I don't think so. I'm with Witt & Gadamer on this. We are loaded with prejudices, AKA culture. So we need them and yet they are in our way. Metaphors, pictures, myths. Is there a system without some unjustified master concept, some kind of grand narrative that's true for no reason? Look for an image of their hero, their ego ideal, their proposed what-we-should-all-be. I've never met/read anyone, including myself, without holes in their story, things they take for granted without noticing it, a roleplay of some version of the hero. — jas0n

Why are they in our way? How do we know they are i.our way except when we are ready to replace them? Aren’t these prejudices what Nietzsche called value systems? Heidegger says “ The world with which we are concerned and being-in itself are both interpreted within the parameters of a particular framework of intelligibility.”
Shouldn’t we hold onto the framework until it begins to fail us? It’s not as if there will be no warning signs. Thats what our emotions are for. Our anger, anxiety and confusion express in vivid colors our ability to function effectively within a crumbling frame of intelligibility.

Unless of course you believe we are just ‘conditioned’ to interpret events via a certain framing narrative. In that case our most deeply held beliefs would be arbitrary, unjustified, true for no reason. But don’t truth and justification follow upon pragmatic usefulness? Isn’t there a kind of reasonableness within pragmatic relevance, or is relevance itself the mere product of arbitrary conditioning?

We need the same dead metaphors that trap us. We are snakes climbing out of our skins, Neurathian rafts of metaphors clusters. — jas0n

Maybe the metaphors arent as dead is it might seem:

According to Gendlin, following Wittgenstein, an event(whether conceived as conceptual or bodily-physiological) is itself, at one time and in one gesture, the interbleeding between a prior context(source) and novel content(target). Gendlin(1995) says, in such a crossing of source and target, “each functions as already cross-affected by the other. Each is determined by, and also determines the other(p.555)”.

All events are metaphorical in themselves, as a mutual inter-affecting of source and target escaping the binary of representation and arbitrariness.

Gendlin(1997a) explains:

Contrary to a long history, I have argued that a metaphor does not consist of two situations, a "source domain" and a "target domain". There is only one situation, the one in which the word is now used. What the word brings from elsewhere is not a situation; rather it brings a use-family, a great many situations. To understand an ordinary word, its use-family must cross with the present situation. This crossing has been noticed only in odd uses which are called "metaphors"...all word-use requires this metaphorical crossing(p.169).

But signs have their meaning only differentially (in relation to other signs), and the entire context/system drifts, so that the 'same' salute or secret handshake is not quite the same, anymore than the 'same' knight on a chessboard maintains some constant 'meaning' as the game advances. — jas0n

Kind of , except that I’d say there no ‘entire context’ for Derrida. That’s a structuralist notion, the idea of a centered structure, or distributed operating system, a dance of elements a camera could
capture as some overarching logic. Context for Derrida begins and ends with the singular mark. The drift originates with time, not interpersonal language , from one element to the next to the next. What differentiates Derrida’s thinking of sign from authors like Foucault is not the differential relation between signs , it’s the spilt within the sign. The sign is already an in-between, a transit , even before it’s relation to other signs.

Let’s translate this into something more concrete. Using your metaphor of the dance or a distributed system, how would we parse the ‘dance’ that takes place on this philosophy forum among its participants, or just between you and me in the present discussion? Is it a dialogical ping-pong game, with your words affecting , shaping and changing my experience as I read them and my response doing the same for you? Is there an overall third-person ( or perhaps second person) logic that can be employed to depict the organizational dynamics of this I-thou system , or the larger system that includes all participants in a thread?

Foucault would say yes, Derrida would say no. He and Heidegger wouldnt deny that we can point to cultural
hegemonies and world-views, but they wouldn’t analyze these in such a way that they would take the overarching group dynamic as primary or even complementary to the personalistic perspective.

Imagine knowing what will happen for most occasions, and having to dread through the unbearable moments with agonizing, slow gnawing, suffocation and despair. — chiknsld

Reminds me of this from psychologist George Kelly:

Confusion and the Clock:
Some Things I would Like to Know, But Not Yet

It has often occurred to me, as I am sure it has to you too, that it would be amusing to have a peek through the curtain of night at what tomorrow has in store. Suppose I could observe what I would be doing at this time tomorrow night. It might be interesting to watch the goings on from this present vantage point of the evening before, yet not to participate in them, nor to be concerned with whether I was doing what I was supposed to be doing, nor even to be in any danger of being recognized as an intruder. Such a thing would have to be done surreptitiously, however, for I am sure if I were to be caught at my eavesdropping, my tomorrow's I (How do you say that?) would become self-conscious about the arrangement and start acting in an un- natural manner. He might not even do things the way he was destined to do them, and the whole affair might fall apart in a shambles of irreality.
But if I could manage to keep out of sight, so that all the performers in tomorrow evening's episode would act the way the sum-total of their previous experiences supposedly required them to act, that is, would act naturally, the affair might come off pretty well. Now that I think of it, the other people, other than myself-tomorrow and myself-today, ought to be easy enough to fool, even if they did get a glimpse of me eavesdropping. They would probably no more than mistake me for myself-tomorrow, and think it quite natural that I should be there - unless, of course, I was wearing a different colored shirt, or hadn't shined my shoes, as I haven't to- night. So that part of the arrangement has a reasonable chance of being worked out, in spite of what some of my more skeptical readers - not you; I didn't mean you! - are likely to think.
Where I would get into trouble, if I weren't extremely careful, is with myself. Perhaps if I arrived in some kind of disguise, it would keep me from finding myself out. Now, let's see: I could go as my Cousin Leander. I don't know him very well, and if I looked a little familiar to myself, there would be a perfectly logical explanation.
Leander, however, if I remember correctly, is a little nearsighted, and, unless his nearsight- edness has been offset by presbyopia during the last ten years, he might miss a good deal of what was going on. Besides, I doubt if Cousin Leander would be very much interested in what I am going to do tomorrow night. That wouldn't be a real obstacle, of course, since I would on- ly be pretending to myself that I was Cousin Leander.
Still, the performance would have to be pretty good - pretty realistic, I mean - to fool me.

Here’s the rest of it:

https://www.aippc.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2015.01.003.019.pdf

I've dug out my ancient notes to refresh my mind on where I felt Derrida fits in here. I see that he was dealing with the very Peircean issue of the origin of rational structure.

Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?

So he was pointing to the question of how all things - whether we are talking of cosmic structure or human phenomenological structure - could arise from some pure and simple source when structure is already itself, something irreducibly complex. (That is, a systematic, triadic or hierarchical relation.) — apokrisis

Derrida and Peirce on genesis and structure make an interesting comparison. To throw my two cents in, not to state a preference for one over the other , but just to delineate Derrida’s position on origins, his is binary hinge rather than a triadic dynamic.

For him , in the beginning there was the mark , trace , gramme, differance ( these terms are interchangeable).
They refer to an identity , subject or ipseity divided within itself in the very act of returning back to itself to repeat itself. Put differently, in order to constitute itself , the ‘I’ must borrow from what is other than itself. In this way there is at once a formal, transcendental , structural aspect to the mark ( that a meaning is being carried forward by being repeated or reflected back to itself) and an empirical, genetic aspect( in the very act of repeating itself or turning back around to glimpse itself it is exposed to alterity). This origin is not a vagueness or an indeterminacy but an undecidability . The mark is undecidable because there is no question of choosing between presence and absence, genesis and structure, form and content , the ideal and the empirical. Both are indissociable in a single mark. This is the complexity of the origin, its hinged articulation.

Derrida writes:

"The iterability of an element divides its own identity a priori, even without taking into account that this identity can only determine or delimit itself through differential relations to other elements and hence that it bears the mark of this difference. It is because this iterability is differential, within each individual "element" as well as between "elements", because it splits each element while constituting it, because it marks it with an articulatory break, that the remainder, although indispensable, is never that of a full or fulfilling presence; it is a differential structure escaping the logic of presence..(LI53)."

“Iterability makes possible idealization-and thus, a certain identity in repetition that is independent of the multiplicity of factual events- while at the same time limiting the idealization it makes possible:broaching and breaching it at once...the possibility of its being repeated another time-breaches, divides, expropriates the "ideal" plenitude or self-presence of intention,...of all adequation between meaning and saying. Iterability alters...leaves us no room but to mean (to say) something that is (already, always, also) other than what we mean (to say) (Limited, Inc,p.61)... It is not necessary to imagine the death of the sender or of the receiver, to put the shopping list in one's pocket, or even to raise the pen above the paper in order to interrupt oneself for a moment. The break intervenes from the moment that there is a mark, at once. It is iterability itself, ..passing between the re- of the repeated and the re- of the repeating, traversing and transforming repetition.”

I, personally, have left Psychology far behind me ... — Alkis Piskas

Or so you think.

I detect in you less ambivalence than I feel in myself toward 'pomo' recklessness/indulgence. Grand statements are delivered which contain important insights and yet the implicit self-subversion of such insights is ignored. Concrete details are mostly omitted. Examples are sparse. Purple haze. — jas0n

There are ways to mitigate against that haze. When in doubt, consult the empiricists, or those who at least have one foot in naturalism. My list of favorite pomo types who fit the bill include Shaun Gallagher , Dan Zahavi, Hanne De Jaegher, Thomas Fuchs, Matthee Ratcliffe, Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela, Michel Bitbol and Joseph Rouse. I find Rouse particularly valuable for his ability to connect philosophy of science, Heidegger , phenomenology and postmodernism.
Are you familiar with any of these?

I think On Certainty points at the same abyss/ground as Popper's swamp does. 'Doubt' occurs 'within' or against a background of non-doubt or automatism. I manifest trust in the intelligibility in the most radical questioning I can manage, just as stepping out of bed manifests an expectation that the floor will catch my feet. — jas0n

These ‘hinge propositions’ are not meant as irreducible grounds for all my deliberations. They are the preconditions for language games, but that does not mean that they are situated outside of the the context of the game as general types or categories. There is no element of language that is situated outside of the immediate context of the use of words for Wittgenstein. So these ‘ automatisms’ , types, categories are themselves freshly determined by immediate context of use.
Popper, on the other hand, believed that such ‘non-doubt’ automatisms stand apart from the contingency of the context of use.

Your reading of Witt here reminds me of Hacker’s, which is critiqued here:

“The mistake here then is (Baker &) Hacker's thought that what is problematic for Wittgenstein—what he wants to critique in the opening remarks quoted from Augustine—is that words name things or correspond to objects, with the emphasis laid on the nature of what is on the other side of the word-object relationship. Rather, we contend that what is problematic in this picture is that words must be relational at all—whether as names to the named, words to objects, or ‘words' belonging to a ‘type of use.'It is the necessarily relational character of ‘the Augustinian picture' which is apt to lead one astray; Baker & Hacker, in missing this, ultimately replace it with a picture that retains the relational character, only recast. There is no such thing as a word outside of some particular use; but that is a different claim from saying, with Baker & Hacker, that words belong to a type of use. For a word to be is for a word to be used. Language does not exist external to its use by us in the world.” (Hutchinson and Read)

you want to bend your metaphysics to suit a socio-political agenda. Pluralism wins, or whatever. — apokrisis

I wouldnt say agenda. I’d say the eternal transformation of agendas. Is that still an agenda?

The point is that the laws of thermodynamics encode the most general cosmic constraints ... and so, reciprocally, also its most generic local degrees of freedom.

What isn't constrained is free to be the case. It is a possibility that can be concretely expressed.

So the cosmos isn't ruled by laws that determine every "free" action. It is ruled by constraints that - due to their limited reach - underwrite actual creative freedom — apokrisis

So freedom is play within an overarching frame? Free variations on a theme?

In the long-run, the statistical outcomes rule. How an organism spends its freedoms gets judged by history. — apokrisis

So ‘underwriting freedom’ are the objective constraints that allow for a statistical calculation of historical probabilities. History as pre-assigned boundary conditions of behavior, within which there is freedom to excel or screw up.

So you make the usual socially-expected statement about "being a free thinking and feeling individual, not a mindless entropy dissipating machine". You shake a fist at the very notion of fundamental constraints.

How could you personally feel free unless you also imagined there were laws to break? This would be why you need a totalising discourse as something to react against. How can you imagine living in a world of maximum social pluralism unless you have also the backdrop of a maximal social conformity to kick against? — apokrisis

A Romantic free-thinking and feeling individual implies more oppressively severe fundamental constraints than an entropy dissipating system. Such a Cartesian subjectivity is only free to think what it already knows at some level. A Nietzschean free-thinker is also free to think within a value system that constrains him, and is free to eventually destroy and replace that value system, but it is no longer the same ‘him’ that replaces the prior values , for he is changed along with the system. So the I that espouses my freedom is not the same I that overthrows my current values. The ‘I’ is thus finite, and along with it history in general and anything else that can be considered ‘general’ , ‘generic’ ,‘universal’ or even ‘pluralistic’ or ‘conformist’. The world of maximum social pluralism and the world of maximum social conformity (authoritarianism) are two poles of a binary, a general economy of relations thought from the vantage of a particular system of values(multiculturalism, liberal tolerance). But that makes the pluralism-conformity binary a finite, historically contingent formation. So there are the laws one breaks within a system of values , while remaining within that system:

The Proud Boys must make Antifa real, and Antifa must make the Proud Boys real. — apokrisis

And then there is the overthrow of the system of values:

Yet the bigger picture is still the fact that constraints and freedoms are reciprocally yoked together as the two poles of being which make for a cosmos in the first place. Without general limitation, there is no possibility of there being any particular reaction against those limits. — apokrisis

An even bigger picture begins with the overthrow of a value system which depicts a cosmos structured by specific objective laws, and a history that can be probabilistically calculated. It proceeds from this overthrow to what Nietzsche called a revaluation of all values, not a tolerant pluralism or celebration of subjective freedom but a yoking of current self and value system to a non-calculable other history and other self-to-be, an eternal return of the same , always different self, history and values.

Consider a murder trial. I think it's a crisp enough empirical matter to ask whether Jones shot Smith. In the real world, the shared world, not just in your dream or my dream. Or one can ask whether Jones is the biological father of Smith. I don't think what I gesture toward with the formal indication of 'shared world' can be finally and happily specified. It's not just 'atoms and void' or 'medium sized dry goods.' — jas0n

Here I can’t help thinking how Wittgenstein would respond. What would be of interest to him is not simply the fact of the matter ( whether Jones shot Smith), as if that has any meaning outside of agreed on criteria, but how the context determines the particular way that a ‘fact of the matter’ has its sense.

How do you see the average person taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection? We live in a world of great dogmatic divisions - big question - is there are approach which less educated — Tom Storm

Gene Gendlin’s Focusing offers a pretty cool way to learn to tap into the generating process.

I basically agree, but do you see the indirect realism peeking out this? You say 'my version' of the world, which is your perspective on the one world we share. Yes, these 'perspectives' are hardly only geometrical. We all see the world in terms of projected futures constructed from our unique histories, but the philosopher seeks to transcend such bias and incarnate something like an ideal perspective. As — jas0n

But isnt my version part of this world? And every time I elaborate or revise my version I am contributing another piece to the world. The question then is how is a world shared by participants who are each constantly contributing new elements , but new elements which mean different things to different persons who interact. The image is more one of a multitude
of worlds , and each of us can only describe things from within our own sphere. There can ever be anything ‘same’ between two or more people, just as there can never be anything same within one person’s perspective. So really my own experience is already that of expereincing slightly different worlds from moment to moment.

I would have to conclude that there doesnt seem to be anything pragmatically useful to gain by the notion of a shared world. I prefer to ‘sharing with others’ the idea of subsuming another’s perspective from my own vantage because that is all that I can ever experience.

Would it make sense to say that I share the world
with myself moment to moment? If not , how can I share it with others? And why can’t I share it with myself? Isn’t it because the effect of being in time is that of altering who I just was a moment ago?

So I don’t share myself with myself moment to moment, I divide and transform myself. It seems to me that my experience of ‘others’ must be understood in this way also. World isn’t a space that can be shared , it is a ‘worlding’.

As human beings we are always already in motion( experimental not physical ). So it’s not about nailing down any unchangeable facts but doing our best to construe events such that the next minute’s changes appear inferentially compatible with the previous.
— Joshs

Is this the statement of an unchangeable fact? — jas0n

It is a construct that must expose itself to potential invalidation by events at every moment that I make use of it. It only continues to be ‘true’ to this extent. If in some way the world as I interpret it suddenly no longer appears to me to change relative to the previous moment , then I would have to attempt to alter my axes of understanding. In the meantime I would have to suffer through the experience of confusion and disorientation in a world that has become less structured for me.

I wouldnt say the form of the dance is ‘imperfectly’ realized. by each participant. One would only say that if one already took for granted the correctness and primacy of a standard or norm.
— Joshs

You are trying to make a point using logic, yes? That feels like taking 'for granted the correctness and primacy of a standard or norm.' — jas0n

This isnt formal logic. It is the logic of construing not conceptualization in the traditional sense of the term. The difference is that the presuppositions that are in play in the above paragraph aren’t assumed to be sitting there statically in some mental conceptual file, to be drawn on and placed within a propositional logical form. Instead, the presuppositions (imperfection implies a standard or norm) are formed afresh, and only mean what they mean within the specific context of the argument I am presenting to you. They work freshly within the current context of meaning. Do I believe these freshly working constructs are ‘correct’ or the ‘norm’? They are normative in that they are a way of organizing new events on the basis of likeness with respect to previous events. That is, they allow me to recognize patterns within events. But the constructs which organize events into such patterns only retain their ‘primacy’ to the extent that new events dont invalidate them. That is to say , as long as they retain their effectiveness in anticipating new events. So the world tells me when my constructs are valid or invalid. But this ‘world’ that fits or doesn’t fit my expectations is world that comes already pre-interpreted by me It is my version of the world that can reward or disappoint me. So there is a radical circularity here, what I believe Heidegger called the hermeneutic circle.

But rational inquiry (philosophy, science) seeks for some kind of truth about our shared situation. To deny this is to demonstrate it, for what can such a denial mean if it does not pretend toward the truth of our shared situation. — jas0n

This is my model of the aim and capability of science. It is a relativistic pragmatist way to keep a certain notion of progress without assuming a ‘real’ world independent of our construals of the world.

In my view , the aim of truth is anticipative
consistency. As human beings we are always already in motion( experimental not physical ). So it’s not about nailing down any unchangeable facts but doing our best to construe events such that the next minute’s changes appear inferentially compatible with the previous. We could then say this is teleological, that over time our revised constructions of the world produce anticipations that allow us to anticipate events as more and more intricately, multidimensionally and assimlatively consistent with our precious knowledge. Note her that this is not a mere mirroring of intransigent external
world but a continually refashioning of the world in more an more self-consistent ways. The way the world appears is always exquisitely responsive to the ways we construe it. So the only assumption being made here about some a priori nature of reality is the at it is endlessly amenable to reconstruction in more and more intimate ways.

'Correctness' can be seen as a kind of mask for something deeper like priority or status, and another mask (like 'richness') can take its place. Who gets to name things? Whose names end up sticking? Whose innovations become the new convention? The dominant taking-as?

If we are embodied in a world, correctness is not so easily dispensed with. This is why it's important to remember that we are animals depending on one another to stay fed and make babies. Correctness is not just a verbal game, it's 'interesting' for practical reasons. — jas0n

Priority, status and don t forget power. In fact, let’s focus on the concept of power that has become so fashionable and makes its way into all sorts of political discussions. Most of the left who are wielding that term as a weapon are understanding it moralistically, within a totalizing empirical discourse. Do you see the dynamics of power, status, priority and privilege as amenable to empirical analysis( we are animals who….)?

This seems to be the level at which you want to deal with notions like power and status, from some meta-empirical level that wants to be faithful to the real as the way to protect all of us from the effects of power. But ini doing so , is one escaping the problem of ‘ bias’ or is one instead institutionalizing it scientistically? Derrida once said the ethic of deconstruction wasn’t in the blurring of differences but in the multiplication of difference. Not the dream of a fusing of horizons but the intricate movement though differences.

If you want to talk about culture as 'really' just being the performance of bodies, I guess you can. If a room is dancing the Charleston, though, you might want to focus on the form of the dance, 'imperfectly' realized by each dancer. If you allow the dance to slowly mutate, then you have a metaphor for culture. — jas0n

I’m not sure what a ‘body’ is in general. I get that in this example ‘body’ is point of view. I like
Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of the body of embodiment as a gestalt figure-ground ensemble.

I wouldnt say the form of the dance is ‘imperfectly’ realized. by each participant. One would only say that if one already took for granted the correctness and primacy of a standard or norm. But if , as I am arguing , there are only ever individual interpretations of the norm or
standard, then there as many Charlestons as there dancers of it. Which isn’t to say that one cannot aim to improve one’s performance of the dance, only that the standard one is aiming for is still one’s own version of the ‘correct’ Charleston.

You have a dangerous metaphor for culture of
you assume that the mutation of the dance need not be understood from the point of view of each dancer. Otherwise you will fail to understand why there are so many micro-cultures within a larger culture , and why a the red states and the blue states are at war even though they are all supposedly part of the same larger 21st century western dance.

I like psychologist George Kelly’s view of shared culture.

In Kelly's approach, even when someone lives in a culture which is tightly conformist, one neither passively absorbs, nor jointly negotiates the normative practices of that culture, but validates one's own construction of the world using the resources of that culture.

“Perhaps we can see that it is not so much that the culture has forced conformity upon him as it is that his validational material is cast in terms of the similarities and contrasts offered within and between segments of his culture. “ (Kelly 1955, p. 93).

“It may be difficult to follow this notion of culture as a validational system of events. And it may be even more difficult to reconcile with the idea of cultural control what we have said about man not being the victim of his biography. The cultural control we see is one which is within the client's own construct system and it is imposed upon him only in the sense that it limits the kinds of evidence at his disposal. How he handles this evidence is his own affair, and clients manage it in a tremendous variety of ways.”

One can see how the ‘tremendous variety of ways' that participants are capable of interpreting the ‘same' cultural milieu makes any attempt to apply a group -centered account of social understanding pointless.

Kelly(1955) says: “You can say [a person] is what he is because of his cultural context. This is to say that the environment assigns him his role, makes him good or bad by contrast, appropriates him to itself, and, indeed, his whole existence makes sense only in terms of his relationship to the times and the culture. This is not personal construct theory...”

Kelly (1955) opposes personal construct theory to perspectives which see a person “helplessly suspended in his culture, and is swept along with the tides of social change”.

“....no psychologist, I think, is all that he might be until he has undertaken to join the child's most audacious venture beyond the frontiers of social conventions and to share its most unexpected outcomes.”

It is true that each party's participation in interaction changes the other's way of being, but the question is whether there is not an underlying thematic consistency that is maintained in each person throughout all their interactions , a self-consistency that resists being usurped by a larger self-other ‘system'. For Kelly a mutuality, fusion, jointness cannot be assumed simply because each party is in responsive communication with the other. One party can be affected by the interaction by succeeding in subsuming the other's perspective and as a result feeling an intimate and empathetic bond with the other. At the same time, in the same ‘joint' encounter, the other party may become more and more alienated from the first , having failed to subsume the first party's way of thinking and finding the first party to be angering, upsetting and threatening.

In my dealings with other persons, I would be able to discern a thread of continuity organizing their participation in dialogue with me, dictating the manner and extent to which I can be said to influence their thinking and they mine. My thinking can not properly be seen as `determined' by his response, and his ideas are not simply `shaped' by my contribution to our correspondence. The extent to which I could be said to be embedded within a particular set of cultural practices would be a function of how closely other persons I encounter resonate with my own ongoing experiential process. I can only shape my action to fit socially legitimate goals or permitted institutionalized forms to the extent that those goals or forms are already implicated in my ongoing experiential movement. Even then, what is implicated for me is not `the' social forms, but aspects hidden within these so-called forms which are unique to the organizational structure of my ways of thinking; what I perceive as socially `permitted' rhetorical argumentation is already stylistically distinctive in relation to what other participants perceive as permitted. Each individual who feels belonging to an extent in a larger ethico-political collectivity perceives that collectivity's functions in a unique, but peculiarly coherent way relative to their own history, even when they believe that in moving forward in life their behavior is guided by the constraints imposed by essentially the `same' discursive conventions as the others in their community.

The world as a whole is entrained to the dynamics of the laws of thermodynamics. We exist both by and for our evolved ability to break down barriers to entropy production. So to understand the human situation, we must be able to place ourselves correctly in nature. We must start with the core or fundamental imperative that drives us, and thus shapes our sociocultural mindset, our generalised and collective view of the world. — apokrisis

I guess this is the heart of the structuralism, the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. What does such a structure entail? If not particles then certainly objective relations of forces that are describable through geometry and other forms of mathematics. So this structuralism points to objective , mathematizable properties and attributes. Quite specific and quite powerful. It’s like a specifically shaped piece of a puzzle (of course we’re not talking about an object but a principle guiding a multi-dimensional system of relations) that constrains and organizes the whole. It could be otherwise but it s not . It’s thermodynamics and entropy, and that means that our most personal and intimate experience is most fully understood via this fundamental ‘puzzle piece’.

…. it is quite possible to step back from the human condition and see the whole story laid out. — apokrisis

Because of its primordially as objective structural source and center , everything else in the world, including all of human history , can be judged by way of correctness and conformity relative to this constraining structural center, where and how things have gone right or wrong.

….It is only when you get down to this level of science-informed modelling that you can clearly diagnose where things have gone wrong for us.


The fourth level of modelling - the one based on numbers that wants to treat nature as a machine - isn't doing so well. Or it has over-performed on the entropy production, under-performed on the material recycling.

So for the scientist who understands the reality of organismic being, the inadequacies of the machine model, all this as plain as the nose on your face. — apokrisis

The semiotic structuralism of Thermodynamics and entropy may not be an atomistic machine but it is still a RubeGoldberg-like machine to the extent that it claims to stand outside of time to reveal the whole story rather than determining and redetermining history from out of the here and now.

if philosophy was up to date, it would be presenting fine arguments about what it really means to be an organism - at the noosphere scale.

Instead, we have this stale nonsense - this warmed over Romanticism - about the human individual and the pluralistic struggle against totalising discourse. — apokrisis

Can’t get around the laws of thermodynamics and entropy and all of our personal hopes and dreams and feelings are beholden to these. Sounds a bit totalizing to me.

I dunno. I prefer to think history is reinvented every moment. But then I’ve never been very good at obeying laws, even the laws of thermodynamics.

The body's interaction is always more intricate than language. It is after and with language, always again freshly ongoing and constellating this situation in the present.”
— Joshs

This may be so, and one can also go in the direction of 'art mysticism' and insist that concept is wrong way to grasp 'Reality' in the first place. On the other hand, it's a move away from a critical and exoteric inquiry/articulation and back into the darkness of intuition and the ineffable. I'm not immune to the charms of the aesthetic or even the mystical. As Nietzsche might say, it may be only those who are secretly sustained by 'dark forces' who can indulge in reckless and thorough criticism — jas0n

There is nothing ineffable and mystical here. It’s stating a fundamental concept common to Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty , Derrida , enactive embodied approaches in cognitive science and Pragmatism that when we intend a meaning we intend beyond what we intend. Cognition is fundamentally anticipative.

I think we both need to be careful to distinguish between body and 'symbolic' ego. At times I've preferred an 'external' view, watching bodies learn to emit the token 'I' appropriately. A body is trained to emit tokens interpreted as a self-description internal realm. A body is trained that such a narrative features a single protagonist. This perspective, admittedly one among others, takes 'culture'-coordinated bodies navigating a shared world as primary — jas0n

How does a body know what is emitted ‘appropriately’? Via social reinforcement , shaping, conditioning? How is it that each of us emit what is socially ‘appropriate’ in unique ways , with unique senses that doesn’t simply correspond to the ‘ norm’ but contributes its own variation on the ‘norm’? Isn’t a social ‘norm’, ‘convention’, ‘shared practice’ merely an abstraction derived from what is in fact always ways of sense-making unique to individuals who particulate in those ‘shared’ spaces? Doesn’t this make the ‘shared’ space derivative and the personalistic space primary?
Isnt what you are describing precisely Heidegger’s concept of Das Man of average eveydayness , where we all share the same appropriate meanings?

In living, our bodies generate, imply, and enact language and culture; but with and after those, our bodies imply (project, experience, sense, practice, demand . . .) more. What they imply is inherently interactional and social, but it is more precise and implies what has never as yet formed and happened.”
— Joshs

Plausible but vague and hard to do anything with. Something is gestured at. A Romantic poet might talk of the chains of rigid conceptuality scraping the incomputable flesh of a most elusive goddess. — jas0n

We see the importance of the future defining our present in Heidegger, too. Heidegger describes the proposition ‘S is P’ as ‘seeing something as something’. He calls this the ‘as’ structure and it is the fundamental basis of perception, cognition , affectivity and theoretical knowledge.

“...in interpretatively addressing something as something, one addresses the thing encountered against the background of a more or less explicit acquaintance with it: as a tool as suitable for this or that, etc.
The most immediate state of affairs is, in fact, that we simply see and take things as they are: board, bench, house, policeman. Yes, of course. However, this taking is always a taking within the context of dealing-with something, and therefore is always a taking-as, but in such a way that the as-character does not become explicit in the act.”

In experiencing something as something, Dasein comes back to its having been from its future, which is to say, it interprets a global context of relevance via the ‘as’ structure. In so doing, it “takes apart’ the relation between what it encounters and a previous instance of it by coming back to it from a fresh context of relevance. Seeing something as something makes sense of what
is encountered in a new way, on the basis of a freshly modified totality of relevance. It is produced rather than discovered.
"The essence of something is not at all to be discovered simply like a fact; on the contrary, it must be brought forth. To bring forth is a kind of making, and so there resides in all grasping and positing of the essence something creative…. To bring forth means to bring out into the light, to bring something in sight which was up to then not seen at all, and specifically such that the seeing of it is not simply a gaping at something already lying there but a seeing which, in seeing, first brings forth
what is to be seen, i.e., a productive seeing. "

Braver paints Heidegger as setting us radically adrift. An era's 'understanding of being' or conceptual scheme just is reality. Or Foucault, similarly, can talk of one episteme being replaced by another. But the old criticism of relativism applies: what is the status of Heidegger's claim or Foucault's claims? Is it too a creature of its time? Will Heidegger remain true? Or is he just the barf of a moment, replaced by the next age's self-referential, self-defining barf? — jas0n

But that’s the whole underpinning of ‘the ‘becoming-based’ thinking that took off after Hegel. That the barf of one age is replaced by the barf of the next is the basis of Nietzsche’s eternal rerun of the same, an endless parade of value systems with no ‘progressive’ direction.

Let me put it this way. Before Hegel, getting it ‘right’ in philosophy meant producing a scheme that conformed to the way things really, really are. While Kant deprived us of the ability to claim to know things in themselves, he assumed there was a real order independent of us that we could asymptotically approximate. But after Hegel , ‘getting it right’ was no longer about accurately mirroring and representing the furniture of the universe and their relations. Instead it became about capturing the nature of the becoming structure of experience. For Hegel this becoming structure could be totalized as a dialectical progression. Becoming was a ‘good’ progress with a specific logic that explained why things should get better and better as history unfolds, why social, moral, political and economic systems necessarily move towards improvement, why science can progress , even if not linearly. So there was still an element of ‘getting it right’ here , not in the capturing of the supposed fixed organization of a real universe , but in getting the dialectic logic of becoming right so that one could see history not as just any sort of random change but as a ‘good’ progress.

Nietzsche was the first to jettison the idea that there was anything to ‘get right’ about the structure of becoming, because he dumped the idea of a ‘good’ progressive direction to history. With Nietzsche and those whole follow him ( Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze)
one no longer critiques philosophies or sciences for ‘getting it wrong’. Instead, one can only do a genealogical analysis that sees any philosophical or scientific point of view as valid just as it is. That is, they all, in different ways, perform Husserl’s transcendental reduction. This leaves intact any system of values, beliefs , theoretical postulates, and burrows beneath it to reveal presuppositions and conditions of possibility hidden from those who espouse them. This is what deconstruction does, for instance. It is significant that , unlike earlier eras in philosophy, in critiquing each other, Derrida, Heidegger, Nietzsche , Foucault and others who follow after Nietzsche don’t use a language of correctness or incorrectness , truth and falsity , validity and invalidity, proof and falsification. Each doesn’t insist their philosophy is more ‘correct’ than their predecessors. Rather, they seek to explore becoming in richer and more intricate ways.

I would argue that we are past the era in which philosophy needs to make claims with a ‘truth status’ meant to conform to the way things ‘supposedly ‘really are’.

When people ask ‘how does a radical relativist know they are getting it right?’ they confuse what the relativist is doing with. They are inviting you to take a ride with them on a boat down the river as they act as guide. Everything you see from the boat, including yourselves and the boat , your guide will take as an example
of something that you might want to take as a fact, an empirical object , something that can be explained on the basis of laws and regularities. As guide, he doesn’t want to dissuade you from these claims , only to invite you to see if you can experience a mobile flow of change underneath your claims, not invalidating them but embellishing them in such a way that what you previously took to be simple, solid and self-identical now shows itself as harboring within itself a vibrant flow of change. Either you see this added downtime within the laws and facts or you don’t. If you don’t , your view is still valid and useful from the relativist’s perspective.

So a little boy talks to himself before he talks to mommy and daddy? — jas0n

He talks to them as the others to his self-othering monologue, a compounding of otherness. Of course , he will only discover their otherness by their failure to respond to him in as anticipatable a way as his body responds to himself.

There is no ‘interior monologue’.
— Joshs

Well, sure, but this concept remains legible. I am criticizing a subjectivism that would construct the world from the idea of such a monologue ( — jas0n

But by the same token there is also no meaning of signs absolutely ‘external’ to the subject. Hypostatizing the social simply swings the pendulum from an excessive subjectivism to an equally excessive empiricism.

Does this becoming conform to a scheme, like for instance a dialectic?
— Joshs

I would say that yes. I am making a claim about human nature, postulating a permanent structure in human experience. — jas0n

So this dialectical scheme is a kind of logic of becoming?

the meaning of signs is external to the subject — jas0n

But it is not external to the Dasein , the self-world relation, or Derrida’s differance, which is the temporalizing
differential that can be understood as the self’s relation to itself from one thing to moment. To say that the meaning of signs is ‘external’ to the subject is not to say that there is no pragmatic intimacy and belonging in meaning to say something. What I mean is always in a relation of a mattering, relevance and significance in relation to my ongoing concerns.

The subject is an effect of language' — jas0n

Eugene Gendlin disagrees with you. Gendlin’s phenomenological approach to intersubjectivty has much in common with Heidegger’s, and also with Derrida.

Gallagher claims that:

“…intersubjective (social and cultural) factors already have an effect on our perception and understanding of the world, even in the immediacy of our embodied and instrumental copings with the environment.”

While Gendlin agrees with Gallagher and others that the experiencing body is inherently an environmental, and thus social interaction, he construes the nature of this intersubjectivity differently. The reciprocally causal temporality underpinning the embodied approaches
leads necessarily to the idea of intersubjectivity as an interdependent cobbling and co-ordination between personal history and cultural signs in which the ‘joints' of such interactive bodily and social practices are simultaneously within my own subjectivity and
common to other participants in my community.

Socialization is seen as a direct introjection or
conditioning from the cultural environment, leaving personal experience with only a weak pragmatic self-consistency . This is what Gallagher calls primary intersubjectivity, after Merleau-Ponty’s notion of intercorporeality. By contrast , Gendlin’sgrounding of temporality produces an implicatory rather than a reciprocally causal account of relation between body and world. This imbues bodily sense making with a pragmatic integrity, intricacy and self-intimacy missing from other accounts of intersubjectivity.

Gendlin’s re-envisioning of the body as radical interaffecting, like Heidegger’s Being-with, locates the genesis of meaning-making in a more fundamental process than that of socially distributed joint activity.

“Our bodily sense of situations is a concretely sensed interaction process that always exceeds culture, history, and language.” “ It is not the body of perception that is structured by language. Nor is the body's interaction structured by culture and language alone. Rather, it is the body of interactional living in its environment. The body's interaction is always more intricate than language. It is after and with language, always again freshly ongoing and constellating this situation in the present.”

“To think that we are the creation of culture is not a view one can maintain if one senses ongoing bodily experiencing directly. The intricacy you are now living vastly exceeds what cultural forms have contributed to you. With focusing we discover that we are much more organized from the inside out.”

“In living, our bodies generate, imply, and enact language and culture; but with and after those, our bodies imply (project, experience, sense, practice, demand . . .) more. What they imply is inherently interactional and social, but it is more precise and implies what has never as yet formed and happened.”

The 'interior monologue' is something that can only come after being a little we-blob. 'The subject is an effect of language' and 'the soul is the prison of the body.' Even if these are overstatements, they at least balance an old philosophical prejudice...the lonely subject, imagined as that which is most primary, most given, most secure... — jas0n

There is no ‘interior monologue’. Derrida says all speech is writing , so when I speak or write to myself, I am speaking to the other. This is the origin and only site of the social. My ‘internal monologue’ is therefore not internal but an exposure to alterity , and this happens BEFORE my engagement with other people.


“When he writes himself to himself, he writes himself to the other who is infinitely far away and who is supposed to send his signature back to him. He has no relation to himself that is not forced to defer itself by passing through the other in the form, precisely, of the eternal return. I love what I am living and I desire what is coming. I recognize it gratefully and I desire it to return eternally. I desire whatever comes my way to come to me, and to come back to me eternally. When he writes himself to himself, he has no immediate presence of himself to himself. There is the necessity of this detour through the other in the form of the eternal return of that which is affirmed, of the wedding and the wedding ring, of the alliance.

From this point of view, there is no difference, or no possible distinction if you will, between the letter I write to someone else and the letter I send to myself. The structure is the same.”

“… how do I connect the question of the constitution of time (and the alterity within the living present) and the question of the other (of the 'alter ego' as Husserl would say) ? Well my quick answer would be that the two alterities are indissociable. A living being - whether a human being or an animal being - could not have any relation to another being as such without this alterity in time, without, that is, memory, anticipation, this strange sense (I hesitate to call it knowledge) that every now, every instant is radically other and nevertheless in the same form of the now. Equally, there is no ‘I' without the sense as well that everyone other than me is radically other yet also able to say 'I', that there is nothing more heterogeneous than every 'I' and nevertheless there is nothing more universal than the 'I'.”(Arguing with Derrida)

Derrida is not saying that the subject is the effect of language seen as socially imposed norms. It is the effect of differance , writing , the mark, the trace.
The social intervenes already within myself, before my exposure to other persons.

Derrida critiques Merleau-Ponty’s reading of Husserl on the primacy of corporeal intersubjectivity.

“ I can never have access to the body (Leib) of the other except in an indirect fashion, through appresentation, comparison, analogy, projection, and introjection. That is a motif to which Husserl remains particularly and fiercely faithful.

... at the moment when it is a matter of orienting Husserl and making him take the other into account in a more audacious way (the other who is originarily in me, or for me, and so forth)-at the expense of a Husserl who is more classical, more ego-centered, and so forth-there is a risk of the exact opposite resulting. One runs the risk of reconstituting an intuitionism of immediate access to the other, as originary as my access to my own most properly proper-and in one blow, doing without appresentation, indirection, Einfohlung, one also runs the risk of reappropriating the alterity of the other more surely, more blindly, or even more violently than ever. In this respect Husserl's cautious approach will always remain before us as a model of vigilance. (P.191)

Even between me and me, if I may put it this way, between my body and my body, there is no such
"original" contemporaneity, this "confusion" between the other's body and mine, that Merleau-Ponty believes he can recognize there, while pretending he is following Husserl-for example, when he follows the thread of the same analysis and writes: "The constitution of others does not come after that of the body [with which Husserl could agree, but without inferring what follows.-J. D.] ; others and my body are born together from the original ecstasy. The corporeality to which the primordial thing belongs is more corporeality in general; as the child's egocentricity, the 'solipsist layer' is both transitivity and confusion of self and other" (Merleau-Ponty, Signs, p. 174; my emphasis-J. D.). This "confusion" would be as originary as the "primordial thing" and would make possible the substitutions (that we have noted are impossible) between the other and me, between our two bodies, in what Merleau-Ponty unhesitatingly terms "the absolute presence of origins. " In another example, he writes:

“The reason why I am able to understand the other person's body and existence "beginning with" the body proper, the reason why the com presence of my "consciousness" and my "body" is prolonged into the compresence of my self and the other person, is that the "I am able to" and the "the other person exists" belong here and now to the same world, that the body proper is a premonition of the other person, the Einfuhlung an echo of my incarnation, and that a flash of meaning makes them substitutable in the absolute presence of origins.” (Merleau-Ponry, Signs, p. I75)

And so, must we not think, and think otherwise (without objecting to it frontally and integrally) , that the said "same world" (if there is some such world, and if it is indeed necessary to account for it, and account for its "effect," as "sense of the world") is not and will never be the "same world"?(On Touching - Jean-Luc Nancy, p.193).

Thinking/meaning is historical, more software than hardware, more 'we' than 'I. — jas0n

As I mentioned earlier, even though I think Gallagher and Gadamer misread Heidegger , they at least recognized that he was not dissolving the self into an interpersonal ‘we’ .

Gallagher criticizes Heidegger for not making what MerleauPonty calls ‘primary corporeal intersubjectivity’ primary. He says: “In Heidegger, and in thinkers who follow his line of thought, we find the idea that a relatively complete account of our embodied, expert, enactive, pragmatic engagements with the world can be given prior to or without reference to intersubjectivity.”

Gadamer(2006) writes:

“Mit-sein, for Heidegger, was a concession that he had to make, but one that he never really got behind. Indeed, even as he was developing the idea, he wasn't really talking about the other at all. Mit-sein is, as it were, an assertion about Dasein, which must naturally take Mit-sein for granted..."Care" [die Sorge] is always a concernfulness [ein Besorgtsein] about one's own being, and Mit-sein is, in truth, a very weak idea of the other, more a "letting the other be" than an authentic "being-interested-in-him."”

Eugene Gendlin’s phenomenological approach to intersubjectivty has much in common with Heidegger’s.

Gallagher claims that:

“…intersubjective (social and cultural) factors already have an effect on our perception and understanding of the world, even in the immediacy of our embodied and instrumental copings with the environment.”

While Gendlin agrees with Gallagher and others that the experiencing body is inherently an environmental, and thus social interaction, he construes the nature of this intersubjectivity differently. The reciprocally causal temporality underpinning the embodied approaches
leads necessarily to the idea of intersubjectivity as an interdependent cobbling and co-ordination between personal history and cultural signs in which the ‘joints' of such interactive bodily and social practices are simultaneously within my own subjectivity and
common to other participants in my community.

Socialization is seen as a direct introjection or
conditioning from the cultural environment, leaving personal experience with only a weak pragmatic self-consistency . This is what Gallagher calls primary intersubjectivity, after Merleau-Ponty’s notion of intercorporeality. By contrast , Gendlin’sgrounding of temporality produces an implicatory rather than a reciprocally causal account of relation between body and world. This imbues bodily sense making with a pragmatic integrity, intricacy and self-intimacy missing from other accounts of intersubjectivity.

Gendlin’s re-envisioning of the body as radical interaffecting, like Heidegger’s Being-with, locates the genesis of meaning-making in a more fundamental process than that of socially distributed joint activity.

“Our bodily sense of situations is a concretely sensed interaction process that always exceeds culture, history, and language.” “ It is not the body of perception that is structured by language. Nor is the body's interaction structured by culture and language alone. Rather, it is the body of interactional living in its environment. The body's interaction is always more intricate than language. It is after and with language, always again freshly ongoing and constellating this situation in the present.”

“To think that we are the creation of culture is not a view one can maintain if one senses ongoing bodily experiencing directly. The intricacy you are now living vastly exceeds what cultural forms have contributed to you. With focusing we discover that we are much more organized from the inside out.”

“In living, our bodies generate, imply, and enact language and culture; but with and after those, our
bodies imply (project, experience, sense, practice, demand . . .) more. What they imply is inherently interactional and social, but it is more precise and implies what has never as yet formed and happened.”

Does the 'subject' always experience in terms of a tripartite structure? If Dasein 'is' time, then frame if not the canvas is ever-present. This 'problem' haunts all ambitious philosophy...any discourse that would conquer the future by imposing a structure on 'possible experience' or its analogue. — jas0n

Heidegger’s Dasein is not the frame , it is the in-between frames:

“Uncanniness is the fundamental kind of being-in-the-world, although it is covered over in everydayness. Tranquillized, familiar being-in-the-world is a mode of the uncanniness of Dasein, not the other way around. Not-being-at-home must be conceived existentially and ontologically as the more primordial phenomenon." "The publicness of the they suppresses everything unfamiliar.” (Heidegger 2010)

“Thus thrown in this throw, man is a transition, transition as the fundamental essence of occurrence...Man is enraptured in this transition and therefore essentially 'absent'. Absent in a fundamental sense-never simply at hand, but absent in his essence, in his essentially being away, removed into essential having been and future-essentially absencing and never at hand, yet existent in his essential absence. Transposed into the possible, he must constantly be mistaken concerning what is actual. And only because he is thus mistaken and transposed can he become seized by terror. And only where there is the perilousness of being seized by terror do we find the bliss of astonishment -being torn away in that wakeful manner that is the breath of all philosophizing.” (Heidegger 1995)

I agree that interaction will probably be primary. 'Wet' may not matter. Why should moisture matter? My money is on stuff-independent structure. — jas0n

It cannot be ‘stuff-independent. The stuff is the particular embodiment , which cannot be separated from the nature of sense-making. Stuff-independent cognition only makes sense if we are remaining within the computationalist representationaliat model, but ones and zeros conceal the nature of embodied thought.

Yes, that's how I see it, and that's maybe my fundamental gripe about the transcendental ego, at least inasmuch as it's involved in constructions of the world from images given through peepholes. — jas0n

But Heidegger’s Dasein is involved in constructions of the world from a totality of relevance given beforehand.

Ah, but who would dream it was static? We project/discover 'motionless' patterns in the motion (project being on becoming.) — jas0n

Does this becoming conform to a scheme, like for instance a dialectic?

I don't know if it's truly an antipode. You still seem to present an eternally present tripartite structure or primordial form of experience. — jas0n

What does. it mean to say that the repetition. of change is ‘eternally present’? There certainly is no content or feeling here that is eternally present. If the now is a formal
structure, then it is one that is always filled with a different content. This is why Heidegger says that time is finite rather than infinite, becuase it is about an always unique meaning rather than a countable sequence.Not time as a ‘how long’ or ‘how much’ but as each
moment t a new way of being. And what about the alternatives to this notion of temporality within modern philosophy? They all posit , in different ways , an objective time associated with movement. This is also an ‘eternal’ notion of time, but conceived as an infinite succession of punctual nows.

Another line of thought might be, in your opinion, is the capitalist free market economy 'superior' to the Epicurean commune? — universeness

Only to the extent that the larger background philosophical knowledge that a capitalist free-market economy depends on( Enlightenment thought , Adam Smith, etc) was not available to the Epicureans , so they did not have the option of choosing a modern free market system , whereas we moderns, being the consequence of older thinking like Epicureanism, have the requisite knowledge to choose to set up an Epicurean commune if we want. We could say that many today who are familiar with ancient history ( certainly not all) prefer modern capitalism to an Epicurean commune , but we can’t say the Epicureans preferred their model to modern capitalism, because the ideas did not exist for them.

No, in my opinion, such are not superior as they are a consequence of — universeness

Shouldn’t it be the case that they are superior precisely because they are a consequence of ? Isn’t that the whole point and value of advancement in understanding , that you take with you but build upon the old knowledge? The latin root of superior is ‘above’. There cannot be an above without a below, a foundation, a ground. The above is consequent on the below

A car can always be faster and have more functionality and more efficiency than an earlier model but that does not necessarily make it 'superior,' as I'm sure classic and vintage car enthusiasts will attest to. — universeness

The know- how required to build the new model was not available for the earlier model The new know-how is superior to the old know—how in that one’s newer knowledge gives one the option of building a replica of the older model but the earlier era of technology in which the older model was built did not have the option of building the newer model.
Similarly , in the era of modern and postmodern art, we have the option of recreating older style of art , but renaissance and Romantic artists did not have the option of creating modern or postmodern art. The newer era is superior in having the advantage of being the consequence of the older era.

I want to be clear that what I’m saying isn’t that newer painting or cars are necessarily aesthetically superior or prettier than the older versions , but that the newer ways of understanding art or car technology are superior to the older because they stand on the shoulders of the old ways and provide more. choices. The classic car enthusiast certainly isn’t averse to making use of the
newer technologies to help to preserve the old car , to make it run longer , to make it safer, to protect it better from rust and use better quality oil, gas, paint, tires than were available when the car was built.

To me, the term 'new science,' can be often be portrayed, by some, as in some way 'superior,' to 'old science. I simply defend against that. — universeness

Is modern physics superior to Newtonian physics? Is Darwinian biology superior to pre-Darwinian biology? Do they subsume and transcend their older versions , giving us more options in dealing with the world than the older models? In other words , the modern physicist can shift back and forth between a Newtonian and a quantum description , whereas the Newtonian only has one option.
Isn’t this true in many other areas of culture , from the arts to psychology and moral theory, that the new is superior to the old to the extent that it subsumes and enriches the old, giving us the option to choose from among a variety of ways of thinking ( including the old) that the older approach could not?

The eternal Now, eternally self-present, is the eye of the storm of life, the frame of every picture, or perhaps the canvas on which it is painted. The past is memory. The future is fantasy. .) If only The Subject endures, all else is unreal, for only the eternal is real. — jas0n

This is the absolute antithesis of phenomenology. To be self-present is to be altered in the very act of turning back to oneself. So there is no eternal present , no pure self-reflecting subject. The present , the ‘now’ does not exist outside of the tripartite structure of retention and protention. All three of these phases belong to the immediate now.

Heidegger argues:

“Temporalizing does not mean a "succession" of the ecstasies. The future is not later than the having-been, and the having-been is not earlier than the present. “Dasein "occurs out of its future"."Da-sein, as existing, always already comes toward itself, that is, is futural in its being in general." Having-been arises from the future in such a way that the future that has-been (or better, is
in the process of having-been) releases the present from itself. We call the unified phenomenon of the future that makes present in the process of having been temporality.”(Heidegger 2010)

Gendlin(1997b) echoes Heidegger’s unification of the components of time.
“The future that is present now is not a time-position, not what will be past later. The future that is here now is the implying that is here now. The past is not an earlier position but the now implicitly functioning past.”“......the past functions to "interpret" the present,...the past is changed by so functioning. This needs to be put even more strongly: The past functions not as itself, but as already changed by what it functions in”(p.37)

I don't really subscribe to old ways or new ways of thinking, especially on a website that is forever quoting from ancient thinking and thinkers. — universeness

Do you feel the same way about old science vs new science? Does science advance, such that ignoring the distinction between old and new theories in physics or biology is hard to justify?

A better source on this for you might be Kenny's book, in which the similarities and differences between the Tractatus and the Investigations are set out explicitly. Much of what is in the Tractatus remains fundamental to logic; the suggestion that the "logical edifice of the Tractatus came tumbling down" is... unsound. Logic proceeds apace, to the greater clarity of language. — Banno

We each get to choose our own Wittgenstein. My Wittgenstein is the Wittgenstein of Cavell , Diamond, Conant and the later Baker(and Anthony Nickles too) , who are hostile to readings of him by Kenny, Peter Hacker, P.F.Strawson, Pears and Hans-Johann Glock and who do indeed believe that the ‘logical edifice of the Tractatus came tumbling down’.

Note, my friend, that you still don't deal with the problem of the substrate. I think you grant a plurality of subjects? Is there a world that precedes or contains them in any sense? If not, how do we communicate without the synchronization? (I dream that I wave at you and you dream that I wave at you at the same time, etc.) — jas0n

There is a world , but not a static one that sits there waiting for us to represent it faithfully with our science. The world is a continual development , and we participate in this development via our behavior. To know is to change the object of one’s knowledge. Through intersubjective discourse and culture each of us contributes to the evolution of the world. Our sciences produce new worlds in the form of knowing.