exoenzymes and Intentional Behaviors

Ever exploring the homologies of biological-structural behavior and Intention:

Fungi are exoenzymic heterotrophs. They “digest” their food outside of their “bodies” by excreting enzymes. Are human actions: “words and behaviors” analogous to “exterior” enzymes used to break down a whole (situation) into synthesizable components. And if so, are there two phases of digestion in human cognition? Is the first the sensory “experience” of the environment, compontented into individual, map-able impulses (organizationally closed somatic changes), that become woven into a virtual gridding of the “world”; then would the second mode of digestion be exosomatic– the release of actions, whether they be communicative or other “intentional” behaviors, which are meant to breakdown the then presumed-to-be mapped-world in new synthesizable components. Are not all interpretable actions catalytic?

Dunamis

Dunamis,

I can agree.

Is is not possible to overcome such subjective behaviors. As far as I see most individuals hold an anticipation in which people come to except a certain intended experience. When people are removed from such experiences they become anxious. When people are given enough time in being removed the anxiety fades. When people become to involved in such anticipation they become stressful. When people become involved in such anticipation for a long time they adapt and the stress fades.

When I experience anxiety and stress enough I learn to anticipate either before it actually occurs and thus when such times occur I can learn to handle myself correctly in such times. This is the nature of wisdom something taught in the I Ching for example. Where does intelligence fit in?

When I experience anticipation long enough and gain wisdom and when i experience wisdom in times of anticipation I learn something greater and such builds my intelligence. I realize that my subjectivity is the cause of my anticipation and my need to meet the needs of my anticipation by being involved with others who may respond in kind and fulfill the needs of my anticipation. In this realization I come to understand that objectivity comes when I remove my anticipation and that I act objectively when I act without any preset need to fulfill my anticipation. To achieve such a state of objectivity means to become one with all, to achieve effortless thought and action. This is to achieve something beyond wisdom in which we call Enlightenment in very much the same way Buddhists, Taoists, and many other Spiritual Philosophies describe and understand. We call the state of enlightenment Nirvanna.

The way is clear let us follow it…to truth.

Is.,

I was taking this in a very different direction, but since you bring forth this idea:

I realize that my subjectivity is the cause of my anticipation and my need to meet the needs of my anticipation

I will say that it calls to mind my favorite of Tao-te-ching sayings,

“Foresight is but the flower of the Tao.”

A single line that tremendous philosophical and psychological (I’ll leave spiritual out in this forum) implications.

Dunamis

This confuses me a little, below is the working of the primary enzymes that I released in attempting its digestion. The “release of actions” could “breakdown” the “mapped world” into “synthesizable components”. The following is the the working of my secondary enzymes. Actions could analyse the sensed in detail. Now I’m having an indigestion. I wonder how come isis77 did not complain.

U.,

The “release of actions” could “breakdown” the “mapped world” into “synthesizable components”. The following is the the working of my secondary enzymes. Actions could analyse the sensed in detail. Now I’m having an indigestion.

I honestly don’t understand your thought additions here - unless perhaps you are attempting a parody, which is a possibility. The analogy of digestion is a simple one. Digestion is the breakdown down of complex forms into simpler forms that are usable for other synthesis processes. We normally understand this to occur endosomatically, but as Fungi actually digest outside of their “bodies”, bodies which are actually rhisomic threads of branching cells (with an interesting parallel to Deleuze’s commentary on Desire and the Rhisome), it makes one wonder if intentional “external” behavior of humans, and perhaps other organisms, can be considered to be digestion of a certain sort. In keeping with this metaphor, physical sensation of the “environment” by the body also seems to be a kind of digestion, but what is broken down is not the physical forms, but the ideational, representational forms of that environment, an environment that already presumably has be altered by intentional behaviors. Here the digestions is the breaking down of a “world” into bits and impulses, making the grist for a synthesizable mapping process. This again would produce the release of other intentional behaviors, enzymes to breakdown that physical “whole”.

Dunamis

I believe that phrases such as “intentional external behaviours” that you employed, with much reference to fungi, are causing the trouble for me here. Just in case I drank too much tonight, I’d like to wait and see if more posters would comment on this, especailly your second post, not that I disappreciate your effort trying to explain, but it’s more confusing than the first one. Then again, I’ll just be humbly aside and watch the thread’s development for now.

U.,

“intentional external behaviours”

I doubt very much that other posters will contribute. But so to be clear, such behaviors are those observable by “others”, (but also observable by oneself, yet still experienced to be events that have happened outside of the body), and are attributed “intention”, that is are interpretable by attributions of “belief”, “desire” and “willing”.

Dunamis

This is a hard thread to do logic.

I like that analogy of digestion and taking in experience and releasing behaviour. But I think the analogy seems to forget that at anytime, anywhere, we are experiencing only spatiotemporally: we only get to experience a fraction or a portion at a time of our world. If you mean by “complex” or “whole” that things in front of us are unintelligible unless broken down into “simpler” or “smaller” pieces of information, then we might as well say that whole is something that we cannot sensibly talk about: what’s left is really, what we see is what we take in. Representatively? yes. Breaking down a complex into simpler ones? No.

Sometimes one on one is ideal… Should I have said that given the colour of your jacket?

I forced myself reading that five times and I suddenly realised the need for you to quit explaining, generously giving some examples of that would be just fine.

Intentional behavior: me posting this post on this thread.

Dunamis