From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 21:31:01 BST
DM,
> 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.
You said: "My dictionary says that nominalism is anti-realist, which I am
not." which sounds to me like you are saying "I am a realist". So I was
merely
asking which type of realist you were. I was trying to find out what you
mean by "ontological phenomonologist"., but now that I've looked at the
Being and Becoming thing, I see (not really, just know where to look further
if so desired.)
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.
What do you mean by "just say 'Man/Language/Being'"? That is, what is one
saying this about? In fact, I don't get this at all, after "I do think you
can't point at any thing-it-itself".
>
> 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?
My difference from Kant is that I do not assume the noumenal is unknowable.
Instead, I follow Barfield's line of thought (as given in his book "Saving
the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry"), that in earlier times, people
perceived the noumenal "behind" the phenomonal, calling it spirits, gods,
etc., while in present times (since roughly 1500 AD) that kind of perception
has gone away, so we treat phenomena as objects. The promise is that the
noumenal can be recovered, but not as before. (The earlier stage he calls
"original participation", the later one "final participation", where
"participation" means an extra-sensory link between the observer and the
observed.).
The two are distinguished in that one (phenomena) involve sense-perception
and the other (noumena) do not.
> 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!
How do you classify mathematics, or subatomic entities? Neither are
phenomenal, yet we can talk about them.
There is one dualism it is hard to ignore, and that is that we think and we
perceive. I don't want to imply that one can't find a higher unity, but I
think it is absurd to say that we can have a non-dualist starting point.
> 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?
Yes (to both questions). I've read Pirsig. I don't agree with all of it. As
for dismissing Plato (and Aristotle and the medievals), that is a question
that needs reevaluation in light of the fact (if one agrees with Barfield)
that consciousness has evolved since
their time. Hence we are criticizing them without acknowledging that their
data was different from ours. (And ours is the impoverished set of data).
You might say that opposite phenomena is nothing, but nothing has got to be
> there for
> phenomena to be there.
There are phenomena, and there is awareness of phenomena and thinking about
phenomena. The latter two are not explicable in terms of the former. So
there is something other than phenomena.
>
> 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.
I looked -- see above. For Barfield, you may want to look at
http://www.praxagora.com/stevet/fdnc/appa.html or
http://eyelight.webservepro.com/
> You drop a lot of hints Scott, don't just do -ve stuff, what are your +ve
> suggestions.
By "-ve" and "+ve" do you mean negative and positive? I'll assume so.
My positive suggestion has been, and has been practically since I started
posting here, that Barfield has a lot to say on such matters as what the
intellectual level is all about, and on why SOM arose in the first place.
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 21:35:37 BST