From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 21:21:35 BST
Hi Scott
DM: One moment you are asking me what is real A or B, well
sorry I have no interest in these dualisms where one side is valued over
the other. I thought you might be coming from a similar place, although
you seem to skip between so many vocabularies I am no sure what
you are saying. I do think you can't point at any thing-it-itself, but
perhaps you can stop pointing from your point location and just
say 'Man/Language/Being'. -where I am quite happy to say that Being
is divine and therefore divine is in the mix, but not otherworldly old
noumenal.
Scott: While I say that there is no phenomonal without the noumenal (and
vice
> versa).
So an old fashioned Kantian at heart! So how do you distinguish between
these
two realms then? I just say phenomenal to avoid dualism, so it is not the
phenomenal
that is defined opposite noumenal, I don't want any opposites, what do you
want to
include in noumenal that is not part of phenomenal, I expect nothing that I
would
not prefer to include, especially as I just do not want your divisions,
there is only
phenomenal experience, if its in there we can talk about it, if it is not
then it is no where!
Do you want some kind of super natural power? Just give up this Plato stuff,
read some Pirsig,
if there is anything that is important its got to be hear and now for me. Am
I annoying you yet?
You might say that opposite phenomena is nothing, but nothing has got to be
there for
phenomena to be there.
If you want to examine phenomenology, the One and the Many,
and human consciousness, in a plausible package see Chris Macann's
Being and Becoming at onlineoriginals.com including some contact
with the ideas of Nishida.
Scott:I don't think it is. It grows, for one thing, and though 99% (or some
large
> fraction) is a repetition, there is room for variability. However, I do
not
> think the repetitive growth can be considered mechanistic. It calls on
> something immaterial to happen. (Take this as conjecture).
DM: Who said 100% not me, who said no variability? not me. Mechanism is only
a word for repetiting patterns, I don't buy the necessary cause assumptions.
If you notice I say: mechanistic/dark/dreaming/forgetfull state-this is a
deliberate
mix of stuff said about subjects and objects, hence I am trying to do some
joined up non-object related thinking about static/repeating patterns. Stop
making jumps that go beyond what I am actually saying, you seem to want to
put me into
a box that I am sure you won't get me into for more than a quick hop out.
You drop a lot of hints Scott, don't just do -ve stuff, what are your +ve
suggestions.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O pt 1
> DM,
>
> > My dictionary says that nominalism is anti-realist,
> > which I am not.
>
> Well, the realism of the middle ages, to which nominalism was anti-, was
the
> position that concepts are real, that is, exist independently of the
> thinker. Is this the realism you are not anti-, or the modern version,
that
> particulars exist independently of the perceiver?
>
> I like to call myself an ontological
> > phenomenologist. As Matt says, language is a part
> > of the reality of experience and its continual development
> > is an example of the dynamic quality of experience/reality.
> > I don't think there is something noumenal behind the phenomenal
> > that somehow escapes the continuing flux.
>
> While I say that there is no phenomonal without the noumenal (and vice
> versa).
>
> > What we call the world
> > is a subset of experience/reality, it is entirely conceptual. Of course,
> > we can say lots of interesting things about our world, and its
> > repeating patterns. Matt has talked a bit about mechanism. It seems to
> > me interesting how human consciousness seems to fade into a mechanistic/
> > dark/dreaming/forgetfull state. The more familiar you are with
something,
> > the easier it becomes, and it seems to drift into the unconscious.
Perhaps
> the
> > human body is only a form of mechanistic/repeating unconsciousness. What
> do you
> > think?
>
> I don't think it is. It grows, for one thing, and though 99% (or some
large
> fraction) is a repetition, there is room for variability. However, I do
not
> think the repetitive growth can be considered mechanistic. It calls on
> something immaterial to happen. (Take this as conjecture).
>
> >
> > You said:Again, the L of CI points out that reality has not only the
> > character of being and becoming but is actually constituted by, so to
> speak, these two
> > > fighting each other. As one narrows in on one, it turns out to be the
> > other. So,although one may start with the equation SQ=Being and
> DQ=Becoming, it
> > > will not stay stable, and one can also say that SQ=Becoming and
> DQ=Being,
> > > and so the ontological basis is not a basis. It shifts endlessly.
> >
> > DM:sounds good to me, they have to play off each other to evolve, and
> > achieve the cosmos. When I say into the subject, I am thinking of German
> Idealism which of
> > course was wrapped up with European Romanticism very intimately. I am
> interested in
> > this L of CI. It reminds me of Schelling. Coleridge, I have heard it
said,
> is almost a
> > word for word translation of Schelling, and also Heidegger is indebted
to
> Schelling in
> > ways he has tried to cover up. What are your sources for L of CI?
>
> Nishida Kitaro (via Robert Carter's "The Nothingness Beyond God: An
> Introduction to the Philosophy of Nishida Kitaro"), Coleridge (via
> Barfield's *What Coleridge Thought"), who called it polarity, and Derrida
> (as in "the sign is ("is" X-ed out) that ill-named thing ("thing" X-ed
out),
> the only one, that escapes the instituting question of philosophy: 'what
> is?'") (via Robert Magliola (and others), "Derrida on the Mend", which
> discusses the relation between Derrida and Nagarjuna.)
>
> On the relation between Coleridge and Schelling, Barfield says (p. 6) that
a
> couple of pages of the Biographia Literaria are pretty much unacknowledged
> translations from Schelling, which is hardly all of Coleridge. But in any
> case one needs to distinguish between "borrowing" ideas and making them
> one's own by thinking them through. And, of course, he made his own many
> precursors' thought, as do we all. I haven't read Schelling (or much about
> him), so I can't say what is in the one and not in the other.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 21:26:23 BST