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

Re: [existlist] Re: The Monstrosity of Thought

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    HB3G, First part of Phenomenology of Spirit. No more, no less. Wil ... From: hb3g@ymail.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010
    Message 1 of 29 , May 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      HB3G,

      First part of Phenomenology of Spirit. No more, no less.

      Wil




      -----Original Message-----
      From: hb3g@... <hb3g@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 9:25 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The Monstrosity of Thought





      But the dualistic situation is not a hopeless situation.

      It is just the situation that we are in.

      I don't see how direct, or indirect, has anything to do with it.

      It matters, I think, where we locate the line of demarcation when we talk about the duality of our experience.

      If, in recognizing that duality, we draw the line between the appearances of a phenomenon, and some real X that, so we postulate, exists behind the appearances of that phenomenon, then yes, the situation is hopeless.

      For, we have no means of comparing what is an appearance to what is not.

      But, it is a completely different kind of duality that we are talking about when we locate the line of demarcation, not between the appearance and the reality, but between the phenomenon, and what we presume to think, or know, or assume, about the phenomenon.

      This is not a hopeless situation. But neither is it, in all cases, and for all modes of cognition, an absolutely veridical state. Some parts of it are absolutely veridical, even if we haven't yet realized it, and some parts of it are not, even if we haven't yet realized that.

      We are sometimes wrong, or uncertain, not because we are indirectly related to the phenomena, but because we sometimes think wrongly, or inattentively, or do not have all the facts, or do not see all the relations.

      Only the transcendental object is a simple X; and that, as we all know, is just a concept that we have in our own minds. But the phenomena are always manifolds. That is why it takes an effort, sometimes, much effort, to adequately describe them, and to fully understand them.

      Hb3g

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > Correction:
      >
      > Response: If one is bound to empiricist dualism as the basis of explanation, then despite assertions to the contrary (that one is in direct relation to an object), one is necessarily at a remove from the world and all percepts are thus what Locke called "ideas", which we would call representations. I do NOT hold an empiricist point of view. I therefore do not accept that we are stuck in a hopeless mirroring. What you seem to be attributing to me is what I am sayingt is the radical consequence of the former position (Polly's position).
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: eupraxis@...
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Fri, Apr 30, 2010 9:39 am
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] The Monstrosity of Thought
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > I had originally written: "Okay, but my relationship to any meaning or knowledge was somewhat curtailed when I was born, as well as my general intentionality and awareness. Frankly, I wasn't paying much attention to anything, and was not much of a thinker, either. I have no doubt that if we "stop the world", as Casteneda used to put it, there are no ideas, but there is also no world. I am not interested in Nirvana."
      >
      > You wrote: "Except for your non-interest in Nirvana, you can't be certain about the rest."
      >
      > Response: Sure I can. An infant is certainly incapable of being a full intentional subject. Cranial size alone would prevent that. If a new born is the ideal of a subject unaffected by 'conditioning', then we have a very different aim in mind for our theoretical discussion. I am interested in what we adults are about, not what a natal event produces.
      > ---
      > You wrote: "... Also, I cringe at these words used throughout: stratum, parallel, and mirror. Why?
      >
      > Response: Why, indeed! Those are the contortions that Husserl puts himself through to try to reattach the noema and noesis, or the world and the thinking/perceiving person. That was my point.
      > ---
      > You wrote: "... Because they imply separation and deny the entanglement which is signified by sign=sign. I'm willing to accede to ... this latter conundrum, but I also maintain that Thought gets too big for its breeches when it tries to present itself as merely representations."
      >
      > Response: If one is bound to empiricist dualism as the basis of explanation, then despite assertions to the contrary (that one is in direct relation to an object), one is necessarily at a remove from the world and all percepts are thus what Locke called "ideas", which we would call representations. I do hold an empiricist point of view. I therefore do not accept that we are stuck in a hopeless mirroring. What you seem to be attributing to me is what I am sayingt is the radical consequence of the former position (Polly's position).
      > ---
      > You wrote: "... The Monstrosity of Thought is this very innocence. Thought blinds us with its enlightenment, so we don't notice the "endarkenment," which unintentionally obscures the obvious: object/object, object/subject and observed/observer are One. This is the meaning (significance, intention) of being, and there is no escaping it. Where is the necessity of dialogue?"
      >
      > Response: I am not sure that I agree, but I am not sure that I do not. I do agree, with reservations, with the sense behind, "object/object, object/subject and observed/observer are One," as long as we do not advocate a static monism, as opposed to a dialectical inter-relatedness.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      But a monism, nevertheless :)
      Message 2 of 29 , May 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        But a monism, nevertheless :)

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > Wil, certainly not a static monism. This should be obvious to in my recent posts.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.