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

Re: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Mary, That book looks interesting. I have it in my Kindle wish list. Odd that no review has been written for it there. I have enjoyed your posts in that other
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      That book looks interesting. I have it in my Kindle wish list. Odd that no review has been written for it there.

      I have enjoyed your posts in that other list. The hostility that you see there has been going on for a while ( a few years!). It first began in a series of very heated exchanges between Bob, and others, and myself (and much later on, Alan). I have given up on it now, for the most part. It just goes around and around, and then begins again as if nothing had been said. It gets so heated that I found myself obsessing on it to my detriment. So, I let it all go.

      I like Bob's book. It is well worth the read, But his more recent exaggerated and theological rendering of true infinity is, I think, not in keeping with the whole point of Hegel's philosophy which seeks to go beyond any hint of personality in the Absolute. Etc.

      Wil



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2011 1:08 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder





      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel is the last, great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based theocracys. Then FN reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant was more conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing[...]Hegel would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
      >
      Bill,

      Here's a book review addressing differences between Hegel and Nietzsche, possibly interesting whether or not one agrees with the author's and reviewer's opinions. Hopefully Wil has interest and time for further comments. If nothing else there are references to other texts about this.

      http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/86/172

      Nietzsche somewhat ironically precipitated the nihilist crisis he predicted to the same degree Hegel's thought prefigured the inevitable integration of relativity and nonlocality by describing the dialectical dynamic of thought. There are startling implications for the suggestion that subject and object are one another.

      I'm impressed by Hegel's astounding demonstration of what Bohm called thinking about thought. I place Einstein among the greats, because when approaching the known limits of scientific thought, he found a way to think uncommonly. When thought reaches a limit, there's no way through or around except with more thought. Einstein has had far more impact, yet the problems he foresaw now require philosophy not more technology.

      Who can measure mind or predict its path? All thought can do is trace where it's been as it moves. No one wills or causes it. Thought thinks `itself'. I second the elegance Einstein apprehended, Nietzsche reveled in, and Hegel conceptually organized.

      Everything is thought. Not so obvious . . . until you think about it.

      Mary









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Wil, I can understand your frustrations! What motivates me to wrestle with Hegel is this very concern. The ...exaggerated and theological rendering of true
      Message 2 of 14 , Nov 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Wil,

        I can understand your frustrations! What motivates me to wrestle with Hegel is this very concern. The "...exaggerated and theological rendering of true infinity is, I think, not in keeping with the whole point of Hegel's philosophy which seeks to go beyond any hint of personality in the Absolute." and how it hinders the speculative in both science and philosophy.

        Thanks,
        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        > Mary,
        >
        > That book looks interesting. I have it in my Kindle wish list. Odd that no review has been written for it there.
        >
        > I have enjoyed your posts in that other list. The hostility that you see there has been going on for a while ( a few years!). It first began in a series of very heated exchanges between Bob, and others, and myself (and much later on, Alan). I have given up on it now, for the most part. It just goes around and around, and then begins again as if nothing had been said. It gets so heated that I found myself obsessing on it to my detriment. So, I let it all go.
        >
        > I like Bob's book. It is well worth the read, But his more recent exaggerated and theological rendering of true infinity is, I think, not in keeping with the whole point of Hegel's philosophy which seeks to go beyond any hint of personality in the Absolute. Etc.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sun, Nov 6, 2011 1:08 pm
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel is the last, great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based theocracys. Then FN reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant was more conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing[...]Hegel would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
        > >
        > Bill,
        >
        > Here's a book review addressing differences between Hegel and Nietzsche, possibly interesting whether or not one agrees with the author's and reviewer's opinions. Hopefully Wil has interest and time for further comments. If nothing else there are references to other texts about this.
        >
        > http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/86/172
        >
        > Nietzsche somewhat ironically precipitated the nihilist crisis he predicted to the same degree Hegel's thought prefigured the inevitable integration of relativity and nonlocality by describing the dialectical dynamic of thought. There are startling implications for the suggestion that subject and object are one another.
        >
        > I'm impressed by Hegel's astounding demonstration of what Bohm called thinking about thought. I place Einstein among the greats, because when approaching the known limits of scientific thought, he found a way to think uncommonly. When thought reaches a limit, there's no way through or around except with more thought. Einstein has had far more impact, yet the problems he foresaw now require philosophy not more technology.
        >
        > Who can measure mind or predict its path? All thought can do is trace where it's been as it moves. No one wills or causes it. Thought thinks `itself'. I second the elegance Einstein apprehended, Nietzsche reveled in, and Hegel conceptually organized.
        >
        > Everything is thought. Not so obvious . . . until you think about it.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • William
        ... Hagel was in the age of horse calvery and could have had little to learn from the coming explosion in science and technology. I see the continuum of
        Message 3 of 14 , Nov 7, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > Bill,
          >
          > It is interesting that the two inventors of the calculus, Newton and Leibniz, were empiricist and rationalist, respectively. Of course, Newton was also an alchemist and an occultist of sorts. The picture of the cosmos that we call Newtonian, in any case, is one that Hegel certainly rejected as incomplete and one-sided. But I think Newton would have thought so too, although for very different reasons. But I did not have that in mind, earlier.
          >
          > Physics within the last few decades has more or less confirmed that what we commonly understand as real is only apparently so, while at the same time this apparent reality is the one we insist on as our local reality where we have to live. But below the Planck numbers, contemporary physics is faced with describing a subtending reality that has no space or time, no objects, nothing to see, nothing to describe. The manifest world that we know is thus one that is constructing and deconstructing according to conditions that entail because nothing entails its except a rational necessity -- rational as knowable by our own rational mind, likewise reflecting the logic of ontology.
          >
          > This open system is its freedom, if one that finds itself in its very difficulties.
          >
          > Wil
          > Wil and Mary, a few comments. I was ignorant of the age of Hegel. That he saw Napolian was a real shock to me. I mean Husserel died in 1939 so they were in no way contemporaries. I do not accuse you of saying such but it was a most suprising anachronism to me. I mean
          Hagel was in the age of horse calvery and could have had little to learn from the coming explosion in science and technology. I see the continuum of problems that science has caused for philosophy since the time of Galleleo. I might agree with you that what science deals with is not the business of philosophy. When science seems illogical it does not violate logic, it steps outside logic and describes phenomina that were unknown in the former philosophic sphere. Early on I thought the Bohr model of the atom was badly flawed. When more complex models incorporated the dualism of the electron I knew that standard logic was violated and the world of quantum physics would operate within different parameters. Poor Hagel was so far before any quantum physics or Hubble cosmology that I see him as operating in another age. I think, that cosmology has shattered the logic of the old theocracys , it has reset the temporal framework of reality and suprisingly made it more precise. So we come from the world of Hagel with set logic, set in mathematics to a neather world set in vague probabilities and then back to a world with a set beginning and an end which seems traditionally logical. In these epocpcs of thought transference of specific sets of ideas is all but restricted. So for me to ask either of you to bring Hegel up to date is an unfair and impossible task. I do think it is possible to relate Fn or Sartre to modern physics and cosmology. They did not say much about future science but I do not think their writings refute the new ideas in any substantive way. Bill
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
          > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 12:11 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: no sidewinder
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Bill,
          > >
          > > Modern science seems to be catching up to Hegel. Hegel thought Newtonian-like cosmology to be hampered by a pseudo-objective understanding. So do I. Hegel was the last great systematic thinker, but as I am not all that big on "systems", that is not much of a draw for me. And, besides, I am not given to "great" ideas. For me, Hegel is the prime philosopher of freedom, radical freedom -- even cosmic freedom.
          > >
          > > Husserl had a real dislike for Hegelianism, and so he missed the solution to his enigma of separation (subject/object). That's not to say that he hadn't made real strides for thought. He did get a tad mystical in his late period (eternal monads, etc.), but ... hey. I like his work on time consciousness.
          > >
          > > Wil
          > > Wil, thank you for the reply,when you speak of Hegel I know I am getting the best information. Would you agree that Neutonian physics were the last chance for science to exhibit common sense empiricism? By that I mean that the physics looked like the world we lived in. Did Hegel have some preintuition as to the coming of a completely new and radical physics. Could his strong mathamatics background have given him a theoretic look into the hard to believe world of sub atomics and light speed? It was there in his time but no one had had the kind of incisive mind to slash into general and special relativity . That you appreciate the more freedom loving applications of his philosophy is a supeise to me. I hope you elaborate on that facit of his work. We could use a champion of freedom in these oppressive times. Bill
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
          > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > > Sent: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:21 pm
          > > Subject: [existlist] no sidewinder
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Mary, does this mean you join Wil, as I am sure he thinks Hegel is the last, great philosopher. Those anticedant to FN were the true flowering of German Philosophy. I am sure Hegel was the most penetrating but I liked Husserel. I think his cynacism pried open the old world ,faith based theocracys. Then FN reached inside their bodies and pulled their guts out. Would Hegel allow quantum physics as he seems to progress like Newton.The cosmological constant was more conveinent than accepting an ever expanding universe and it seems the idea deeply bothered Einstein.I find it unfortunate Eienstein did not get to use the Hubble Space telescope. I think he would find things we are missing.
          > > I am contemplating the Israeli leak of an attack on Iran. Fareed Zacaria just doesn`t get it and he fears the idea. A threat of the use of nuclear weapons is rare and I know the Saudi King fears US withdrawl and the rise of Iran. Do Arabs hate Persians enough to join the Jews in bombing them. I doubt they could stop with just the nuclear sites and would have to try and overthrow the theocracy. Will the Ayaitolla be the next body we see being kicked around in the street?I know Bush and the republicans could be enticed to try such a decapitation. I am sure the revolutionary guard would try to enlist the whole Shiite populations to full jahaad. I do not find the options acceptable but Israel holds the big stick and it is their asses on the line. Hegel would have no way to even think about such a situation. He did not have any idea of nuclear fusion. Who changed things more,FN or Eienstein? Bill
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [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.