Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

51547Re: The Monstrosity of Thought

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Apr 30, 2010
      Wil, certainly not a static monism. This should be obvious to in my recent posts. And who better to intend and be aware than nascence itself. However, thought twists the path of that innocence and keeps us immature. How else can you account for the neotonous state of the world--big heads and little understanding? Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > I had originally written: "Okay, but my relationship to any meaning or knowledge was somewhat curtailed when I was born, as well as my general intentionality and awareness. Frankly, I wasn't paying much attention to anything, and was not much of a thinker, either. I have no doubt that if we "stop the world", as Casteneda used to put it, there are no ideas, but there is also no world. I am not interested in Nirvana."
      >
      > You wrote: "Except for your non-interest in Nirvana, you can't be certain about the rest."
      >
      > Response: Sure I can. An infant is certainly incapable of being a full intentional subject. Cranial size alone would prevent that. If a new born is the ideal of a subject unaffected by 'conditioning', then we have a very different aim in mind for our theoretical discussion. I am interested in what we adults are about, not what a natal event produces.
      > ---
      > You wrote: "... Also, I cringe at these words used throughout: stratum, parallel, and mirror. Why?
      >
      > Response: Why, indeed! Those are the contortions that Husserl puts himself through to try to reattach the noema and noesis, or the world and the thinking/perceiving person. That was my point.
      > ---
      > You wrote: "... Because they imply separation and deny the entanglement which is signified by sign=sign. I'm willing to accede to ... this latter conundrum, but I also maintain that Thought gets too big for its breeches when it tries to present itself as merely representations."
      >
      > Response: If one is bound to empiricist dualism as the basis of explanation, then despite assertions to the contrary (that one is in direct relation to an object), one is necessarily at a remove from the world and all percepts are thus what Locke called "ideas", which we would call representations. I do hold an empiricist point of view. I therefore do not accept that we are stuck in a hopeless mirroring. What you seem to be attributing to me is what I am sayingt is the radical consequence of the former position (Polly's position).
      > ---
      > You wrote: "... The Monstrosity of Thought is this very innocence. Thought blinds us with its enlightenment, so we don't notice the "endarkenment," which unintentionally obscures the obvious: object/object, object/subject and observed/observer are One. This is the meaning (significance, intention) of being, and there is no escaping it. Where is the necessity of dialogue?"
      >
      > Response: I am not sure that I agree, but I am not sure that I do not. I do agree, with reservations, with the sense behind, "object/object, object/subject and observed/observer are One," as long as we do not advocate a static monism, as opposed to a dialectical inter-relatedness.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic