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

56286Re: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Nov 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      It is interesting that the two inventors of the calculus, Newton and Leibniz, were empiricist and rationalist, respectively. Of course, Newton was also an alchemist and an occultist of sorts. The picture of the cosmos that we call Newtonian, in any case, is one that Hegel certainly rejected as incomplete and one-sided. But I think Newton would have thought so too, although for very different reasons. But I did not have that in mind, earlier.

      Physics within the last few decades has more or less confirmed that what we commonly understand as real is only apparently so, while at the same time this apparent reality is the one we insist on as our local reality where we have to live. But below the Planck numbers, contemporary physics is faced with describing a subtending reality that has no space or time, no objects, nothing to see, nothing to describe. The manifest world that we know is thus one that is constructing and deconstructing according to conditions that entail because nothing entails its except a rational necessity -- rational as knowable by our own rational mind, likewise reflecting the logic of ontology.

      This open system is its freedom, if one that finds itself in its very difficulties.

      Wil





      -----Original Message-----
      From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 12:11 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder







      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > Bill,
      >
      > Modern science seems to be catching up to Hegel. Hegel thought Newtonian-like cosmology to be hampered by a pseudo-objective understanding. So do I. Hegel was the last great systematic thinker, but as I am not all that big on "systems", that is not much of a draw for me. And, besides, I am not given to "great" ideas. For me, Hegel is the prime philosopher of freedom, radical freedom -- even cosmic freedom.
      >
      > Husserl had a real dislike for Hegelianism, and so he missed the solution to his enigma of separation (subject/object). That's not to say that he hadn't made real strides for thought. He did get a tad mystical in his late period (eternal monads, etc.), but ... hey. I like his work on time consciousness.
      >
      > Wil
      > Wil, thank you for the reply,when you speak of Hegel I know I am getting the best information. Would you agree that Neutonian physics were the last chance for science to exhibit common sense empiricism? By that I mean that the physics looked like the world we lived in. Did Hegel have some preintuition as to the coming of a completely new and radical physics. Could his strong mathamatics background have given him a theoretic look into the hard to believe world of sub atomics and light speed? It was there in his time but no one had had the kind of incisive mind to slash into general and special relativity . That you appreciate the more freedom loving applications of his philosophy is a supeise to me. I hope you elaborate on that facit of his work. We could use a champion of freedom in these oppressive times. Bill
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:21 pm
      > Subject: [existlist] no sidewinder
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel is the last, great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based theocracys. Then FN reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant was more conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing.
      > I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed Zacaria just doesn`t get it and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear weapons is rare and I know the Saudi King fears US withdrawl and the rise of Iran. Do Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt they could stop with just the nuclear sites and would have to try and overthrow the theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next body we see being kicked around in the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options acceptable but Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic