Re: Truth and Reality [was: Location of the Hegemonikon]
- View SourceAh, I think I understand you better now than I had before Steve.
Thanks. When you said previously (CAPS mine):
"The table and chairs person forgets this sometimes and jumps on the
bandwagon of a REAL OBJECTIVE WORLD OUT THERE that science is
uncovering for us."
Since the sentence, in context, was an observation negatively
presented, I took it to be equivalent to the statement: "there is not
a real objective world out there, and these poor table and chairs
people jump on a bandwagon to the opposite". Having been straightened
out on your position, I now suppose, rather, I should have focused in
on the portion of your sentence that said: "...that science is
uncovering for us", which would be the operative part where you're
saying the T&C folks are in error.
Anyways, I would agree that there are many phenomena, especially
relating to our first person experience which can only be understood
as such. This is one reason why I engage in meditation (though not as
regularly as I should) and one reason why I'm all for the Dalai Lama's
call for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists to work
on understanding consciousness from both the inside and outside, so to
I would agree with you that to deny our own subjective experience as
part of the reality we live in, would be almost insanity. I would also
agree with you that we cannot take what is empirically proven, and
then put a lid on that box, seal it up, and dogmatically proclaim it a
complete collection of all that is reality. This would be nonsense,
and actually very unscientific of us.
At the same time, I am leery of the common tendency to concoct all
sorts of claims about reality as experienced subjectively and then
think that, simply because we shouldn't do what I described in the
above paragraph, these claims are as reasonable as anything else.
Sometimes people confuse shared cultural interpretation of their
experience, with shared experience.
- View SourceGich wrote:
>>>But the heart I am talking about is neither the heart that pumps blood, nor the heart as a metaphor. The heart, as I am speaking about it, exists as a place where I, and all people, experience such things as love, kindness, loyalty or their contraries; depending in if the judgments are virtuous or vicious. <<<So, you use the word 'heart' as synonymous with 'soul' or 'ruling principle'?...........................................................
Hi Gich,No. The heart is a part of the total individual human psychological/physical constitution, and it is a part which the ruling principle (the self) uses as much as it uses such other parts of its constitution such as hands and feet. To me it seems that the core of the ruling principle is its power of volition and choice, and it is that which uses (in the most successful cases) all the parts of its constitution synthetically. In my view Stoic psychology is not cognitive, but synthetic.Perhaps, for the Stoic, volition should be qualified by calling it benevolence or goodwill (obviously, will that is good). That qualification does seem to require incorporating the qualities, or powers, of the heart.Malcolm
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.