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

Re: Imagination, Ex-nihilo, and the Bogey of Mechanism

Expand Messages
  • nolanhatley
    Bob, Would you like to elaborate on your disdaining views of Blake s incriminating juxtaposition? Perhaps show in them what is untruthful? Grace and Peace
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 29, 2005
      Bob,

      Would you like to elaborate on your disdaining views of Blake's
      incriminating juxtaposition? Perhaps show in them what is untruthful?

      Grace and Peace
      Greatness and Passion,

      Nolan

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
      > Sorry Nolan, then I direct my comments to the late William Blake.
      > Bob..
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]On
      > Behalf Of nolanhatley
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:04 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Imagination, Ex-nihilo, and the Bogey of
      > Mechanism
      >
      >
      >
      > Bob,
      >
      > Actually, I quoted William Blake. I never factualized anything in
      > that post. Read again. William Blake did however live from 1757-
      1827
      > in London, England and left many engravings, painting,
      illustrations,
      > and poems behind him. Based on secondary sources, I believe that's
      > factual.
      >
      > Greatness and Passion,
      >
      > Nolan
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Keyes" <rlk@w...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Bob... An argument is Not just stating things as fact and then
      > pretending to
      > > believe them, as if you did not realize what you just did. Your
      So-
      > Called
      > > Arguments are unproved figments of your Imagination (most likely-
      I
      > suppose
      > > one can guess right).
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com]
      On
      > > Behalf Of nolanhatley
      > > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:01 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Imagination, Ex-nihilo, and the Bogey of
      > > Mechanism
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Mary Jo,
      > >
      > >
      > > There is No Natural Religion
      > > The Author & Printer W Blake
      > > [a]
      > > THE ARGUMENT
      > > Man has no notion of moral fitness but from Education.
      Naturally
      > > he is only a natural organ subject to Sense.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > I
      > > Man cannot naturally Perceive but through his natural or
      bodily
      > > organs.
      > > II
      > > Man by his reasoning power can only compare things & judge of
      > > what he has already perciev'd
      > > III
      > > From a perception of only 3 senses or 3 elements none could
      > > deduce a fourth or fith.
      > > IV
      > > None could have other than natural or organic thoughts if he
      had
      > > none but organic perceptions.
      > > V
      > > Man's desires are limited by his perceptions; none can desire
      > > what he has not perceiv'd.
      > > VI
      > > The desires & perceptions of man untaught by any thing but
      > organs
      > > of sense, must be limited to objects of sense.
      > > [b]
      > > I
      > > Man's perceptions are not bounded by organs of perception. He
      > > percieves more than sense (tho' ever so acute) can discover.
      > > II
      > > Reason or the ration of all we have already known is not the
      > same
      > > that it shall be when we know more.
      > > III
      > > [this page is missing]
      > > IV
      > > The bounded is loathed by its possessor. The same dull round
      > even
      > > of a universe would soon become a mill with complicated wheels.
      > > V
      > > If the manyt became the same as the few when possess'd, More!
      > > More! is the cry of a mistake soul; less than All cannot satisfy
      > Man.
      > > VI
      > > If any could desire what he is incapable of possessing,
      despair
      > > must be his eternal lot.
      > > VII
      > > The desire of Man being Infinite, the possession is Infinite,
      &
      > > himself Infinite.
      > > CONCLUSION
      > > If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetic character the
      > > Philosophic & Experimental would soon be at the ratio of all
      things,
      > > & stand still, unable to do other than repeat the same dull round
      > > over again.
      > > APPLICATION
      > > He who sees the Infinite in all things sees God. He who sees
      the
      > > Ratio only sees himself only.
      > > THEREFORE
      > > God becomes as we are that we may be as he is.
      > >
      > >
      > > It's all on what's first....the brain or the mind, the will or
      > > thought, the imagination or the rational. But I think
      Doestoevsky's
      > > novels reveal that choice has always been precedent and indeed
      more
      > > powerful than the ratio. (Notes from the Underground)
      > >
      > > I think your post unjustly demeaned the human imagination into
      brain
      > > waves as if the best art has come from the inducement of drugs. I
      > > wasn't truly impressed with Coleridge's opium dream, Kubla Kahn.
      > >
      > > Imagining What Brain Waves Look Like,
      > >
      > > Nolan
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Jo Malo" <maryjomalo@y...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > Imagination and pretending are similar though not exact
      processes.
      > > > The mind is a complex of bio-chemical-electrical brain processes
      > > > which seem to overlap, and our terminology does likewise. When
      we
      > > > imagine, our brain is selecting images previously and
      empirically
      > > > experienced and reorganized for effect. When we pretend we are
      > > again
      > > > recollecting but now acting out based again upon some empirical
      > > > experience. Conceptualizing is a different process: it uses
      > > existing
      > > > facts (math, etc.) to speculate and postulate certain
      hypotheses
      > or
      > > > ideas. Believing, as of the religious type, is a different mind
      > > > category altogether. You can't imagine what you have never seen;
      > > you
      > > > can't pretend what you have never observed or experienced; and
      you
      > > > can't conceptualize without any given facts.
      > > >
      > > > Belief in a god is actually belief in a non-existent infinite
      non-
      > > > thing. You can never know it. This god can be neither
      > > > anthropomorpological? nor a big bang producer of existing
      > particles
      > > > and forces. In order to create something out of nothing, a
      creator
      > > or
      > > > creative force would have to pre-exist the nothing, which is
      > > > impossible. Nothing is nothing. If a being evolved after the
      > > > existence of something from nothing, like any other sentient,
      > > that's
      > > > only what it could be, another sentient. And what would qualify
      > > that
      > > > sentient to give laws, formulate ethics for another species, or
      > > > destroy it's creation?
      > > >
      > > > Regarding the fixing kind of philosophy, I guess you could say
      we
      > > are
      > > > different from one another in abilities and desires. Some people
      > > are
      > > > driven to find answers to help people, planet and universe.
      Others
      > > > are happy to live simply then die. Where philosophers often
      > > benignly
      > > > err is in prescribing one cure-all based on few facts for
      > everyone.
      > > > That will never work. What might `work' are a few new facts that
      > > can
      > > > be applied individually which might affect the whole. It's a
      self-
      > > > appointed task for unprejudiced scientists and philosophers.
      Right
      > > > now, with the prevailing climate, if something so wonderful were
      > > > discovered, we'd probably never know about it. We're stuck in a
      > > mind-
      > > > body and cause-effect cycle. We arise from and can now influence
      > > the
      > > > rungs on the ladder. Our only hope was proposed by Dennett and
      > > before
      > > > him Ryle: that though the laws of physics "govern everything
      that
      > > > happens, they don't ordain everything that happens".
      > > >
      > > > Addicted to thinking,
      > > > Mary
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      > nothing!
      > >
      > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.