I am You and You are I and We are part of it All (Kristen's rebuttal)

From Robo Culture Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I am You and You are I and We are part of it All.

(The following is a response to Chris Lynch’s dialogue on systems theory; it is not so much a rebuttal but perhaps a continuation of his conversation)

“I am a system”, or am “I”? Before I get into the “I” in all of this, let me first speak to the general notion of systems theory if not for my own sanity.

Systems theory is centered on the notion that we, you, I, everything is part of or exists as a system. A system is any group or number of things, parts, functions that coexist as parts of the whole, the whole being the system. The system is as large or as small as it need be. A system may be a level of government, a type of government, a countries government, a language of government, or nothing that even remotely resembles a government for instance the processes of astrophysics. A system may or may not be a language, whether we are considering the social construction of a language or a language inherent in or as a system, for example the language of physics or biology.

Systems theory or systematicity, as the underlying process at work, is a process, a thought, a language or a function of existence or perhaps being. Systems theory doesn’t propose how necessarily the components of itself behave but merely organizes them in whatever fashion is relevant. In some sense it may provide order out of chaos. Is systems theory the opposite of chaos? I’m not entirely sure, however it is possible. Systematization is the glue, which holds all existing things together including existence itself. For, according to systems theory nothing exists outside of a system. Everything is in some way part of a larger system, perhaps even a system within a system ad infinitum.

So can something exist outside of system? When considering the origins of existence we usually begin by thinking of the origins of humans, then perhaps the origins of matter and from matter we might move to energy and beyond energy perhaps is an unfathomable concept of which we as humans simply can’t understand and even that may be part of another system or the system of which it contributes to. Perhaps system is all encompassing? I am open to further considerations.

Rebuttal or not:

“The traditional notion of 'I' as a marker of individuality, or a core being separate from others, disappears if we suggest that what we are is in fact a larger system. 'I am system' is illogical, because there is no room for 'I' in systematicity.”

In system “You” are an “I” you exist both separate from it and as part of it, “You” are part of the whole, which is the system. You cannot have the whole without the “I’s” that make up the parts of that whole (those parts of a larger system). In this sense “I” and “You” or “I” and “Individual” are one in the same in system. “I” can exist only with a “You” because to “You” “I” is a “You” and “You” is an “I”.

“…my corporeal body or my essence is not necessarily depended on the existence or presence of others but my naming of 'I' is predicated on a separation and distinction. And this separation is precisely that which I am not, as in I am not you or someone else.”

Your corporeal existence is dependant upon others, for without others you would not exist for they came before you and predicated the circumstance upon which you became you. Your corporeal body is the “I” which to others is a “You” so either way you look at it “You” is the same as “I” and both are represented by your corporeal frame.

“Delving further into this, language would not exist if there was not someone to talk to. Not that it would cease to exist if the world was eradicated and there was only one individual left, but rather it would never have been created. Without a group, or otherwise a shared collection of users, language is unnecessary. Thus 'I' is not only a function of language but (along with language) actually describes a group as much as an individual.”

Language can exist on many levels. Just because language has not been develop, learned or recognized does not mean it is non-existent; it simply has not been recognized as a language. Language as the social construction is predicated on the need to communicate however language can also be found in the essence of life (DNA, the will to live, cellular dynamics) or even in the undertaking of the cosmos. Thus language can be viewed as part of a system or a system in and of itself. Language is the organization or function of something whether data, voice, information, physics, or thought (Thought is a language and language is system).

“If Descartes is right, then "I think therefore I am", really should be "The system of language allows me to think therefore I am". But also, "the system of language, which is predicated on a groups existence, allows me to think therefore I am". Herein lies the paradox because under this logic there is no "I am". The 'I' as purely a function of a system negates itself because it is predicated on a structural absence of a group of others, but not others as individuals, but instead others as a whole system.”

I would like to revise the quote by Descartes “I think therefore I am” and Chris’s modification “The system of language allows me to think therefore I am” and make some of my own modification to the two phrases. Perhaps there is more to this pair of quotes than meets the eye, it might look something like this: “The system (or portions of a system) known as language organizes my perceptions of language (language as and part of system) which then allows me to think “I” think and so “I” (or “you”) draw the conclusion that “I” am (part of a system and “I” am a system). So “I/You” are therefore still and always part of a system for the function of "I" or "You" is predicated not on a structural absence of other but dependent on and as others. “You/I” and all others are the system, so “I” am a system.

Personal tools
Bookmark and Share