I would guess we are always transcending something Nom. Fichte is the usual route into transcending Hegel and the myths of certain views on self. I haven't seen much explanation from Orn on transcendental freedom - perhaps how something divine and transcendental provides conditions for freedom. I too would like him to try for us, though I see a duty as his friend not to compel this, and to say that much of what he writes leaves me with the right feelings and, on occasion, inspiration. There is a spirit of trying that can be detected. I remain materialist enough to believe good and freedom could arise if we could sweep enough social dross away to leave people doing more of what they want.
On 8 Feb, 15:48, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > Without the transcendental, there is no possibility of freedom. / > ornamerntalmind > > Really? (Really, I do mean really).Care to explain that to me, please? > By the way, ornamentalmind.... I have seen people walk and talk, skip, > run and jump. transpire, transport, transfer, translocate, etc..... > but to my experience, I don't know if I have ever seen anyone... > transcend. How does "one" do that, anyway? Is it anything like... > flying? But I suppose that transcending is more of a conceptual > notion... Still, though... I would like to understand what you > understand when you use that word, ornamentalmind, explain if you > can.... I would appreciate it. > nominal9 > > On Feb 7, 2:45 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Without the transcendental, there is no possibility of freedom. > > > On Feb 7, 10:55 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation > > > It has been very many years since I read Marx... I got through the > > > Communist Manifesto easily enough and I plodded through Das Kapital > > > very coscientiously and doggedly, as I remember.... but I did not get > > > all that much out of it..... Anyway, the connectcion between Marx and > > > his philosophical sounding board Hegel always intrigued me and still > > > does.... I don't think, myself, that Marx ever really separated > > > himself from Hegel... I view them both as being Idealists. Now I know > > > that this doesn't seem to make sense, if you look at the "words" that > > > Marx uses... especially his so-called "materialism". That > > > "materialism" would tend to be identified with an objective > > > reality.... but if you take a close look at Marx... what does his > > > sense of "materialism" consist of (another one of those pesky > > > rherorical questions) IMO all "materialism" means for Marx is the .... > > > objectivisation (or lack thereof) of our essential nature's into the > > > products of our manufacture... or something like that. > > > > 'Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. > > > Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other > > > person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, > > > its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual > > > manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at > > > the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my > > > personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power > > > beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would > > > have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied > > > a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s > > > essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding > > > to the need of another man’s essential nature. ... Our products would > > > be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential > > > nature.'" (Comment on James Mill) > > > > Objectivising "essences"???? that's still classic Idealism as > > > is ..."Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected > > > our essential nature.'"... all echoes of Plato's "reality" as shodows > > > on a wall of the "true" ideal forms. > > > > What that has to do with it is that Freedom or Emancipation or Liberty > > > for truly Physical Human beings has "real" (as in actually material > > > constraints)... > > > > Hegel, as an Idealist, never wanted to admit these "real" constraints > > > and neither does Marx.(as an Idealist)... for all his "revolutionary" > > > theorizing.... Marx is still actually looking for his moment of Ideal > > > communing with God (or Human Nature) or becoming one with God (or the > > > Universal Human Social Consciousness) through ultimate... freedom... > > > (or whatever). In any case, Freedom or Liberty or Emancipation assumes > > > a "transcendental" , dare I say a religious sense... > > > > Now, this may be alright for Idealists of different sorts, I don't > > > begrudge them their opinions. > > > > But what about freedom for an actual Realist/Materialist along the > > > lines of an Aristotle... or for a Nominalist, like B. Russel, et al... > > > or even for Phenomenologists like Husserl or better yet Kant? > > > nominal9 > > > > On Feb 6, 11:57 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What is Freedom or Liberty, or Emancipation... and how does that all > > > > work in an interactive "social" or even a more specific economic > > > > group > > > > setting? Indeed - I'm reminded that Anthony Flew, in answering "what > > > > is courage?" simply wrote "this is" leaving the rest of his exam paper > > > > blank. I believe we make a mistake if we try to establish such stuff > > > > without working out how we intend to allow others into the decisions > > > > and creating - and this is a very complex question involving what we > > > > have been calling democracy. The trick would be a form of argument > > > > more than chattering class dross and a system of planned evaluations > > > > as matters progressed. It's my view we would not be focused on words, > > > > but forms of some kind, especially in the leadership-followership > > > > area. I have no doubt we need emancipation, but presumably not to my > > > > whim or the next Mugabe. There is much we could learn from groupwork > > > > here and the extent to which we remain ape in bids for leadership and > > > > the rest. This stuff needs to get into our talking and feeling in > > > > different ways than we are used to. > > > > > On 5 Feb, 23:11, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Zizek said something somewhere about being able to talk without fear > > > > > of chronic power relations. I think the dismal existential position > > > > > is a combination of this fear and a kind of mock bravery in its face. > > > > > We need some fellowship before we can speak thus. > > > > > > On 5 Feb, 10:42, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If you believe someone is hiding something from you and/or oneself > > > > > > and > > > > > > you don't ask that person about it, you have to wait for a > > > > > > revelation. > > > > > > Same applies to flowers in a four season area. > > > > > > > On 5 Feb., 03:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > gabbers, is that what is meant by revelation? (along with faith of > > > > > > > course.) > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 1:52 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interesting perspective, very artsy indeed. The casual > > > > > > > > Christian bible > > > > > > > > believer is taught that the beaten down Jesus on the cross is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > devine son, is me in another dimension, so to speak. > > > > > > > > > On 4 Feb., 21:27, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The 'beaten down' aspect comes from existentialism in > > > > > > > > > general. This > > > > > > > > > misaprehension denies us of the divine. > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 9:00 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would add that one does not need to know what human > > > > > > > > > > emancipation is > > > > > > > > > > before trying to create it, or perhaps better, "go for it". > > > > > > > > > > I suspect > > > > > > > > > > most humans are actually so beaten down that they do not > > > > > > > > > > imagine a > > > > > > > > > > future as part of their present. > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Feb, 16:55, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Neil, when the focus is on words, true wisdom is > > > > > > > > > > > missed. > > > > > > > > > > > Some do lean toward being practical, including analysis. > > > > > > > > > > > Others > > > > > > > > > > > towards doing a comparison with the past. And, there > > > > > > > > > > > exist the > > > > > > > > > > > empaths. We know all three and seldom know why we lean > > > > > > > > > > > toward one over > > > > > > > > > > > the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:15 pm, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is that Foucault couldn't reduce any anxiety > > > > > > > > > > > > and that > > > > > > > > > > > > Derrida has really only shown we should be less sure of > > > > > > > > > > > > more or less > > > > > > > > > > > > everything, which I do find reassuring. The warning in > > > > > > > > > > > > both is about > > > > > > > > > > > > totalising forms of thinking. My preference is for > > > > > > > > > > > > good old American > > > > > > > > > > > > pragmatism and practical scientific methods where we > > > > > > > > > > > > can apply them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Derrida can be read as asserting poetics and humour. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a long > > > > > > > > > > > > history of aporia, which we might take as revelling in > > > > > > > > > > > > roads to > > > > > > > > > > > > nowhere, as in the song, or as despair in Wittgenstein > > > > > > > > > > > > that language > > > > > > > > > > > > bewitches us in making us ask the same old questions, > > > > > > > > > > > > rather than > > > > > > > > > > > > devise new ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Feb, 03:52, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and when you get to where that road take you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > be sure to pay no attention to the man behind the > > > > > > > > > > > > > curtain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, nominal9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Paul: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am "diametrically opposed" epistemologically to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Phenomenalist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position. Nice to meet you, however.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Does Merleau-Ponty 'fill in the gaps' that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heidegger left?".... Blind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leading the Blind.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Do Foucault or Derrida give you a path out of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modern anxiety? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ".....Follow the Yellow Brick Road..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 6:36 am, Paul Grieg <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This is one of my favourite philosophy interviews: > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
