07.03.08
Discrete freedom sequence
Hucklebird comments on the eonic efect, Comment on Discrete Freedom Sequence, and the DFS is mentioned yesterday in Lincoln/Darwin post.
I am simply not clear on the details referenced in ‘three molecules of separation’. The eonic effect is a long way from the realm of biochemical realities, so I don’t know.
The eonic sequence and the discrete freedom sequence are an interlocked set of abstractions related to the periodization of the eonic model. The result is locked and sealed in a Kantian framework of the phenomenal/noumenal. The analysis is finally empirical, however, and refers to the enigmatic fact that the double emergence of democracy (see the text) is correlated closely with timing seen in the eonic effect.
That analysis is presented ‘neat’ without any possibility allowed of speculations about its noumenal aspect. The overall effect is a striking, almost uncanny, realization of Kant’s Third Antinomy. However, Kant did reference the different meanings of the word freedom in the context of phenomena and noumena. I won’t repeat them here out of context.
In a word I think I got straight what Hegel sensed but allowed to slip away into metaphysical confusion.
So, I don’t know. The actual details of the discrete freedom sequence are very exact, and can’t travel outside their Kantian moorings.
Stephen P. Smith said,
July 3, 2008 at 9:34 pm
What is communication but enough error recognition to strip away all the clutter, thereby leaving an expression in its singular purity? This pure expression conveys meaning because all the particular corruptions have been removed, and it is here that the universal meaning is rediscovered because at this level there is only one mind that reconnects with ontic meaning.
The same pattern is repeated, for all utterance of man, dogs barking, birds chirping, and talking molecules: there must be error recognition on three levels. The fearful expression that first represents itself, as the universal taking flight as a particular expression of freedom, must stand corrected and purified. This leads to the pure deduction. The expression that attracts curiosity, as the particular being united again with the universal, must stand corrected and purified. This leads to the pure induction, and a return to home less free. Pure induction is interpreted by the pure deduction, and it this case the expression is left unchanged; likewise, induction finds its interpretation by deduction, and if it is found less than perfect Popper’s calls for its refutation and a flight to freedom. But now the universal mind has witnessed flux, and it is changed forever except for the pattern that keeps reappearing. What comes next is the abduction, or the speculation presented as a deductive or inductive hypothesis, and it too is subjected to purification that finds bouts of pessimism and optimism.
There must be error recognition on three levels: for deduction (abstract reason and design); for induction (empiricism and evidence based discovery); and for abduction (emotional cleansing and stripping away pre-given assumptions). The universal pattern keeps reappearing, even in the vast plurality of expression.
Could we expect anything less for molecules that are found talking? What are the necessary conditions for communication, conditions that bridge the particular with the universal, if not Kant’s third antinomy? And are not these necessary conditions themselves universals, that keep repeating in the name of error recognition?
The third antinomy is found pulsating.