Chaos cannot be polymorphic as Chaos whould then have structure… Caos by definition cannot have structure, and no polymorphic structure cannot go into, be with, be a part, etc, etc of Chaos. Chaos is a mental and linguistic way of dealing with the Unknown. What is included in Chaos? Nothing. Can Chaos be totally random? No, because, total randonness will repeat itself either now or later, and therefore will maintain structure.
Well, then, Chaos is a need – No, because need always creates and or adhers to some structure. Chaos is no structure that is seen or imagined or described in a discrete manner or a discrete structure that by its own definition is perpetually discontinuous – which makes it a negative structure and there there is form and structure of some kind.
As I read what you read, it seems that you are saying that All & Everything is born out of Chaos. Is Chaos movement
Pure and simple? Could be – but Enrico Fermi, grandfather of a friend of mine discovered the neutrino that is “AN Existant” with no form, no electrical charge, nothing but spin…..and neutrinos somehow help atoms to be building blocks. So could you really say that Neutrinos are either the Cause of Chaos or Chaos Itself? No can do Buckeroo, because in both cases something of advance form is suddenly created. Chaos only exists as a linguistic dead-end that is a catch word for dealing with something unknown, But, let’s suppose that everything I have written is basically wrong, you are still saying or saying by implication, that Chaos is Prime Mover, and a Prime Mover, is, of course The first, and so is not born nor created, and has to be unmoved. Thus Chaos would have to create itself to exist. But then, lets ignore that, and say, “Is Chaos a stable structure in any way? No, Chaos is totally instability, if it is stable then you are talking about known and/or unknown change. Thus once again, we ask where is Chaos. Chaos has a very specific definition in modern physiscs, and the man who really dealt with this was/is John Forbes Nash, who told me that the writers on Chaos really don’t understand that he used this word when he invented the beginnings of Chaos Theory, that it was a word that will be wildly misinterpreted due to a lack of study in physics and mathematics, that Chaos Theory was, as far as he is concerned Here are some Nash statements – bits he mentioned as best I can rememberand reread my notes:
‘ Governing Dynamics - There are underlying principles that govern phenomenon that are so complex that they appear to be random.
A manifestation of the uncertainty principle or quantum indeterminacy that builds up enough collective force to actually cause a sense of random chaos in the lower dimensions that we experience on a day-to-day basis. You can use concept of M-Theory and the multiverse as we try to uncover what takes place in reality from a multi-dimensional perspective. It's difficult to grasp the concept since many of these mathematically hypothesized dimensions are wrapped up in 3D-space in subatomic-sized knots. In this light, random events may simply boil down to the causality of hyper-dimensional analysis. Otherwise, perhaps consciousness does effect the dimension of time. It could be that consciousness is like a random seed generation (that pulls random values similar to pulling numbers from the computer's clock at various; incremental decimal places). Therefore, the dimension of time combined with consciousness causes the appearance of random emerging patters. Every other spatial dimension about "time" is dependent on every dimension before it in order to exist (no tesseracts without "time"). Therefore, we blame the compact noodles buried beneath the fabric of time. All this is dependent on several mathematical and philosophical assumptions that attempt to define the human conscious experience.
This is very close to Nash’s exact words.
So finanlly onto to Martin Heidigger:
First some quotes from M.H.
Being-in-the-world
Being-in-the-world is Heidegger's replacement for terms such as subject, object, consciousness, and world. For him, the split of things into subject/object, as we find in the Western tradition and even in our language, must be overcome, as is indicated by the root structure of Husserl and Brentano's concept ofintentionality, i.e., that all consciousness is consciousness of something, that there is no consciousness, as such, cut off from an object (be it the matter of a thought, or of a perception). Nor are there objects without some consciousness beholding or being involved with them.
At the most basic level of being-in-the-world, Heidegger notes that there is always a mood, a mood that "assails us" in our unreflecting devotion to the world. A mood comes neither from the "outside" nor from the "inside," but arises from being-in-the-world. One may turn away from a mood, but that is only to another mood; it is part of our facticity. Only with a mood are we permitted to encounter things in the world. Dasein (a co-term for being-in-the-world) has an openness to the world that is constituted by the attunement of a mood or state of mind. As such, Dasein is a "thrown" "projection" (geworfen Entwurf), projecting itself onto the possibilities that lie before it or may be hidden, and interpreting and understanding the world in terms of possibilities. Such projecting has nothing to do with comporting oneself toward a plan that has been thought out. It is not a plan, since Dasein has, as Dasein, already projected itself. Dasein always understands itself in terms of possibilities. As projecting, the understanding of Dasein is its possibilities as possibilities. One can take up the possibilities of "The They" self and merely follow along or make some more authentic understanding. (See Hubert Dreyfus' book Being-in-the-World.)
Disclosure, or "world disclosure"[
Main article: World disclosure
Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Spinosa write that: "According to Heidegger our nature is to be world disclosers. That is, by means of our equipment and coordinated practices we human beings open coherent, distinct contexts or worlds in which we perceive, feel, act, and think."
Heidegger scholar Nikolas Kompridis writes: "World disclosure refers, with deliberate ambiguity, to a process which actually occurs at two different levels. At one level, it refers to the disclosure of an already interpreted, symbolically structured world; the world, that is, within which we always already find ourselves. At another level, it refers as much to the disclosure of new horizons of meaning as to the disclosure of previously hidden or unthematized dimensions of meaning."
Further information: Reflective disclosure
Existence
Heidegger uses this word to describe the nature of Dasein’s being. Beings unlike Dasein (chairs, shoes, etc.) do not "exist"; they are merely "objectively present". Dasein exists; chairs are objectively present.
Two related words, existenziell and Existential, are used as descriptive characteristics of Being. To be existenziell is a categorical or ontic characteristic: an understanding of all this which relates to one's existence, while an Existenzial is anontological characteristic: the structure of existence.
And so finally, what it seems to me that you are really reacting to (Chaos)would be better served to investigate Heidegger’s idea of “Being Thrown” or “Throwness”
Simon Critchley writes about his better than Heidegger’ s tranlations from German (his native tongue) . I quote:
Thrownness (Geworfenheit) is the simple awareness that we always find ourselves somewhere, namely delivered over to a world with which we are fascinated, a world we share with others.
We are always caught up in our everyday life in the world, in the throw of various moods, whether fear, boredom, excitement or – as we will see in the next entry – anxiety.
But, Heidegger insists, Dasein is not just thrown into the world. Because it – we – are capable of understanding, we can also throw off our thrown condition. Understanding is, for Heidegger, a conception of activity. It is always understanding how to do something or how to operate something. Understanding is the possession of an ability (etwas können) and the authentic human is characterised by the ability or potentiality to be (Seinkönnen).
So, the human being is not just a being defined by being thrown into the world. It is also one who can throw off that thrown condition in a movement where it seizes hold of its possibilities, where it acts in a concrete situation. This movement is what Heidegger calls projection (Entwurf) and it is the very experience of what Heidegger will call, later in Being and Time, freedom. Freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept. It is the experience of the human being demonstrating its potential through acting in the world. To act in such a way is to be authentic.
OK…so this is a lot of brain stretching…for one post…but Brain Stretching always makes us smarter.
I rest my case, I think you ought to study this as this information will lead to more creativity, in all ways. If 3 people read this, I will be happy. Intelligence spreads incrementally.
At least several people will pooh-pooh this post and say some snarky things about me, or ignore the post completely, or joke – its happened too many times for me to believe otherwise. But it is the Syndic’s work to keep truth (in all its forms and information of the most important alive…Fermi, Nash, & Heidegger deserve at least that.truth when kept alive through talk, discussion, and argument happens – We Happen Better As Well,
Caiyros
