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

Re: Noumenon not human or divine

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.