tides or winds. What we can say is that we can understand certain important differentiations in a person that make it possible to guide us in determining what a person will do under particular circumstances, but is not always locked in. Possible and guide are the operative words here.

In so far as organization (your structure, I think) he states, as we all know, that we are made of atoms (yes, these can also be further broken down to their constituent parts, etc.) that for whatever reason, organize themselves as cells,and cells do the same to become organs, etc. That is visibly observeable, but what is not are those internal portions that make up the personality, for the which he ascribes an individual "field theory" for each individual.

I will look for where the simplicity of Rombach comes in to compare the two. Hopefully it will add to what I have thus far learned.

Well, it is much simpler. The "I" is a structure, self-organised if you want to use that term, or self-ordered if we use Rombach's. The structure extends to what it encounters - unrolls a set of relations to what it encounters in the very moment it encounters it. As soon as these relations are being determined, it is part of the structure. In other words coming back to the example - the situation (which is of course a set of perceptions and evaluations) is part of what the "I" experiences, thereby becoming part of its own context - something concrete.

You can read a story like that and try to figure out what you would do in a similar situation. However, you will never know what you will do until a situation like that becomes concrete for you - meaning it becomes part of your structure. In other words - the situation becomes "your own". The "I" is inextricably interwoven with the "situation". That is what is meant by unfolding and concretion. Note the repercussions a situation like that will have on the "I" structure - after the fact. What I mean by that will become clearer when I introduce dynamic and genetic structural categories.

So I think Rombach and Combs may have a similar approach - however, Rombach extends this "pattern" or model beyond individuality, but that is surely one of the most important phenomena he examines.

I used this particular example because there is no long cogitation or weighing of consequences involved - to show that those exist as well, and still ethical behaviour is exhibited or demanded by the situation.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[gauchecritic]

Das moment literally translated as 'the moment' is a perfectly good and valid description as far as I understand it, hence the words momentous and momentum including of course an amount of time; moment.

Now I'm just trying to absorb your translation as it fits with 'being' and I'm not entirely clear on where that is exactly.

Are we talking about constituent parts of 'mind' (for want of a better term) and as they apply to society, conscience and consciousness? or is it all nebulous word-mongery about its own self?

I thinbk I need a diagram.

What I have understood partly (requiring correction if necessary) is that the observed is not only affected by the observer but also affects the observer by being observed? Making it part of itself and thus (in a strangely biblical sort of way) making everybody responsible for absolutely anything that happens anywhere from the price of oil to... hold on.

Are you saying that cause and effect are part of the same system but that they can happen independantly?

 

[past_perfect]

Das moment literally translated as 'the moment' is a perfectly good and valid description as far as I understand it, hence the words momentous and momentum including of course an amount of time; moment.

Now I'm just trying to absorb your translation as it fits with 'being' and I'm not entirely clear on where that is exactly.

Are we talking about constituent parts of 'mind' (for want of a better term) and as they apply to society, conscience and consciousness? or is it all nebulous word-mongery about its own self?

I thinbk I need a diagram.

What I have understood partly (requiring correction if necessary) is that the observed is not only affected by the observer but also affects the observer by being observed? Making it part of itself and thus (in a strangely biblical sort of way) making everybody responsible for absolutely anything that happens anywhere from the price of oil to... hold on.

Are you saying that cause and effect are part of the same system but that they can happen independantly?

Well, I thought about using moment - the literal translation for moment would be "der Moment". Der Moment and Das Moment differ - the first having a temporal meaning the second an abstract organisational and at the same time an attribute of "impulse". I wasn't sure if using moment would immediately suggest a reduction to temporality. If you think it is applicable nevertheless I will change it.

Yes and no. We are talking about structures and constituents of structure. The "I" obviously is mind, but of course is body too. Both belong to the same structure. The "I" however is not an abstract "being" it is something concrete. In becomes concrete when it is "reaching out" or is "being confronted" with something (which doesn't necessarily have to be "outside" and isn't really "outside" because of the inclusion) - like in my example "a situation". In those moments part of who and what you are becomes concrete for yourself and if there are others for them as well (as it becomes concrete for them who they are, "you" being part of their "situation", their relation to you and your actions defining their "I" in part - or becoming concrete for them) - as you are expressing that through action. You are building a set of relations to the situation, here shown in a dynamic action. He also distinguishes between "I" and "self", but it would be too confusing if I try to explain that now.

You could see a causality loop here - because the "I" is confronted with "a situation" concretion of what the "I" is in that situation occurs. Because of that situation and the way it manifested itself in that situation, it will never be the same again. Or in other words - being is a snapshot. Where living or life are concerned the snapshots never stop - become a movie. Bad analogy, but hopefully it makes it a little clearer.

The "I" is being defined - it is being defined by its relations to what it encounters and of course whom it encounters. That is difficult to explain with the static constituents - as they are in a fashion a system - but it will become clearer in the next parts.

That is basically why I used constituents instead of constitution - to make clear that we are not talking about steady states, or only talk about steady states in that snapshot analogy. Rombach explains that in detail in the next chapter, so I translated a large chunk of that to make things clearer.