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

Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    Knott, I hoped to answer your very objection in my response to Mary. But ... the ontological question of Nothing is not about loss of anything. You are
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Knott,

      I hoped to answer your very objection in my response to Mary. But ... the ontological question of Nothing is not about loss of anything. You are following the same 'act of declension' that seems always to attend the thinking of the concept, which is understandable. And by "urgency", I meant to underscore the existential-phenomenological closeness of the question, not a political or social or even personal urgency.

      Being/Nothing are urgent because 'they' are, as it were, most close to us, but also most aleatory and subtending of change. We cannot grasp the concept-as-such, and it therefore falls into conventional 'concepts' and discourses, or into what appear as the most natural personal analogs, like loss or lack of objects, etc.

      But the question is nothing occult or esoteric. It is fundamentally the most primary as well as the always-last question that seems always to transcend its act of declension, its becoming the case of this or that analytic, its 'falling' as this or that understanding (as in the German Der Fall, the case of). That we glean IS behind everything at all led such as Plato to divine a literal transcendental realm, but most of us acknowledge that that seemingly transcendent 'otherness' is immanent and actual.

      Heidegger tried to mark this "difference" as ontical/ontological, existeniell/existential, and so forth.


      WS



      -----Original Message-----
      From: fictiveparrot <knott12@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 7:31 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing





      > he gets the philosophical question of Nothing wrong,
      > and thereby misses what the philosophical urgency of the question is.

      Sorry to extract, but you are clearly defined about "nothing"? I've read books on nothing, and even then I think no one said it. is there really an "urgency" for nothing? is nothing anything more than a metaphor for what we (collectively, so it seems) don't understand? You would think it was simple because nothing is absence. but that means loss of sensation, of vision and smell and hearing and taste -- everything you are accustomed to. when one eats real caviar (not that crap you get at an office party!) you have a different experience than if caviar [real caviar] is described to you. as Beckett said, it is whiskey without the decanter... nothing is shaping it but itself. How do you experience nothing when you try to do it with senses?

      you are not trying nearly hard enough. stop pretending that you know.

      Empty Vessel









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • wsindarius
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream ... From: hermit crab
      Message 77 of 77 , May 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream







        -----Original Message-----
        From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 7:23 pm
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)






        Very interesting, Wil. I kept wondering how it went. Good thing he didn't
        start spouting off about philosophers, eh? :-D Thank you for the update.
        The first link worked but the second one did not.

        h.

        On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Hello H,
        >
        > Yes, sorry for my silence. The Krauss talk was nearly identical to others
        > of recent vintage that you can see on YouTube, but he did lay off
        > philosophy a bit and concentrate his sarcasm on Republicans, the South (I
        > am in New Orleans) and string theorists. I got some nice photos of him and
        > said hello (I was part of an invited group, NOSHA). He was pleasant, in
        > that almost-smug way.
        >
        > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8669528519/in/photostream
        >
        >
        > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796725025424&set=a.10152392005530424.946669.654825423&type=3&theater
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 9:04 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > > Response: As I said, I like Krauss' book and I like him, especially his
        > talks. In fact, he will be here in a few weeks to discuss this very book,
        > and I will be present. My problem with his statements has nothing to do
        > with his manner of doing science; it has to do with his unfortunate
        > dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of ontology.
        >
        > ===Wil,
        > I have been waiting patiently to hear how this meetup went.
        > Please report. :)
        >
        > h.
        >
        >

        [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.