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

and she was

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    We may not easily deconstruct or simplify the process of human thought. The theorist on the subject is necessarily forced into an epistemology inviting by its
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      We may not easily deconstruct or simplify the process of human
      thought. The theorist on the subject is necessarily forced into an
      epistemology inviting by its very nature deconstruction and obviation.
      Criticism of such exposition is really an expression of a fundamental
      tension in every human mind between the "naked ape" or primordial
      animal, and the recollecting existence organizer dependent on, as
      George aptly puts it ,"logocentric" organization. Intuitively, though
      in most cases buried at a much lower sensory threshold than ordinary
      empirical observation, human beings are aware that argument and
      conclusion directly affect their personal past. The personal past of a
      human being is the source of his/her mental stability, and generally
      speaking, is personally emotionally defended at any cost when
      approached with a threat of change. Though the theoretician makes
      every effort to avoid any iconic effect in generating an utilitarian
      terminology for written expostion, such accidental effect is
      unavoidable, and he/she can only hope to minimalize such effect, or
      avoid contradictory iconic influence to his/her purposed argument.
      This in itself is ethical, while purposing to directly utilize iconic
      effect is not, i/e kerygmatic theology, soteriologistic symbology,
      Madison Ave., politics, etc. Unfortunately iconic effect is more
      acceptable to the average human being, as such a threat to personal
      past is normally not perceived at a high enough sensory threshold to
      engage the emotions.

      Modern existentialism, though brilliant in evolution in the case of
      Sartre, has spawned a general distrust of written argument. Any
      presenting ethical theoretician immediately encounters a brooding
      overwhelmingly uneducated body of written criticism armed with
      post-modernist linguistic theory generally condemning the utility,
      necessity, and even efficaciousness of language for the human
      condition. Vocabulary becomes the object of ridicule. Post-modernist
      poetic exposition strives for paradox, meaninglessness, and
      unreadableness. This sense of meaninglessness stirred by Sartre has
      evloved its own iconic methodology, and an angst of robust bitterness
      thrown proudly at all comers by what amounts to no more than wounded
      displaced children. Into this critical atmosphere scientific
      exposition falls like a broken-winged bird to be torn to pieces and
      feasted upon. Sadly, the rare example of unabashed materialistic
      exposition it is all that is left of humanly valid written discourse
      not purposely involved with iconic effect. Existentialism in the west
      has failed to engage atheism in signifigant numbers because of this
      angst over meaninglessness. The result is a President who spits on the
      White House lawn on television.

      We are not meaningless or we would not be able to engage the idea that
      we are meaningless. Language is not meaningless or we would not be
      able to argue in language that it is. We may not childishly
      characterize human life as a dream or hallucination, because we have
      no evidence of anyone waking up from it. The issue confusing most of
      us is time framing. We cannot actively change the future, and we can
      only experience the past evidence of the present. We are recollectors.
      We observe, experience, and participate in our own recollection, our
      own past. A public misperception of the general theory of relativity
      spawned the science fiction of time travel. Because we recollect
      evidence of phenomenon and do not observe phenomenon in synchronous
      time frames we only view evidence of what has already happened.
      Anything stationary cannot be time framed. Some suggest that the
      present may be stationary, this cannot be because we are recollectors,
      and our capacity to recollect can only be caused by some form of
      detachment from the presence of existence, which can only be the
      ending of existence. No two objects regardless of theoretical essence
      are ever in a relative position to one another where one or the other
      is stationary, nor would evidence of such an occurrence be recollectable.

      From our personal recollections of our past we draw our sense of
      identity. Change that threatens to overthrow our personal past
      threatens our identity. The primordial animal intrinsic to our whole
      being is actually synchronized to iconic influence and arguably
      incapable of, or at least possessed of a substantially lesser capacity
      for time framing than our organized recollecting capacity. The purpose
      of argument in written discourse is to overcome primordial animalistic
      fear prone to emotional conclusion based on a resonation to iconic
      influence.

      Trinidad Cruz

      "I think it is clear, that didactic expositions of arguments with
      their conclusions and their premisses, of abstract ideas, of
      equations, etc., belong to the stage after arrival and not to any of
      the stages of traveling thither. The theorist can impart his lessons
      because he has finished learning them."

      Gilbert Ryle from "The Concept of Mind"
    • Knott
      Language is not meaningless or we would not be able to argue in language that it is. If language were to possess meaning purely, we would be able to
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        "Language is not meaningless or we would not be able to argue in language that it
        is."

        If language were to possess meaning purely, we would be able to understand one
        another and not have arguements. Language fails. When some people use it, it ends
        up meaningless.

        Your proclamations of knowledge continue to fail.

        Check Digit
      • Siobhan
        Trinidad, I m reading William Faulkner s Light in August , and one of its major themes is recollection. If I ve followed rightly, he thought that what a
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Trinidad,

          I'm reading William Faulkner's "Light in August", and one of its
          major themes is recollection. If I've followed rightly, he thought
          that what a person 'believes' is really more important or 'real' to
          that person than what he 'knows'; that feelings cause a belief that a
          particular incident happened before any cognitive memory surfaces;
          and that how we feel and believe overcomes the facts of the actual
          incidents. Also, present incidents triggers past situations-feelings
          that 'seem' identical though they might not actually be so, they only
          seem so. Faulkner was considered an existential because of many his
          themes and his reliance of the new field of psychiatry. He often
          presented the dilemma of the individual against his society viz.
          religion, sexuality and racism.

          Siobhan

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
          wrote:
          >
          > We may not easily deconstruct or simplify the process of human
          > thought. The theorist on the subject is necessarily forced into an
          > epistemology inviting by its very nature deconstruction and
          obviation.
          > Criticism of such exposition is really an expression of a
          fundamental
          > tension in every human mind between the "naked ape" or primordial
          > animal, and the recollecting existence organizer dependent on, as
          > George aptly puts it ,"logocentric" organization. Intuitively,
          though
          > in most cases buried at a much lower sensory threshold than ordinary
          > empirical observation, human beings are aware that argument and
          > conclusion directly affect their personal past. The personal past
          of a
          > human being is the source of his/her mental stability, and generally
          > speaking, is personally emotionally defended at any cost when
          > approached with a threat of change. Though the theoretician makes
          > every effort to avoid any iconic effect in generating an utilitarian
          > terminology for written expostion, such accidental effect is
          > unavoidable, and he/she can only hope to minimalize such effect, or
          > avoid contradictory iconic influence to his/her purposed argument.
          > This in itself is ethical, while purposing to directly utilize
          iconic
          > effect is not, i/e kerygmatic theology, soteriologistic symbology,
          > Madison Ave., politics, etc. Unfortunately iconic effect is more
          > acceptable to the average human being, as such a threat to personal
          > past is normally not perceived at a high enough sensory threshold to
          > engage the emotions.
          >
          > Modern existentialism, though brilliant in evolution in the case of
          > Sartre, has spawned a general distrust of written argument. Any
          > presenting ethical theoretician immediately encounters a brooding
          > overwhelmingly uneducated body of written criticism armed with
          > post-modernist linguistic theory generally condemning the utility,
          > necessity, and even efficaciousness of language for the human
          > condition. Vocabulary becomes the object of ridicule. Post-modernist
          > poetic exposition strives for paradox, meaninglessness, and
          > unreadableness. This sense of meaninglessness stirred by Sartre has
          > evloved its own iconic methodology, and an angst of robust
          bitterness
          > thrown proudly at all comers by what amounts to no more than wounded
          > displaced children. Into this critical atmosphere scientific
          > exposition falls like a broken-winged bird to be torn to pieces and
          > feasted upon. Sadly, the rare example of unabashed materialistic
          > exposition it is all that is left of humanly valid written discourse
          > not purposely involved with iconic effect. Existentialism in the
          west
          > has failed to engage atheism in signifigant numbers because of this
          > angst over meaninglessness. The result is a President who spits on
          the
          > White House lawn on television.
          >
          > We are not meaningless or we would not be able to engage the idea
          that
          > we are meaningless. Language is not meaningless or we would not be
          > able to argue in language that it is. We may not childishly
          > characterize human life as a dream or hallucination, because we have
          > no evidence of anyone waking up from it. The issue confusing most of
          > us is time framing. We cannot actively change the future, and we can
          > only experience the past evidence of the present. We are
          recollectors.
          > We observe, experience, and participate in our own recollection, our
          > own past. A public misperception of the general theory of relativity
          > spawned the science fiction of time travel. Because we recollect
          > evidence of phenomenon and do not observe phenomenon in synchronous
          > time frames we only view evidence of what has already happened.
          > Anything stationary cannot be time framed. Some suggest that the
          > present may be stationary, this cannot be because we are
          recollectors,
          > and our capacity to recollect can only be caused by some form of
          > detachment from the presence of existence, which can only be the
          > ending of existence. No two objects regardless of theoretical
          essence
          > are ever in a relative position to one another where one or the
          other
          > is stationary, nor would evidence of such an occurrence be
          recollectable.
          >
          > From our personal recollections of our past we draw our sense of
          > identity. Change that threatens to overthrow our personal past
          > threatens our identity. The primordial animal intrinsic to our whole
          > being is actually synchronized to iconic influence and arguably
          > incapable of, or at least possessed of a substantially lesser
          capacity
          > for time framing than our organized recollecting capacity. The
          purpose
          > of argument in written discourse is to overcome primordial
          animalistic
          > fear prone to emotional conclusion based on a resonation to iconic
          > influence.
          >
          > Trinidad Cruz
          >
          > "I think it is clear, that didactic expositions of arguments with
          > their conclusions and their premisses, of abstract ideas, of
          > equations, etc., belong to the stage after arrival and not to any of
          > the stages of traveling thither. The theorist can impart his lessons
          > because he has finished learning them."
          >
          > Gilbert Ryle from "The Concept of Mind"
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.