Re: [spinoza-tie] re Imagination etc.
- In a message dated 1/31/01 10:12:32 PM, tneff@... writes:
>Hi SunHunter9,Your lack of specifics, in the sense of presenting any particular "sticking
>Again, I can barely make anything intelligible out of this "rigorous
points," prevents any dialectic process from occurring. A good deal of what
was contained in my last post, specifically the second paragraph which
comprises the main body of prose text, is a very brief and incomplete
explication of Spinoza's ontological conception and a reference to his aim in
Part 5, which ideas are readily available in reputable texts about Spinoza's
philosophy. That is not to say that the concepts are not difficult.
Would-be adherents who cannot yet comprehend, at least logically to a certain
degree, Spinoza's conception of Substance and the attributes, and his ideas
about the dual nature of objects, (particularly where their own nature is
concerned), will encounter corresponding limitations when it comes to
applying the practical methods for coming to adequate conceptions of their
>It seems to me that many of the phrases and examples are beingThe text portion of my last post which I just discussed etc., was aimed at
>used more to produce an impression of depth than to help anyone to
helping the understanding of the topics just mentioned. I made it clear that
my aim with my poem etc., which comprised the balance of the post was, as you
say, "to produce an impression of depth." But, do you mean in the sense of
somehow defrauding the poor reader? If there was a measuring device for
determining the degree of someone else's "depth" over the net, or even across
the room, how useful would that be? It might be worth something if we could
use it to assess or aid our own progress, because that is what is important.
If you agree, then what is important for you is how <you> feel in responding
positively or reacting passively to these "depth impressions."
The best way I know of to share the joy I felt in creating one of my poems,
or reflecting again on the ideas that inspired it, is to show or read it to
the other. I cannot show you them idea directly; it isn't a physical object.
I show them what my idea "looks like" to me by embodying it in the words of
my poem. How about the possibility that in your recognition of this "depth
impression," once you separate it from your ideas about me, is a sense of
"some good," which is in you?
>In your recent posts, including the essay, it seemsThere isn't anything about you, in particular, in my essay.
>to me that many of the comments directed toward me apply as much, or even
>directly, to you and what you have written.
>Any emotions must involve my own imagination and confused thinking.This is of value. A true proposition.
> I will continue to read and endeavor to understand anything that anyoneI see a good deal of value generally in your interest in Spinoza, especially
>writes here however at this point, having reviewed the last several
>exchanges, I feel there has been nothing of any value to come from either
when it is manifested in a clear idea, as in your proposition above. My own
remarks embody ideas which are of incalculable value to me. However, our
discussions have not achieved any dialectic process, or synthesis.
- Hi SunHunter9,
The tone of your last post (as I perceive it) seems a little less
arrogant to me and that's a positive sign.
There is, at this time, nothing further I can think of to
contribute to this thread.