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

Re: Noumenon

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
      <<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 2 of 11 , Dec 1, 2002
        <<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 3 of 11 , Dec 1, 2002
          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 4 of 11 , Dec 2, 2002
            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.