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

Following the thread of argument

Expand Messages
  • shadowed_statue
    Wil, I would like better to understand your critique of Polly s response [52657] to Mary s question, about whether soul-searching is futile. In that post,
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 1 4:08 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Wil,

      I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:

      " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."

      In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:

      "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."

      What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.

      Louise
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Louise, I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 1 4:29 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Louise,

        I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.

        Wil



        -----Original Message-----
        From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
        Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument





        Wil,

        I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:

        " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."

        In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:

        "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."

        What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.

        Louise









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • shadowed_statue
        Wil, The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don t find myself entirely convinced that declension and
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 1 5:03 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Wil,

          The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context. But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).

          Louise

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > Louise,
          >
          > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
          >
          > Wil
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
          > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Wil,
          >
          > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
          >
          > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
          >
          > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
          >
          > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
          >
          > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
          >
          > Louise
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • shadowed_statue
          ... Now that I have researched in a bulky dictionary [Shorter Oxford], I find that the words are synonyomous after all in the grammatical sense. Recorded
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 1 5:25 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "shadowed_statue" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
            >
            > Wil,
            >
            > The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context.

            Now that I have researched in a bulky dictionary [Shorter Oxford], I find that the words are synonyomous after all in the grammatical sense. Recorded 1751. Mea culpa.

            But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).
            >
            > Louise
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Louise,
            > >
            > > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
            > >
            > > Wil
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
            > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
            > > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Wil,
            > >
            > > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
            > >
            > > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
            > >
            > > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
            > >
            > > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
            > >
            > > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
            > >
            > > Louise
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Louise, The claim was that a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 1 5:58 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Louise,

              The claim was that "a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."

              Now regardless of whether one is considering one's own moral depths, or if one is thinking formally, proceeding from one idea to another that follows upon it (as in the case of geometric proofs or algebraic formulas, or, indeed, page to page in Hegel's Logic), in nowise can it be the case that neurochemistry is the _cause_ of the thought process. As I wrote earlier, it would be an analog. I would have been satisfied if the claim had been that the somatic index of thought is neurochemical, or even that neurochemistry can influence cognition and affect. But to reduce the totality of the rational and the irrational, the learned and the created, the object and the subject, to the merely quantitative register of the in-self, as Sartre would say, is unwarranted and unsupportable by an interrogating logic, and for the very reasons evident in Mary's superb quotation.

              This does not lead one, necessarily, to the utter opposing view of vulgar metaphysics and religion either, of course. I would never want to 'disembody' the brain, or posit a 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine'. Rather, I am thinking of something like the "chiasm" in late Merleau-Ponty or similar notions in Bergson and later Sartre, or even the sense of the absolute in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature. To reduce 'everything' to an alien third term does no one any good. It explains away, where one should rather want to explain.

              Wil


              -----Original Message-----
              From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
              To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 7:05 pm
              Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument





              Wil,

              The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context. But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).

              Louise

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              > Louise,
              >
              > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
              >
              > Wil
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
              > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
              > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Wil,
              >
              > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
              >
              > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
              >
              > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
              >
              > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
              >
              > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
              >
              > Louise
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >









              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • shadowed_statue
              Wil, I think that I follow the thread of the arguments you make here, and concur - though I am wondering whether the adjective vulgar is being applied to
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 1 6:33 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Wil,

                I think that I follow the thread of the arguments you make here, and concur - though I am wondering whether the adjective 'vulgar' is being applied to both metaphysics and religion, or whether you think religion is intrinsically vulgar in its interpretations. I mention this specifically because I have the distinct impression that Richard Dawkins does not understand the theology he attacks, that in fact he puts God into the realm of the created order in order to disparage the divine, without any idea that he is doing such a thing. But I have no current evidence with which to illustrate my claim. I will look for evidence in due course, to see if my impression has a valid base or no.

                Louise

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                >
                > Louise,
                >
                > The claim was that "a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                >
                > Now regardless of whether one is considering one's own moral depths, or if one is thinking formally, proceeding from one idea to another that follows upon it (as in the case of geometric proofs or algebraic formulas, or, indeed, page to page in Hegel's Logic), in nowise can it be the case that neurochemistry is the _cause_ of the thought process. As I wrote earlier, it would be an analog. I would have been satisfied if the claim had been that the somatic index of thought is neurochemical, or even that neurochemistry can influence cognition and affect. But to reduce the totality of the rational and the irrational, the learned and the created, the object and the subject, to the merely quantitative register of the in-self, as Sartre would say, is unwarranted and unsupportable by an interrogating logic, and for the very reasons evident in Mary's superb quotation.
                >
                > This does not lead one, necessarily, to the utter opposing view of vulgar metaphysics and religion either, of course. I would never want to 'disembody' the brain, or posit a 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine'. Rather, I am thinking of something like the "chiasm" in late Merleau-Ponty or similar notions in Bergson and later Sartre, or even the sense of the absolute in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature. To reduce 'everything' to an alien third term does no one any good. It explains away, where one should rather want to explain.
                >
                > Wil
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
                > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 7:05 pm
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Wil,
                >
                > The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context. But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).
                >
                > Louise
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                > >
                > > Louise,
                > >
                > > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
                > >
                > > Wil
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
                > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
                > > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Wil,
                > >
                > > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
                > >
                > > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                > >
                > > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
                > >
                > > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
                > >
                > > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
                > >
                > > Louise
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • eupraxis@aol.com
                By vulgar metaphysics I only meant ideas that border on the occult and superstitious. Vulgar in the sense of street corner speculation. Wil ... From:
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 1 6:56 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  By vulgar metaphysics I only meant ideas that border on the occult and superstitious. Vulgar in the sense of street corner speculation.

                  Wil


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
                  To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 8:37 pm
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument





                  Wil,

                  I think that I follow the thread of the arguments you make here, and concur - though I am wondering whether the adjective 'vulgar' is being applied to both metaphysics and religion, or whether you think religion is intrinsically vulgar in its interpretations. I mention this specifically because I have the distinct impression that Richard Dawkins does not understand the theology he attacks, that in fact he puts God into the realm of the created order in order to disparage the divine, without any idea that he is doing such a thing. But I have no current evidence with which to illustrate my claim. I will look for evidence in due course, to see if my impression has a valid base or no.

                  Louise

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >
                  > Louise,
                  >
                  > The claim was that "a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                  >
                  > Now regardless of whether one is considering one's own moral depths, or if one is thinking formally, proceeding from one idea to another that follows upon it (as in the case of geometric proofs or algebraic formulas, or, indeed, page to page in Hegel's Logic), in nowise can it be the case that neurochemistry is the _cause_ of the thought process. As I wrote earlier, it would be an analog. I would have been satisfied if the claim had been that the somatic index of thought is neurochemical, or even that neurochemistry can influence cognition and affect. But to reduce the totality of the rational and the irrational, the learned and the created, the object and the subject, to the merely quantitative register of the in-self, as Sartre would say, is unwarranted and unsupportable by an interrogating logic, and for the very reasons evident in Mary's superb quotation.
                  >
                  > This does not lead one, necessarily, to the utter opposing view of vulgar metaphysics and religion either, of course. I would never want to 'disembody' the brain, or posit a 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine'. Rather, I am thinking of something like the "chiasm" in late Merleau-Ponty or similar notions in Bergson and later Sartre, or even the sense of the absolute in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature. To reduce 'everything' to an alien third term does no one any good. It explains away, where one should rather want to explain.
                  >
                  > Wil
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
                  > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 7:05 pm
                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Wil,
                  >
                  > The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context. But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).
                  >
                  > Louise
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Louise,
                  > >
                  > > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
                  > >
                  > > Wil
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
                  > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
                  > > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Wil,
                  > >
                  > > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
                  > >
                  > > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                  > >
                  > > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
                  > >
                  > > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
                  > >
                  > > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
                  > >
                  > > Louise
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [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]
                • shadowed_statue
                  Wil, Yes, I realised that. What I was asking was whether you were applying the adjective vulgar also to religion, in your phrase vulgar metaphysics and
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 1 7:14 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wil,

                    Yes, I realised that. What I was asking was whether you were applying the adjective 'vulgar' also to religion, in your phrase 'vulgar metaphysics and religion', since grammatically one adjective can cover both nouns, or only one. If, on the other hand, you consider all religious conceptions to be inherently vulgar, i.e. basically occult and superstitious, then there will be no distinction to draw, if you see what I mean. This is not a pedantic point from my viewpoint, as I am still undergoing the process of distinguishing reasonable from unreasonable beliefs. In fact, it is probably a lifelong process. I am not looking for 'answers', however, so much as intelligent ways to consider questions.

                    Louise

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > By vulgar metaphysics I only meant ideas that border on the occult and superstitious. Vulgar in the sense of street corner speculation.
                    >
                    > Wil
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
                    > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 8:37 pm
                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Wil,
                    >
                    > I think that I follow the thread of the arguments you make here, and concur - though I am wondering whether the adjective 'vulgar' is being applied to both metaphysics and religion, or whether you think religion is intrinsically vulgar in its interpretations. I mention this specifically because I have the distinct impression that Richard Dawkins does not understand the theology he attacks, that in fact he puts God into the realm of the created order in order to disparage the divine, without any idea that he is doing such a thing. But I have no current evidence with which to illustrate my claim. I will look for evidence in due course, to see if my impression has a valid base or no.
                    >
                    > Louise
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Louise,
                    > >
                    > > The claim was that "a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                    > >
                    > > Now regardless of whether one is considering one's own moral depths, or if one is thinking formally, proceeding from one idea to another that follows upon it (as in the case of geometric proofs or algebraic formulas, or, indeed, page to page in Hegel's Logic), in nowise can it be the case that neurochemistry is the _cause_ of the thought process. As I wrote earlier, it would be an analog. I would have been satisfied if the claim had been that the somatic index of thought is neurochemical, or even that neurochemistry can influence cognition and affect. But to reduce the totality of the rational and the irrational, the learned and the created, the object and the subject, to the merely quantitative register of the in-self, as Sartre would say, is unwarranted and unsupportable by an interrogating logic, and for the very reasons evident in Mary's superb quotation.
                    > >
                    > > This does not lead one, necessarily, to the utter opposing view of vulgar metaphysics and religion either, of course. I would never want to 'disembody' the brain, or posit a 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine'. Rather, I am thinking of something like the "chiasm" in late Merleau-Ponty or similar notions in Bergson and later Sartre, or even the sense of the absolute in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature. To reduce 'everything' to an alien third term does no one any good. It explains away, where one should rather want to explain.
                    > >
                    > > Wil
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
                    > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 7:05 pm
                    > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Wil,
                    > >
                    > > The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context. But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).
                    > >
                    > > Louise
                    > >
                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Louise,
                    > > >
                    > > > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
                    > > >
                    > > > Wil
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
                    > > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    > > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
                    > > > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Wil,
                    > > >
                    > > > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                    > > >
                    > > > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
                    > > >
                    > > > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
                    > > >
                    > > > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
                    > > >
                    > > > Louise
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > [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]
                    >
                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                    Louise, I hadn t intended the adjective to include religion, although if anything is so overwhelmingly the province of the street corner, it would certainly be
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 1 7:48 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Louise,

                      I hadn't intended the adjective to include religion, although if anything is so overwhelmingly the province of the street corner, it would certainly be religion. Zizek's recent work in theology, while still firmly in the materialist and atheist camp, has made me moderate certain intemperate attitudes that I have had, but his highly rarefied reading is certainly above the head of the sundry holy roller. His "The Monstrosity of Christ", especially the first essay, is close to my feelings on the matter, to the extent that I think through Christianity philosophically.

                      I agree with Dawkins, but I concur that his take is narrow and I thus realize that there are issues beyond the horizon that he seems limited to. Not a profound book (God Delusion). I loved Hitchens' book (God Is Not Great), as well as his Atheist Reader compilation, but Hitchens is writing about "religion", not theology.

                      Wil


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
                      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 9:14 pm
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument





                      Wil,

                      Yes, I realised that. What I was asking was whether you were applying the adjective 'vulgar' also to religion, in your phrase 'vulgar metaphysics and religion', since grammatically one adjective can cover both nouns, or only one. If, on the other hand, you consider all religious conceptions to be inherently vulgar, i.e. basically occult and superstitious, then there will be no distinction to draw, if you see what I mean. This is not a pedantic point from my viewpoint, as I am still undergoing the process of distinguishing reasonable from unreasonable beliefs. In fact, it is probably a lifelong process. I am not looking for 'answers', however, so much as intelligent ways to consider questions.

                      Louise

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > By vulgar metaphysics I only meant ideas that border on the occult and superstitious. Vulgar in the sense of street corner speculation.
                      >
                      > Wil
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@...>
                      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 8:37 pm
                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Wil,
                      >
                      > I think that I follow the thread of the arguments you make here, and concur - though I am wondering whether the adjective 'vulgar' is being applied to both metaphysics and religion, or whether you think religion is intrinsically vulgar in its interpretations. I mention this specifically because I have the distinct impression that Richard Dawkins does not understand the theology he attacks, that in fact he puts God into the realm of the created order in order to disparage the divine, without any idea that he is doing such a thing. But I have no current evidence with which to illustrate my claim. I will look for evidence in due course, to see if my impression has a valid base or no.
                      >
                      > Louise
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Louise,
                      > >
                      > > The claim was that "a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                      > >
                      > > Now regardless of whether one is considering one's own moral depths, or if one is thinking formally, proceeding from one idea to another that follows upon it (as in the case of geometric proofs or algebraic formulas, or, indeed, page to page in Hegel's Logic), in nowise can it be the case that neurochemistry is the _cause_ of the thought process. As I wrote earlier, it would be an analog. I would have been satisfied if the claim had been that the somatic index of thought is neurochemical, or even that neurochemistry can influence cognition and affect. But to reduce the totality of the rational and the irrational, the learned and the created, the object and the subject, to the merely quantitative register of the in-self, as Sartre would say, is unwarranted and unsupportable by an interrogating logic, and for the very reasons evident in Mary's superb quotation.
                      > >
                      > > This does not lead one, necessarily, to the utter opposing view of vulgar metaphysics and religion either, of course. I would never want to 'disembody' the brain, or posit a 'soul' or 'ghost in the machine'. Rather, I am thinking of something like the "chiasm" in late Merleau-Ponty or similar notions in Bergson and later Sartre, or even the sense of the absolute in Hegel's Philosophy of Nature. To reduce 'everything' to an alien third term does no one any good. It explains away, where one should rather want to explain.
                      > >
                      > > Wil
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
                      > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 7:05 pm
                      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Following the thread of argument
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Wil,
                      > >
                      > > The explanation is leading me in a direction that feels like a better understanding, though I don't find myself entirely convinced that declension and declination are synonymous in this context. But I have never actually studied Euclid. Would derivation be an acceptable gloss? If it is not too pedantic to enquire :-).
                      > >
                      > > Louise
                      > >
                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Louise,
                      > > >
                      > > > I was using the term as one does in Latin. What I meant would be something like the lateral progression of, say, rational deductions in Euclidean geometry, where one proceeds to more inclusive theorems of spacial verities.
                      > > >
                      > > > Wil
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > > From: shadowed_statue <hecubatoher@>
                      > > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > > Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 6:09 pm
                      > > > Subject: [existlist] Following the thread of argument
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Wil,
                      > > >
                      > > > I would like better to understand your critique of Polly's response [52657] to Mary's question, about whether "soul-searching" is futile. In that post, Polly wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > " ... It is important to distinguish here between reasons and causes. While the phenomenon of soul searching might be experienced as a narrative with all manner of reasons and reasonings following one after the other, a reason is not a cause of another reason. The causation of such reasoning occurs at a low neurochemical level, not at the high level of thought or spoken language. For neurochemistry, experience is an epiphenomenon of whatever is happening in the embodied brain."
                      > > >
                      > > > In your post 52667, you were countering Polly's attributions toward you of mere assertion, stating that the assertions were all on her side, and you then went on to say:
                      > > >
                      > > > "the far more drastic assertion concerns the declination of reasoning, which you attribute to neuro-chemistry rather than to the ontological character of rationality itself which proceeds by the necessary character of truth functions."
                      > > >
                      > > > What is the meaning, here, of declination? I am not quite following.
                      > > >
                      > > > Louise
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > [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]
                      >









                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.