Correct me if I am wrong, but both of you seem to be overlooking the possibility [and presently working reality] of intervention by sentient agents. The laws of thermodynamics, gravity, etc, can be thwarted, thus equilibrium, entropy and all such 'natural' inclinations of the cosmos [if there are any] can be altered. How does such intrusion by sentient agents, such as ourselves, play into EP?

GARY. C. MOORE:
Do not take what I say too seriously. It is muddled and merely reactive and maybe wholly inappropriate. The phrase 'intrusion by sentient agents' bothers me, but this is not an objection because what Richard goes on to say I agree with whole heartedly. ….. but the point is, 1] thinking is always a work-in-progress, and second, the actual point I was trying to get to, 2] thinking is always-already within the system being thought about so it cannot be 'intrusive' as it is always-already within it, and 3] the system itself is, by nature of the mortal, finite human existence thinking it, always incomplete, fallible, and the very word 'law' means merely a group of non-systematic facts FORCIBLY correlated together because they seem to fit together, produce results, and can be replicated in scientific experiments. However, I would say the concept 'natural law' is wholly bogus because, as a 'law' it can only be meaningfully enunciated within a CLOSED SYSTEM which is only perceivable by the mind of God which, if no logical objections can be raised and they probably should be, there can be no 'closed systems' whatsoever because the only REAL judge is fallible, finite, and mortal human existence. So a sentient agent cannot 'intrude' into a system, or rather ongoing systematization it is always-already within and which can only observe the immediate, and therefore temporary 'temporary' not in the sense it will change, for instance the law of thermodynamics, but that I can only 'know' it on a momentary, now now now now basis. And that, because of my finite human nature, no, rather because I simply am what I am whatever that is another open unsystematic systematizing in progress.

RICHARD SANSOM:
Gary, if I understand the above, you are saying that as integral elements in the cosmos, we are part of it and intrusion is superfluous. I agree with you if that is what you mean.


GARY. C. MOORE:
Yes. In my torturous way I was making a statement about the real inherent impossibility of closed systems which, to make things worse, is actually just becoming apparent to me or I am just now realizing obvious implications of what I have said in the past. This in turn makes any abstraction, including mathematical, actually a very loose 'bag' containing a 'distinct concept' by standards not really completely logical but motivated far more by efficiency of gaining results while snipping off considerations that seem irrelevant to one's purpose in using any purportedly strict, scientific, or mathematical concept. This actually goes back further to the discussion of the 'unity of the brain' which I questioned which in turn brings into question the 'unity' of the personality or the self or any 'clear cut' purpose a supposedly highly focused, intellectually aggressive person may have. However, these are very, very vague thoughts I am merely trying to work through.

But what is beginning to fascinate me is that a sort of genii may have been let out of the bottle in that ANY 'human' activity actually involves MUCH more than what we have our attention focussed upon, and if our 'attention' is brought to some of these points [like, ' Why do you do that with your hand when you talk?' is no longer dismissed as a personal 'quirk' precisely because, upon becoming conscious of it, your whole personality and ability to act to either a minor or a major degree becomes self-conscious and - especially listen to this! - awkward! WHY is becoming 'self-conscious', which according to the rational meaning of the words means a kind of mental focusing, ACTUALLY IN ACTION MEAN - BECOMING UNFOCUSSED AND DISORIENTED? It seems to point to 2 [two] kinds of 'paying attention' that are actually at complete odds with each other, even antagonistic. Am I talking nonsense?

This realization may have to do with my current job distress, anxiety, depression, despair, suicidal tendancies, etc, which even discribing it as such, and then putting those 'irrelevant' things together with the new process of doing 'all' our 'paperwork' on computer - with all the logical contradictions that purported growth in efficiency has brought about - one has MORE paperwork to do not less, one's attention is split between numerous different, equally important things one MUST 'pay attention' to while still being a finite human being that can only be at one place at one time. And then one starts reading about wholesale computer identity thief, first the VA medical records from 1976 in a 'routine' burglery in a 'suburban' home and just now for me but actually 'old news', a thieft from a major credit card sorting concern [I am vague about what 'it' is] of personal data. 'One must stay focused' - but what does that really mean anymore?

I'm running out of time and becoming unfocused. Just to barely touch on with very ill considered thoughts . . .

RICHARD SANSOM:
However, I make the distinction between organic and inorganic entities and in that sense, the organic gopher intrudes into the inorganic earth, and we intrude into the cosmos i. e. sentience intrudes into insentience . If one chooses to make no such distinction, I simply disagree. Perhaps it boils down to the concept of intentionality, I may be entirely wrong, but that concept I ascribe only to organic entities, and only sentient ones at that [Does that mean that sentience = the ability of intentionality? Probably.]. Yes, crystals grow and other natural processes occur as a function of their composition, but growing crystals can surely be separated from my choosing a certain wine?


GARY. C. MOORE:
This is merely speculation now . . . but if one is constructed wholly of basically inorganic elements, would it be all that much of a stretch to say the inorganic nonsentient is having sentient intention? Can we say that there really is a distinction, especially considering what I said above and elsewhere about the impossibily of disregarding supposedly extraneous events and closed systems comprehensible only by God, between sentient and insentient. Another way to put it, what do we do - OR do 'we' do? do 'I' do? - when 'we' think? Doe we think in actuality always in the plural and is focusing of intent merely a spiritualist mythology?

All for now. Now remember, I am truly very fuzzy about ALL of this.

JUD EVANS: 

The first thing I wonder about is whether the cosmos [everything-there-is-for-ever-and ever] REALLY is a closed system? Nobody on God's earth knows this, so how can they describe it as a closed system? Intuitively [my guess] is that it is completely the opposite, and the cosmos is an 'unclosed' everything-there-is-for-ever-and ever system that extends for ever in every direction. I say to those who claim otherwise: *Describe what the boundaries are, and what they are made of?* And if he answers:
*They are made of nothing,* I would answer: 'Ok! Go and make me a 'nothing sandwich' with plenty of 'nothing sauce!'

JON NEIVENS
I guess it’s more a question of how you define ‘closed’ in this context. The Earth isn’t a closed system because it’s powered by the Sun, i. e., there’s energy entering the system from outside. So I’d say the idea of boundaries isn’t really the issue in this context.


JUD EVANS: 

In the context you mention I agree. If the cosmos is an open system that goes on for-ever-and-ever then it means that parts of that for-ever-and-ever will eventually be affected by other [even far-flung] parts of the for-ever-and-ever. Even on lil' ole' earth hundreds of years ago, Chinese goods reached Iceland which must have seemed light-years apart in the 11th century.

JON NEIVENS
I guess the $64,000 question there would be whether the ‘laws of physics’ are uniform throughout the universe. If there are some parts that are ‘subject to different laws’ and those parts interacted with our portion of the universe, then that would certainly produce interesting results.


JUD EVANS: 
Spot on! We will never know for sure. The general vibes I get from the scientific reading I do [more *come-across* than seek out I admit] is that many if not most scientists seem to believe that the *laws of physics* [I can see Richard crinkling up his eyes] are universal.




RICHARD SANSOM:

RICHARD SANSOM:
Richard: So-called open and closed systems are simply convenient constructs. I do not believe there is any such thing as a totally closed system except in a hypothetical sense.

JUD EVANS: 

If the cosmos is an open system that goes on for-ever-and-ever then it means that parts of that for-ever-and-ever will eventually be affected by other [even far-flung] parts of the for-ever-and-ever. I was as usual impressed by both contributions and Richard's mention of the 'replicating molecules' hit me right in the solar plexus. It never occurred to me that inanimate matter could replicate itself - I always mistakenly [or unthinkingly] assumed that replication was a feature that was only possible of organic matter.

RICHARD SANSOM:
Jud, the definition of an organic compound is simply that it must contain carbon and some other elements like hydrogen or nitrogen, etc. I believe the first replications occurred with what are called organic compounds though they are certainly not living. Inorganic compounds are simply those that do not contain hydrocarbons
-- combinations of carbon and hydrogen. i. e. Without carbon, we aint here.

Now, as Jud himself has found out by going to some of the web sites about Lecter, Thomas Harris, like the good former newspaper reporter he is, has thoroughly researched all the subjects Lecter knows about and is related to. He certainly has a distinct but realistic psychoanalytic technique that he uses effectively on Clarice Starling, balanced Sherlock Holmes' style upon a reading of who she is as a person from her appearance and a dialogue based precisely upon the values he knows she has. He reads motivations and deals with them openly so there can never be evasion. If he were simply a criminal there would be plenty for Lecter to evade, especially with a burgeoning FBI agent. He has a vast knowledge of criminology as well as gastronomy as well as Renaissance art as well as etc, etc, etc. Sometimes one wonders about how much difference there is between the author Thomas Harris and his fictional creation Doctor Hannibal Lecter because there is no serial killer in criminal history like Lecter. He hides nothing from someone he has a dialogue with unless he hides it openly as a teaser to get the other to figure out the puzzle. Lecter is definitely into intellectual games but they are all bound to reality and action in the real world. That this is tied to Harris himself is obscurely indicated by the new introduction he wrote to RED DRAGON, which I need to re-read because it indicated a point of Lecter's creation in his past, but in such a way I missed his point. And, now, his new book about Lecter, BEHIND THE MASK, supposedly about his earlier life, though scheduled for release in November of 2005 and March 23, 2006 has disappeared from all the book notices that I had found before as if it were a product of my fervid imagination.

Lecter demonstrates he is fully disciplined and always rationally consistent at least on the points brought up, brutally honest with others and unembarrassed in talking about himself. He never negates the danger of his presence, and yet always keeps his bargains. He never lies, I think, except to liars, some of whom fully deserve what they get, some of whom do not by our judgment but not by his because he never forgives stupidity which Clarice Starling is intelligent enough to recognize very fast even though his unforgivingly honest observations about her hurt her in her deepest core. You cannot deceive him and he is much more effective in that regard as a realistic character than Sherlock Holmes is. Lecter always relies about reading the everyday characteristics about someone they disregard as unimportant.

I have already brought that same subject up in a different context. Our so-called focusing, our so-called intensifying of intellectual prowess is actually in many ways a deleting of factors we deem irrelevant but actually tell everything about us and why we are doing it, things we may not even clearly know in the so-called privacy of our so-called selves, that are actually tags hanging on our clothes, in our hair, in the tone of our skin, the smell of our deodorants, and, of course, our body language supposedly to be considered irrelevant to the linguistic point we are making but many times is not completely missed by the person listening. And if the person is Hannibal Lecter, he is learning more about you than you know about yourself.

Part of this is psychoanalytic training, something easy enough to learn and catch on to using. But another part, revealed in HANNIBAL, is Frances Yates' THE ART OF MEMORY and Jonathan Spence's THE MEMORY PALACE OF MATTEO RICCI. This are not mere memory cribs but are rather whole philosophies, mainly Neoplatonic, mainly Florentine, mainly Renaissance, where one constructs and arranges one's whole mind for maximum effictivity OR as a place to flee in secret rooms when things 'outside' are, let us say, getting extremely difficult or extremely boring and one can do absolutely nothing about it. Whereupon, when the bad things are over, one comes out fresh as a daisy and fully prepared to take advantage of any situation and take action with the whole concentration of one's body and soul that is in no way like our so-called focusing which depends on getting rid of knowledge, not systematizing the whole of one's present context – which is what an expert samurai or Zen master would do – and leads us by another devious route, on my part, to... Japan.