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

Noumenon

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    swm said:
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 22, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      swm said:

      <<On one level it is quite adequate, it seems to me, but on
      another it fails. While it may be important to recognize the inherent
      unknowability of noumenon and to operate with that understanding, I
      think it is also essential to recognize that noumenon is an aspect of
      the world (defined here as all being) if we are to truly understand
      it. In other words, I don't think we need to (or should) be in the
      business of trying to theorize or describe noumenon as such, but I
      think we have to acknowledge it in order to more fully explain being
      as we find it.>>


      but before we could say it is essential to recognise tt noumenon is an
      aspect of the world, in the first place what makes one think tt there is a
      noumenon if it is unknowable? i think this idea of noumenon was first coined
      by kant, and i regret not having fully read him. if it is unknowable, then
      its existence is at best only a (theoretical) assumption, and as such its
      status as "unknowable" is a bit skewed towards its assumed existence rather
      than its nonexistence, so tt if it cant be proved to exist, it is not so
      much tt it doesnt exist but the failure of our own human limitation. since i
      have not read kant thoroughly, would u say why is it necessary to posit
      noumenon at all? do u actually think tt being and noumenon is one and the
      same thing?

      one problem with kant's noumenon (or thing-in-itself) behind the phenomena
      tt appear to us in our perception of the world is tt it put a irreparable
      gap between us and the world. i think i am revising some of my views in the
      last post to be more consistent with a phenomenological position. what i
      said about a external world independent of human to perceive it or not in
      the last post seem now a little problematic (but gee, it seems so natural).
      habits really has its way of finding us. objects, assumed to exist
      in-themselves in an "outside world", simply produce raw bits of sense data
      and ideas "inside" us, in our minds. such thinking pays attention only to
      matter and physical laws. if a soul (or mind, a la chris) is to be
      recognised at all, it can only be understood as some ghostly side-effect of
      certain physical causes, whatever they may be. the positivist (a la chris
      and popper) do not fundamentally distinguish between man and the things tt
      surround him, and ultimately, all of human behaviours is understood as the
      mere reaction of a body to certain physical causes. and to pursue further,
      since truth is ultimately reducible to matters of our physiology and
      bio-chemistry, it is really nothing but a (mere) product of physical events.
      rationality can have no genuine substance. any truth claim rest purely on
      the physiological structure of the being in question. steven speilberg's
      E.T. may have a different truth than us human's, and everything in the
      universe becomes so purely relative tt one can no longer say anything tt is
      not the product of certain bio-chemical interactions tt just happen to be
      happening to me (or the alien or miss ripley). even the scientific "effort"
      to EXPLAIN away the human being and all tt he or she experiences IN TERMS OF
      CAUSALITY would be nothing more than THE EFFECT of some cause. once we
      assumed tt objects exists in-themselves in an "external world", it becomes
      impossible to explain how it is tt we humans can ever come into contact with
      them. if the world exist in-itself, the most we can say of our perception of
      the world is tt it is a mass of purely subjective experiences. with
      noumenon, swm, dont u think tt there can be no objectivity at all? stated
      differently, if we accept the noumenon hypothesis, we are assuming tt humans
      exists on the INSIDE of their bodies. if this were true, we would have no
      grounds for assuming tt their is anything but our own subjective sensations
      and ideas. objects supposedly exists in an "outside world", in noumenon.
      however, we could have no access to such a world since we could be inside
      our bodies with nothing but various sensations and ideas. descartes would
      not have been wrong in his suspicion and doubts tt it is the demon to cause
      him to have sense experience rather than objects assumed to exist in an
      inaccessible and unprovable noumenon.

      this idea of noumenon may just be a fabrication, just as the ether of wave
      theory was (until einstein came along and show tt the light does not need a
      ether to travel along). for phenomenology, there can be no "in-itself" or
      noumenon hidden behind the phenomena of the world. i think phenomenologist
      (contra phenomenalist view) do not consider phenomena to be mere appearances
      (as kant asserted, tt in addition to phenomena there are noumenon which he
      denied knowledge of which is possible). appearances are appearances OF
      something. it may be true tt only phenomena exist, but the being of the
      phenomenon does not exist only to the extent tt it appears; what sartre
      meant by "the transphenomenal being of a phenomena".

      there is also something about the nature or structure of consciousness which
      imply tt idealism (and the existence of noumenon) cannot be true. this will
      be long, so i will just skip it.

      james.












      From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@...>
      Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [WisdomForum] Noumenon
      Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:34:52 -0000

      Something James said in an earlier post got me to thinking about the
      idea of the noumenon. Certainly there is nothing we can affirmatively
      say about it and for that reason Wittgenstein opted for silence (as
      opposed to Kant who did struggle to reference it in one manner or
      another). James noted (in implicit sympathy, I think, with the
      Wittgensteinian view) that there was no reason to even consider the
      possibility of a noumenon since all we could know was what was to
      hand (the philosophical position he was articulating is, by the way,
      known as the phenomenalist view, which gradually metamorphosed into
      the phenomenology of Husserl which then became the basis of much of
      modern existentialism . . . so James, who is an avowed
      existentialist, is in the right company for his viewpoint). I
      understand this point of view and, in fact, once entertained it
      myself. On one level it is quite adequate, it seems to me, but on
      another it fails. While it may be important to recognize the inherent
      unknowability of noumenon and to operate with that understanding, I
      think it is also essential to recognize that noumenon is an aspect of
      the world (defined here as all being) if we are to truly understand
      it. In other words, I don't think we need to (or should) be in the
      business of trying to theorize or describe noumenon as such, but I
      think we have to acknowledge it in order to more fully explain being
      as we find it. And this, I think, takes us closer to the religious
      project (as I've said here many times before). -- SWM



      _________________________________________________________________
      MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
    • james tan
      just by the way, do u use noumenon in the same sense as kant s thing-in-themselves? just like to clarify the term. james. From: swmaerske
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        just by the way, do u use "noumenon" in the same sense as kant's
        thing-in-themselves? just like to clarify the term.

        james.



        From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@...>
        Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
        To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
        Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:51:48 -0000

        To use the term "entity" would be a mistake. I am not talking about
        positing an entity though our language makes it sound as though I am.
        Rather, I am talking about referencing a "placeholder". I admit, this
        is very problematic when we try to put this into language and so, I
        suspect, religions and their practices developed to address just this
        realization non-linguistically. Of course, we are language-using
        creatures and, as Wittgenstein made so clear (for some of us,
        anyway), we are inevtiably drawn to articulate our ideas in language,
        in fact we are bound to do this. And so, the conundrum. Do we talk
        about something which does not lend itself to that or do we maintain
        a studied and pregnant silence? I think both modes work and can be
        made use of (contra Wittgenstein) but I think the talking part
        requires very careful use of language and inclusion of broader means
        of expression than language alone. (Of course, for philosophizing, we
        have only language to rely on so, on this board, we are somewhat
        stuck.). -- SWM

        --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
        >
        > the opposite of phenomena is simply the absence of phenomena; to
        posit some
        > entity seems like a metaphysical mistake. the analogy with the moon
        does not
        > stand because it is assuming tt there is a "dark side" although we
        cant see
        > what is in there; my doubt is whether there is a dark side at all
        nevermind
        > what is there.
        >
        > james.
        >
        >
        >
        > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
        > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
        > To: WisdomForum@y...
        > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
        > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:09:26 -0000
        >
        > Eduard said: "I would take it that the term "noumenon"
        > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
        > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark side
        of
        > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
        although
        > we cannot see it."
        >
        > Yes, I would agree with this formulation. -- SWM
        >
        > --- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > > james,
        > >
        > > <<< if it is unknowable, then its existence is at best only a
        > > (theoretical) assumption, and as such its status as "unknowable"
        is
        > a
        > > bit skewed towards its assumed existence rather than its
        > nonexistence,
        > > so tt if it cant be proved to exist, it is not so much tt it
        doesnt
        > > exist but the failure of our own human limitation. >>>
        > >
        > > It would seem to me that there is no other alternative. Our
        brains
        > > are sealed inside our skulls and do not have direct contact with
        the
        > > world. Not only are our senses limited such that we cannot be
        sure
        > > that they are picking up all that may emitted by the object, but
        the
        > > inputs from our senses have to be interpreted and much of this
        [if
        > not
        > > all] is based upon learning. I would take it that the
        > term "noumenon"
        > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
        > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
        side
        > of
        > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
        > although
        > > we cannot see it. I think I will change the name of my
        philosophy
        > > from NOOism to NOUism ...
        > >
        > > eduard
        >
        >
        >
        > _________________________________________________________________
        > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
        > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



        _________________________________________________________________
        STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
        http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
      • satz202
        I understand that Kant used the noumenon in a plural , as each thing in itself , rather like Plato s Ideas of each type of thing. Schopenhauer breaks
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 23, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I understand that Kant used the 'noumenon' in a plural , as
          each 'thing in itself' , rather like Plato's Ideas of each type of
          thing. Schopenhauer breaks through this to say that if each noumenon
          is not determined by space/time and causality, then as there can't be
          two or more infinite things, the 'thing in itself' must in fact be
          one only.
          satz.

          --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
          >
          > just by the way, do u use "noumenon" in the same sense as kant's
          > thing-in-themselves? just like to clarify the term.
          >
          > james.
          >
          >
          >
          > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
          > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
          > To: WisdomForum@y...
          > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
          > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:51:48 -0000
          >
          > To use the term "entity" would be a mistake. I am not talking about
          > positing an entity though our language makes it sound as though I
          am.
          > Rather, I am talking about referencing a "placeholder". I admit,
          this
          > is very problematic when we try to put this into language and so, I
          > suspect, religions and their practices developed to address just
          this
          > realization non-linguistically. Of course, we are language-using
          > creatures and, as Wittgenstein made so clear (for some of us,
          > anyway), we are inevtiably drawn to articulate our ideas in
          language,
          > in fact we are bound to do this. And so, the conundrum. Do we talk
          > about something which does not lend itself to that or do we maintain
          > a studied and pregnant silence? I think both modes work and can be
          > made use of (contra Wittgenstein) but I think the talking part
          > requires very careful use of language and inclusion of broader means
          > of expression than language alone. (Of course, for philosophizing,
          we
          > have only language to rely on so, on this board, we are somewhat
          > stuck.). -- SWM
          >
          > --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
          > >
          > > the opposite of phenomena is simply the absence of phenomena; to
          > posit some
          > > entity seems like a metaphysical mistake. the analogy with the
          moon
          > does not
          > > stand because it is assuming tt there is a "dark side" although
          we
          > cant see
          > > what is in there; my doubt is whether there is a dark side at all
          > nevermind
          > > what is there.
          > >
          > > james.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
          > > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
          > > To: WisdomForum@y...
          > > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
          > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:09:26 -0000
          > >
          > > Eduard said: "I would take it that the term "noumenon"
          > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
          > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
          side
          > of
          > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
          > although
          > > we cannot see it."
          > >
          > > Yes, I would agree with this formulation. -- SWM
          > >
          > > --- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
          > > > james,
          > > >
          > > > <<< if it is unknowable, then its existence is at best only a
          > > > (theoretical) assumption, and as such its status
          as "unknowable"
          > is
          > > a
          > > > bit skewed towards its assumed existence rather than its
          > > nonexistence,
          > > > so tt if it cant be proved to exist, it is not so much tt it
          > doesnt
          > > > exist but the failure of our own human limitation. >>>
          > > >
          > > > It would seem to me that there is no other alternative. Our
          > brains
          > > > are sealed inside our skulls and do not have direct contact
          with
          > the
          > > > world. Not only are our senses limited such that we cannot be
          > sure
          > > > that they are picking up all that may emitted by the object,
          but
          > the
          > > > inputs from our senses have to be interpreted and much of this
          > [if
          > > not
          > > > all] is based upon learning. I would take it that the
          > > term "noumenon"
          > > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
          > > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
          > side
          > > of
          > > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
          > > although
          > > > we cannot see it. I think I will change the name of my
          > philosophy
          > > > from NOOism to NOUism ...
          > > >
          > > > eduard
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > _________________________________________________________________
          > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
          > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
          >
          >
          >
          > _________________________________________________________________
          > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
          > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
        • james tan
          if in principle it is unknowable, what make u think it exists? james. From: swmaerske
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 29, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            <<it refers to something that is in principle utterly
            unknowable>>

            if in principle it is unknowable, what make u think it exists?

            james.





            From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@...>
            Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
            To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
            Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:23:09 -0000

            Eduard said: "Even if we send a spaceship to photograph the back side
            of the moon, this does not mean that we truly know it."

            Actually, it does if we can actually go there, see the surface, touch
            it, etc. In this sense we know it as much as we know anything in the
            world. The idea of noumenon is quite different. as you've already
            noted, it refers to something that is in principle utterly
            unknowable. The term "dark side of the moon" can only serve as a
            metaphor, of sorts, for it.

            SWM

            --- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
            > Chris,
            >
            > <<< But what form of epistemological pessimism warrants the view
            that
            > anything is "inaccessible" in principle? I suppose it was once
            > thought that the dark side of the moon was utterly and in principle
            > unknowable until we built rocket ships and satellites and actually
            > sent people there. So, there really is no good read to adopt
            > epistemological pessimism, except perhaps with respect to noumenal
            > world. But even that is problematic since people, including
            yourself,
            > seem to want to assert that we do have knowledge of such a world.
            >>>
            >
            > You got me on this "epistemological pessimism" stuff ... whatever
            that
            > may be. My understanding of noumenon is that it is an attribute of
            > the thing which cant be known, because we only "know" things as
            > phenomenon which is made accessible by our senses. Even if we send
            a
            > spaceship to photograph the back side of the moon, this does not
            mean
            > that we truly know it.
            >
            > eduard



            _________________________________________________________________
            Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
          • Janie Desevic
            your mind did. reality is subjective, and we ourselves create the answers. -jane ... _________________________________________________________________ Tired of
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              your mind did. reality is subjective, and we ourselves create the answers.

              -jane




              >From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
              >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              >To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: [existlist] Re: Noumenon
              >Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 05:07:34 +0000
              >
              >
              ><<it refers to something that is in principle utterly
              >unknowable>>
              >
              >if in principle it is unknowable, what make u think it exists?
              >
              >james.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@...>
              >Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
              >To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
              >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:23:09 -0000
              >
              >Eduard said: "Even if we send a spaceship to photograph the back side
              >of the moon, this does not mean that we truly know it."
              >
              >Actually, it does if we can actually go there, see the surface, touch
              >it, etc. In this sense we know it as much as we know anything in the
              >world. The idea of noumenon is quite different. as you've already
              >noted, it refers to something that is in principle utterly
              >unknowable. The term "dark side of the moon" can only serve as a
              >metaphor, of sorts, for it.
              >
              >SWM
              >
              >--- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
              > > Chris,
              > >
              > > <<< But what form of epistemological pessimism warrants the view
              >that
              > > anything is "inaccessible" in principle? I suppose it was once
              > > thought that the dark side of the moon was utterly and in principle
              > > unknowable until we built rocket ships and satellites and actually
              > > sent people there. So, there really is no good read to adopt
              > > epistemological pessimism, except perhaps with respect to noumenal
              > > world. But even that is problematic since people, including
              >yourself,
              > > seem to want to assert that we do have knowledge of such a world.
              > >>>
              > >
              > > You got me on this "epistemological pessimism" stuff ... whatever
              >that
              > > may be. My understanding of noumenon is that it is an attribute of
              > > the thing which cant be known, because we only "know" things as
              > > phenomenon which is made accessible by our senses. Even if we send
              >a
              > > spaceship to photograph the back side of the moon, this does not
              >mean
              > > that we truly know it.
              > >
              > > eduard
              >
              >
              >
              >_________________________________________________________________
              >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
              >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
              >


              _________________________________________________________________
              Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
              http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
            • eduard
              jane, Very true. Not only do we create the answers, but to a large extent
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                jane,

                <<< your mind did. reality is subjective, and we ourselves create the
                answers. >>>

                Very true. Not only do we create the answers, but to a large extent
                we create the reality.

                eduard
              • Fictional Character
                ... Hit your head on something while you were out Duard? Fitz
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  eduard wrote:
                  > to a large extent
                  > we create the reality.

                  Hit your head on something while you were out 'Duard?

                  Fitz
                  --------------------
                • james tan
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <<For me, noumenon is a blank place on our knowledge
                    map, a name for complete blankness (not even darkness since that is
                    already something we can conceive of). In a sense, it is closer to a
                    Wittgensteinian silence although I would argue one can, and we do,
                    engage with the idea through many of our activities, most notably the
                    religious and mystical ..>>

                    yea, i am beginning to see the 'sense' of the concept of noumenon. i do
                    think the religious or mystical belong to this realm. at times i feel there
                    'ought' to be some kind of supernatural being or god around, and just
                    because there is no empirical evidences for it may just pt to the limitation
                    of empiricism and not so much on the non-existence of such being. ur concept
                    of noumenon reminds me of godel's theorem: tt something can be true and yet
                    unprovable (at least within a certain system). this is a bit on the personal
                    side: i used to think i am christian, but 'backslided' because i have come
                    to the conclusion tt, empirically, naturally, historically, no man is able
                    to defeat death. in history, some man (eg, china's shi huang ti) so
                    desperately wanted to procure immortality tt they do everything in their
                    power, wealth, resoures (and some are huge) to get it, but failed (and they
                    all claimed they are gods). either i took "jesus is god" as the more basic
                    premise than "no man survive death", or the other way round, determines the
                    truthfulness of jesus' divinity. if i take jesus is god as the more
                    basic/fundamental premise, then it logically follows tt he survives death
                    (resurrect, ie, die first, then rose from death), since god by definition is
                    all powerful, even defeating death. but if i take the empirical statement,
                    tt no man is able to live forever, to be a more reasonable and fundamental
                    premise, then jesus' claim is obviously false. it is here tt ur concept of
                    noumenon reminds me of the possible limitation of the empirical approach;
                    ie, tt jesus is god could well be a more fundamental premise. as u
                    suggested, god's existence could belong to this realm. gee... enough of my
                    rambling.

                    james.



                    From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@...>
                    Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
                    To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                    Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 23:36:00 -0000

                    Not sure if I do, to be frank, as have always found Kant rather tough
                    sledding. But I think I do. However, Karun Philip once offered a
                    slightly different "model" for what Kant had in mind as noumenon over
                    on the Critical Rationalism forum and I thought, when I saw it, that
                    jibed better with the way an old professor of mine had presented the
                    Kantian idea years ago, i.e., as a fluid-like undifferentiated mass
                    of reality that lies at the base of and ontologically precedes all
                    things we actually know via "direct" encounter. I do not use the term
                    in quite this way as I think it is already to describe noumenon in
                    some non-noumenous fashion to adopt such a view. But it may be that
                    this is closer to what Kant had in mind (at least as that professsor
                    had presented it). For me, noumenon is a blank place on our knowledge
                    map, a name for complete blankness (not even darkness since that is
                    already something we can conceive of). In a sense, it is closer to a
                    Wittgensteinian silence although I would argue one can, and we do,
                    engage with the idea through many of our activities, most notably the
                    religious and mystical and, more, that we can talk about it when
                    understood in this way. Of course, we don't get a lot of affirmative
                    mileage in terms of theory building out of such an idea. But that
                    doesn't mean there is not a place for it in our effort to understand
                    being as such. -- SWM

                    --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    > just by the way, do u use "noumenon" in the same sense as kant's
                    > thing-in-themselves? just like to clarify the term.
                    >
                    > james.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                    > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                    > To: WisdomForum@y...
                    > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                    > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:51:48 -0000
                    >
                    > To use the term "entity" would be a mistake. I am not talking about
                    > positing an entity though our language makes it sound as though I
                    am.
                    > Rather, I am talking about referencing a "placeholder". I admit,
                    this
                    > is very problematic when we try to put this into language and so, I
                    > suspect, religions and their practices developed to address just
                    this
                    > realization non-linguistically. Of course, we are language-using
                    > creatures and, as Wittgenstein made so clear (for some of us,
                    > anyway), we are inevtiably drawn to articulate our ideas in
                    language,
                    > in fact we are bound to do this. And so, the conundrum. Do we talk
                    > about something which does not lend itself to that or do we maintain
                    > a studied and pregnant silence? I think both modes work and can be
                    > made use of (contra Wittgenstein) but I think the talking part
                    > requires very careful use of language and inclusion of broader means
                    > of expression than language alone. (Of course, for philosophizing,
                    we
                    > have only language to rely on so, on this board, we are somewhat
                    > stuck.). -- SWM
                    >
                    > --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > the opposite of phenomena is simply the absence of phenomena; to
                    > posit some
                    > > entity seems like a metaphysical mistake. the analogy with the
                    moon
                    > does not
                    > > stand because it is assuming tt there is a "dark side" although
                    we
                    > cant see
                    > > what is in there; my doubt is whether there is a dark side at all
                    > nevermind
                    > > what is there.
                    > >
                    > > james.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                    > > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                    > > To: WisdomForum@y...
                    > > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                    > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:09:26 -0000
                    > >
                    > > Eduard said: "I would take it that the term "noumenon"
                    > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
                    > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
                    side
                    > of
                    > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
                    > although
                    > > we cannot see it."
                    > >
                    > > Yes, I would agree with this formulation. -- SWM
                    > >
                    > > --- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                    > > > james,
                    > > >
                    > > > <<< if it is unknowable, then its existence is at best only a
                    > > > (theoretical) assumption, and as such its status
                    as "unknowable"
                    > is
                    > > a
                    > > > bit skewed towards its assumed existence rather than its
                    > > nonexistence,
                    > > > so tt if it cant be proved to exist, it is not so much tt it
                    > doesnt
                    > > > exist but the failure of our own human limitation. >>>
                    > > >
                    > > > It would seem to me that there is no other alternative. Our
                    > brains
                    > > > are sealed inside our skulls and do not have direct contact
                    with
                    > the
                    > > > world. Not only are our senses limited such that we cannot be
                    > sure
                    > > > that they are picking up all that may emitted by the object,
                    but
                    > the
                    > > > inputs from our senses have to be interpreted and much of this
                    > [if
                    > > not
                    > > > all] is based upon learning. I would take it that the
                    > > term "noumenon"
                    > > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
                    > > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
                    > side
                    > > of
                    > > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
                    > > although
                    > > > we cannot see it. I think I will change the name of my
                    > philosophy
                    > > > from NOOism to NOUism ...
                    > > >
                    > > > eduard
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > _________________________________________________________________
                    > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
                    > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > _________________________________________________________________
                    > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
                    > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                  • Fictional Character
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      <<at times i feel there 'ought' to be some kind of supernatural
                      being or god around, and just because there is no empirical
                      evidences for it may just pt to the limitation of empiricism and not
                      so much on the non-existence of such being. >>

                      Empiricism is limited, indeed. How does one know that any
                      observation they make is a valid one?

                      However, to me that would not prove the existence of god -- or
                      even suggest it.

                      It's this damned HOPE thing that keeps getting you suckers
                      down. If there might be a god, there might just as well not be
                      one...and there might just be a birth of the universe, and there
                      might just not be...And while finding out might be a pleasant
                      surprise, or utter decombobulant, there is no means to make
                      that answer, when you can't even be sure of what you see
                      (science or no...).

                      The one thing I cannot deny is my internal perception of I, which
                      may itself be a deception, but tis an immaculate
                      one...Empiricism would teach us mostly that we end (e.g.,
                      observation of death and cessation), where as the insanity of the
                      self-perception (driven by desire and interest) would suggest
                      substance (self) beyond form. In other words, it is far more
                      pleasant to think that it is all an illusion -- letting go, for the most
                      part, of that fear of death that drives desire for a god.

                      Vehement Dirt
                      --------------------------------
                    • satz202
                      Guys: not that I m an expert or anything, but this seems to be a case of readers taking the term to fit their own desires. I don t think there is anything
                      Message 10 of 11 , Dec 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Guys: not that I'm an expert or anything, but this seems to be a case
                        of readers taking the term to fit their own desires. I don't think
                        there is anything 'godlike' or divine about the Noumenon as described
                        by Kant and Schopenhauer.
                        I incline to the idea that the noumenon is , as swmaerske put
                        it "undifferentiated mass of reality ". In other words, a
                        transcendental material in the form of 'energy'. There is
                        no 'otherness' about it, it's just the real world as it is beyond the
                        filters of our own anthropic filters.
                        So where did any idea of men living again creep in? Soul,
                        Resurrection, survival of death, these are all accretions on the
                        basic perception of KAnt that we only know the world through 4-
                        dimensional lenses. I incline more towards Schopenhauer's view of the
                        Noumenon as uncaring about humanity, if not downright hostile, as
                        compared with Kant's preservation of God within his system.
                        Anyone know the old Ray Milland movie "man with the x-ray eyes"? That
                        seems to me to be an accurate allegory of the search for truth in its
                        showing the underlying reality as unbearable and inspiring of 'dread'.
                        Satz.

                        --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                        >
                        > <<For me, noumenon is a blank place on our knowledge
                        > map, a name for complete blankness (not even darkness since that is
                        > already something we can conceive of). In a sense, it is closer to a
                        > Wittgensteinian silence although I would argue one can, and we do,
                        > engage with the idea through many of our activities, most notably
                        the
                        > religious and mystical ..>>
                        >
                        > yea, i am beginning to see the 'sense' of the concept of noumenon.
                        i do
                        > think the religious or mystical belong to this realm. at times i
                        feel there
                        > 'ought' to be some kind of supernatural being or god around, and
                        just
                        > because there is no empirical evidences for it may just pt to the
                        limitation
                        > of empiricism and not so much on the non-existence of such being.
                        ur concept
                        > of noumenon reminds me of godel's theorem: tt something can be true
                        and yet
                        > unprovable (at least within a certain system). this is a bit on the
                        personal
                        > side: i used to think i am christian, but 'backslided' because i
                        have come
                        > to the conclusion tt, empirically, naturally, historically, no man
                        is able
                        > to defeat death. in history, some man (eg, china's shi huang ti) so
                        > desperately wanted to procure immortality tt they do everything in
                        their
                        > power, wealth, resoures (and some are huge) to get it, but failed
                        (and they
                        > all claimed they are gods). either i took "jesus is god" as the
                        more basic
                        > premise than "no man survive death", or the other way round,
                        determines the
                        > truthfulness of jesus' divinity. if i take jesus is god as the more
                        > basic/fundamental premise, then it logically follows tt he survives
                        death
                        > (resurrect, ie, die first, then rose from death), since god by
                        definition is
                        > all powerful, even defeating death. but if i take the empirical
                        statement,
                        > tt no man is able to live forever, to be a more reasonable and
                        fundamental
                        > premise, then jesus' claim is obviously false. it is here tt ur
                        concept of
                        > noumenon reminds me of the possible limitation of the empirical
                        approach;
                        > ie, tt jesus is god could well be a more fundamental premise. as u
                        > suggested, god's existence could belong to this realm. gee...
                        enough of my
                        > rambling.
                        >
                        > james.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                        > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                        > To: WisdomForum@y...
                        > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                        > Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 23:36:00 -0000
                        >
                        > Not sure if I do, to be frank, as have always found Kant rather
                        tough
                        > sledding. But I think I do. However, Karun Philip once offered a
                        > slightly different "model" for what Kant had in mind as noumenon
                        over
                        > on the Critical Rationalism forum and I thought, when I saw it, that
                        > jibed better with the way an old professor of mine had presented the
                        > Kantian idea years ago, i.e., as a fluid-like undifferentiated mass
                        > of reality that lies at the base of and ontologically precedes all
                        > things we actually know via "direct" encounter. I do not use the
                        term
                        > in quite this way as I think it is already to describe noumenon in
                        > some non-noumenous fashion to adopt such a view. But it may be that
                        > this is closer to what Kant had in mind (at least as that professsor
                        > had presented it). For me, noumenon is a blank place on our
                        knowledge
                        > map, a name for complete blankness (not even darkness since that is
                        > already something we can conceive of). In a sense, it is closer to a
                        > Wittgensteinian silence although I would argue one can, and we do,
                        > engage with the idea through many of our activities, most notably
                        the
                        > religious and mystical and, more, that we can talk about it when
                        > understood in this way. Of course, we don't get a lot of affirmative
                        > mileage in terms of theory building out of such an idea. But that
                        > doesn't mean there is not a place for it in our effort to understand
                        > being as such. -- SWM
                        >
                        > --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > just by the way, do u use "noumenon" in the same sense as kant's
                        > > thing-in-themselves? just like to clarify the term.
                        > >
                        > > james.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                        > > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                        > > To: WisdomForum@y...
                        > > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                        > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:51:48 -0000
                        > >
                        > > To use the term "entity" would be a mistake. I am not talking
                        about
                        > > positing an entity though our language makes it sound as though I
                        > am.
                        > > Rather, I am talking about referencing a "placeholder". I admit,
                        > this
                        > > is very problematic when we try to put this into language and
                        so, I
                        > > suspect, religions and their practices developed to address just
                        > this
                        > > realization non-linguistically. Of course, we are language-using
                        > > creatures and, as Wittgenstein made so clear (for some of us,
                        > > anyway), we are inevtiably drawn to articulate our ideas in
                        > language,
                        > > in fact we are bound to do this. And so, the conundrum. Do we
                        talk
                        > > about something which does not lend itself to that or do we
                        maintain
                        > > a studied and pregnant silence? I think both modes work and can
                        be
                        > > made use of (contra Wittgenstein) but I think the talking part
                        > > requires very careful use of language and inclusion of broader
                        means
                        > > of expression than language alone. (Of course, for
                        philosophizing,
                        > we
                        > > have only language to rely on so, on this board, we are somewhat
                        > > stuck.). -- SWM
                        > >
                        > > --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > the opposite of phenomena is simply the absence of phenomena;
                        to
                        > > posit some
                        > > > entity seems like a metaphysical mistake. the analogy with the
                        > moon
                        > > does not
                        > > > stand because it is assuming tt there is a "dark side"
                        although
                        > we
                        > > cant see
                        > > > what is in there; my doubt is whether there is a dark side at
                        all
                        > > nevermind
                        > > > what is there.
                        > > >
                        > > > james.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                        > > > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                        > > > To: WisdomForum@y...
                        > > > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                        > > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:09:26 -0000
                        > > >
                        > > > Eduard said: "I would take it that the term "noumenon"
                        > > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
                        > > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
                        > side
                        > > of
                        > > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
                        > > although
                        > > > we cannot see it."
                        > > >
                        > > > Yes, I would agree with this formulation. -- SWM
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                        > > > > james,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > <<< if it is unknowable, then its existence is at best
                        only a
                        > > > > (theoretical) assumption, and as such its status
                        > as "unknowable"
                        > > is
                        > > > a
                        > > > > bit skewed towards its assumed existence rather than its
                        > > > nonexistence,
                        > > > > so tt if it cant be proved to exist, it is not so much tt
                        it
                        > > doesnt
                        > > > > exist but the failure of our own human limitation. >>>
                        > > > >
                        > > > > It would seem to me that there is no other alternative.
                        Our
                        > > brains
                        > > > > are sealed inside our skulls and do not have direct contact
                        > with
                        > > the
                        > > > > world. Not only are our senses limited such that we
                        cannot be
                        > > sure
                        > > > > that they are picking up all that may emitted by the
                        object,
                        > but
                        > > the
                        > > > > inputs from our senses have to be interpreted and much of
                        this
                        > > [if
                        > > > not
                        > > > > all] is based upon learning. I would take it that the
                        > > > term "noumenon"
                        > > > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is
                        opposite to
                        > > > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the
                        dark
                        > > side
                        > > > of
                        > > > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another
                        side
                        > > > although
                        > > > > we cannot see it. I think I will change the name of my
                        > > philosophy
                        > > > > from NOOism to NOUism ...
                        > > > >
                        > > > > eduard
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        _________________________________________________________________
                        > > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
                        > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > _________________________________________________________________
                        > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
                        > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > _________________________________________________________________
                        > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                        > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                      • Bill Harris
                        Satz, That undifferentiated mass of reality or transcendental material in the form of energy at first glance seems contradictory. I mean is it energy or
                        Message 11 of 11 , Dec 2, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Satz, That' undifferentiated mass of reality' or "transcendental material in the form of energy" at first glance seems contradictory. I mean is it energy or is it mass? At very high temperatures they interconvert so as cooling takes place we precipitate mass from a quark/ gluon plasma. Protons and neutrons are the products of this process and they then form simple atoms of hydrogen.
                          We have these answers now, Schopenhour had only his intellectual perception of the form of elemental matter. Today he might find himself in the field of theoretical , particle physics. His cynicism regarding deity along with his questioning of the very fabric of matter, put him in a position far ahead of his intellectual counterpoise.
                          As to the underlying reality being dreadful, I suppose it was when compared to the unrealities of beatific vision and eternal life. Religion was a mistake. It made the wrong assumptions about the principles underlying existence. In backing away from the pleasant lie, Schopenhour was stating the obvious. If you cannot deal with this life then leave it. No one is getting saved or punished. Bill
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: satz202
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 6:18 AM
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: Noumenon not human or divine


                          Guys: not that I'm an expert or anything, but this seems to be a case
                          of readers taking the term to fit their own desires. I don't think
                          there is anything 'godlike' or divine about the Noumenon as described
                          by Kant and Schopenhauer.
                          I incline to the idea that the noumenon is , as swmaerske put
                          it "undifferentiated mass of reality ". In other words, a
                          transcendental material in the form of 'energy'. There is
                          no 'otherness' about it, it's just the real world as it is beyond the
                          filters of our own anthropic filters.
                          So where did any idea of men living again creep in? Soul,
                          Resurrection, survival of death, these are all accretions on the
                          basic perception of KAnt that we only know the world through 4-
                          dimensional lenses. I incline more towards Schopenhauer's view of the
                          Noumenon as uncaring about humanity, if not downright hostile, as
                          compared with Kant's preservation of God within his system.
                          Anyone know the old Ray Milland movie "man with the x-ray eyes"? That
                          seems to me to be an accurate allegory of the search for truth in its
                          showing the underlying reality as unbearable and inspiring of 'dread'.
                          Satz.

                          --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                          >
                          > <<For me, noumenon is a blank place on our knowledge
                          > map, a name for complete blankness (not even darkness since that is
                          > already something we can conceive of). In a sense, it is closer to a
                          > Wittgensteinian silence although I would argue one can, and we do,
                          > engage with the idea through many of our activities, most notably
                          the
                          > religious and mystical ..>>
                          >
                          > yea, i am beginning to see the 'sense' of the concept of noumenon.
                          i do
                          > think the religious or mystical belong to this realm. at times i
                          feel there
                          > 'ought' to be some kind of supernatural being or god around, and
                          just
                          > because there is no empirical evidences for it may just pt to the
                          limitation
                          > of empiricism and not so much on the non-existence of such being.
                          ur concept
                          > of noumenon reminds me of godel's theorem: tt something can be true
                          and yet
                          > unprovable (at least within a certain system). this is a bit on the
                          personal
                          > side: i used to think i am christian, but 'backslided' because i
                          have come
                          > to the conclusion tt, empirically, naturally, historically, no man
                          is able
                          > to defeat death. in history, some man (eg, china's shi huang ti) so
                          > desperately wanted to procure immortality tt they do everything in
                          their
                          > power, wealth, resoures (and some are huge) to get it, but failed
                          (and they
                          > all claimed they are gods). either i took "jesus is god" as the
                          more basic
                          > premise than "no man survive death", or the other way round,
                          determines the
                          > truthfulness of jesus' divinity. if i take jesus is god as the more
                          > basic/fundamental premise, then it logically follows tt he survives
                          death
                          > (resurrect, ie, die first, then rose from death), since god by
                          definition is
                          > all powerful, even defeating death. but if i take the empirical
                          statement,
                          > tt no man is able to live forever, to be a more reasonable and
                          fundamental
                          > premise, then jesus' claim is obviously false. it is here tt ur
                          concept of
                          > noumenon reminds me of the possible limitation of the empirical
                          approach;
                          > ie, tt jesus is god could well be a more fundamental premise. as u
                          > suggested, god's existence could belong to this realm. gee...
                          enough of my
                          > rambling.
                          >
                          > james.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                          > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                          > To: WisdomForum@y...
                          > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                          > Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 23:36:00 -0000
                          >
                          > Not sure if I do, to be frank, as have always found Kant rather
                          tough
                          > sledding. But I think I do. However, Karun Philip once offered a
                          > slightly different "model" for what Kant had in mind as noumenon
                          over
                          > on the Critical Rationalism forum and I thought, when I saw it, that
                          > jibed better with the way an old professor of mine had presented the
                          > Kantian idea years ago, i.e., as a fluid-like undifferentiated mass
                          > of reality that lies at the base of and ontologically precedes all
                          > things we actually know via "direct" encounter. I do not use the
                          term
                          > in quite this way as I think it is already to describe noumenon in
                          > some non-noumenous fashion to adopt such a view. But it may be that
                          > this is closer to what Kant had in mind (at least as that professsor
                          > had presented it). For me, noumenon is a blank place on our
                          knowledge
                          > map, a name for complete blankness (not even darkness since that is
                          > already something we can conceive of). In a sense, it is closer to a
                          > Wittgensteinian silence although I would argue one can, and we do,
                          > engage with the idea through many of our activities, most notably
                          the
                          > religious and mystical and, more, that we can talk about it when
                          > understood in this way. Of course, we don't get a lot of affirmative
                          > mileage in terms of theory building out of such an idea. But that
                          > doesn't mean there is not a place for it in our effort to understand
                          > being as such. -- SWM
                          >
                          > --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > just by the way, do u use "noumenon" in the same sense as kant's
                          > > thing-in-themselves? just like to clarify the term.
                          > >
                          > > james.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                          > > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                          > > To: WisdomForum@y...
                          > > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                          > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:51:48 -0000
                          > >
                          > > To use the term "entity" would be a mistake. I am not talking
                          about
                          > > positing an entity though our language makes it sound as though I
                          > am.
                          > > Rather, I am talking about referencing a "placeholder". I admit,
                          > this
                          > > is very problematic when we try to put this into language and
                          so, I
                          > > suspect, religions and their practices developed to address just
                          > this
                          > > realization non-linguistically. Of course, we are language-using
                          > > creatures and, as Wittgenstein made so clear (for some of us,
                          > > anyway), we are inevtiably drawn to articulate our ideas in
                          > language,
                          > > in fact we are bound to do this. And so, the conundrum. Do we
                          talk
                          > > about something which does not lend itself to that or do we
                          maintain
                          > > a studied and pregnant silence? I think both modes work and can
                          be
                          > > made use of (contra Wittgenstein) but I think the talking part
                          > > requires very careful use of language and inclusion of broader
                          means
                          > > of expression than language alone. (Of course, for
                          philosophizing,
                          > we
                          > > have only language to rely on so, on this board, we are somewhat
                          > > stuck.). -- SWM
                          > >
                          > > --- In WisdomForum@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > the opposite of phenomena is simply the absence of phenomena;
                          to
                          > > posit some
                          > > > entity seems like a metaphysical mistake. the analogy with the
                          > moon
                          > > does not
                          > > > stand because it is assuming tt there is a "dark side"
                          although
                          > we
                          > > cant see
                          > > > what is in there; my doubt is whether there is a dark side at
                          all
                          > > nevermind
                          > > > what is there.
                          > > >
                          > > > james.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > From: "swmaerske" <swmirsky@a...>
                          > > > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
                          > > > To: WisdomForum@y...
                          > > > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Noumenon
                          > > > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:09:26 -0000
                          > > >
                          > > > Eduard said: "I would take it that the term "noumenon"
                          > > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is opposite to
                          > > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the dark
                          > side
                          > > of
                          > > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another side
                          > > although
                          > > > we cannot see it."
                          > > >
                          > > > Yes, I would agree with this formulation. -- SWM
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In WisdomForum@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                          > > > > james,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > <<< if it is unknowable, then its existence is at best
                          only a
                          > > > > (theoretical) assumption, and as such its status
                          > as "unknowable"
                          > > is
                          > > > a
                          > > > > bit skewed towards its assumed existence rather than its
                          > > > nonexistence,
                          > > > > so tt if it cant be proved to exist, it is not so much tt
                          it
                          > > doesnt
                          > > > > exist but the failure of our own human limitation. >>>
                          > > > >
                          > > > > It would seem to me that there is no other alternative.
                          Our
                          > > brains
                          > > > > are sealed inside our skulls and do not have direct contact
                          > with
                          > > the
                          > > > > world. Not only are our senses limited such that we
                          cannot be
                          > > sure
                          > > > > that they are picking up all that may emitted by the
                          object,
                          > but
                          > > the
                          > > > > inputs from our senses have to be interpreted and much of
                          this
                          > > [if
                          > > > not
                          > > > > all] is based upon learning. I would take it that the
                          > > > term "noumenon"
                          > > > > is coined simply to provide us with a word that is
                          opposite to
                          > > > > "phenomenon" ... in the same sense as one might say "the
                          dark
                          > > side
                          > > > of
                          > > > > the moon" on the basis that surely the moon has another
                          side
                          > > > although
                          > > > > we cannot see it. I think I will change the name of my
                          > > philosophy
                          > > > > from NOOism to NOUism ...
                          > > > >
                          > > > > eduard
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          _________________________________________________________________
                          > > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
                          > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > _________________________________________________________________
                          > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
                          > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _________________________________________________________________
                          > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                          > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT




                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.