The simple soul? Is that before or after the neutron bombardment?
lol
On Sep 21, 11:19 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not a good idea to drink sea-water Slip. Water is H2O
> chemically, but looks more like H1.5O under neutron bombardment owing
> to entanglement - so in a way water is never H2O. My understanding is
> that the madness from drinking sea-water is not as severe as
> swallowing Heideggerian phenomenology. Being a simple soul, I tend
> towards modern empiricism and being sensible about evidence with a
> historical eye on progress that is evidence rather than truth
> related. Language is far too hard for most humans, and being merely
> human I tend to want to assess facts that fit with articulating the
> universe. Heidegger kind of has language arising at the points where
> we can't 'do the plumbing or carpentry', but forgets we will lie our
> asses off in it when the facts don't suit.
>
> On 21 Sep, 16:51, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Finally someone has brought this discussion into the area in which it
> > belongs. The reference to Husserl was apposite. Thank you, Justin
>
> > I've been following this discussion without taking part - apart from a
> > few one-line Socratic questions to Skip - because I see the question
> > of "facts", or, relatedly, "things-in-themselves" (to use Husserlian
> > terminology), as very deep and quite complex - even if, as many claim,
> > a sublime simplicity may come into view when one has reached a certain
> > stage in the investigation. Furthermore, I am very much aware that my
> > own position in this investigation is very much conditional.
>
> > Justin goes much farther than I can, indeed, my view is that he goes
> > farther than philosophy can. (Not for the first time,) this post
> > reminds me very much of the later Heidegger, where his search for the
> > Being of being (Sein des Seins) leads him to language and expression
> > which I understand more in poetic and mystical terms. This seems to me
> > to be inevitable, given our basic position as perceiving subjects.
> > Going beyond this is like trying to get out of our own skins. I doubt
> > if this is possible in terms of strict philosophical analysis, because
> > - despite Husserl's own attempts to "bracket everything out" - I see
> > no way to bracket out the analysing subject. Concepts and language
> > constrain our analysis to the phenomenological, making our
> > conclusions, ultimately, conditional. For my own position
> > (conditionally!), I see certain elements of confirmation in many
> > interpretations of quantum theory as well as in aspects of Popper's
> > thinking.
>
> > I emphasise once more - conditional. I see philosophy - the search for
> > wisdom - very much as a journey; a journey into the depth of things
> > (phenomenologically perceived :-)). To use Heideggerian language, I
> > find myself in the clearing, waiting for Being to reveal itself. It
> > doesn't. At the moment. This may change. But such a revelation (orn
> > might call it "apprehending") is something which, I believe, goes
> > beyond philosophical analysis. And so, conditionally, I remain in the
> > expectant agnostic position (philosophically) of atheistic
> > existentialism.
>
> > Francis
>
> > On 21 Sep., 16:22, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Husserl made a distinction between fact and essence.
>
> > > Essence is roughly the content of the fact or its meaning which is
> > > subject to interpretation but not wholly determinable by
> > > interpretation.
>
> > > In addition to the essence there is the statement of "facticity" which
> > > basically means that the fact "is".
>
> > > You can look at the back side of the moon as an example. Let's say
> > > there is a 500 ft crater on the back side of the moon. Now facts are
> > > always in terms of essence so the terms here are "a 500ft crater"
> > > which is meaningless or not, independent of its facticity. If you
> > > refer to some experience, not necessarily one that you have had, that
> > > gives meaning to the phrase "a 500 ft crater" then the term ends up
> > > with meaning. However, if you in fact get the meaning of "a 500 ft
> > > crater on the back side of the moon" then it still, "in fact", might
> > > not be there.
>
> > > You can also look at something that unlike the back side of the moon
> > > is right in front of you and, for a time, choose to not consider what
> > > it is. You still realize that there is an experience you are having
> > > and it has a correlate that is there, or, perhaps better, happening.
> > > You can choose to examine it. It is from those correlates that the
> > > meaning of that which we don't see it constituted and without those
> > > references the meaning itself falls away into nothingness.
>
> > > The real problem is when you consider essentially the fact of
> > > facticity itself or the essence of facticity if you will its
> > > "manifestation" in meaning. It is difficult to know how do give it
> > > meaning.... difficult but when known...or seen... when one sees that
> > > one is confronted by the "facting" of the world and that this is not
> > > "semblence" or 'mere appearance" then the absolute nature of Being is
> > > encountered. It is neither external nor internal. Then all kinds of
> > > strange things come out of your mouth when trying to say what you mean
> > > and people think you haven't a clue and that you are making elementary
> > > mistakes in epistemology. The reality is that you have experienced the
> > > meaning.
>
> > > People also have trouble with the fact of essence and often even with
> > > the fact of history. In some very narrow understanding of being the
> > > past "is no longer" which gets interpreted as the past "isn't". The
> > > same with all meaning including Being. In that way of thinking to say
> > > something is your "interpretation" means that it is inherently
> > > subjective and, again, in that way of thinking therefore not objective
> > > or real. It is "only" meaning. Not the "real thing". That is just a
> > > failure to realize Being I think. The possibility of concealment will
> > > of course always be there but that does not negate the fact of the
> > > reality of the semblance as semblance. This is where Truth intersects
> > > with Being, and it is in unconcealment or revealing that the truth is.
> > > Some think there is some "other" concealed thing that is the reality
> > > and we experience only its shadow but I think that misses the meaning
> > > of unconcealment and revelation inherent in the meaning of Being.
>
> > > I could be wrong, but then, I could be right.
>
> > > On Sep 21, 6:39 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Umm okay well let me try it this way instead then.
>
> > > > I agree that that 'facts are facts and our subjective understanding of
> > > > them does not change them'
>
> > > > What now? You and I have agreed on that point, you have won me over,
> > > > I'll admit that my talk of subjective facts was wrong, now where do we
> > > > go now that we both understand this?
>
> > > > On 21 Sep, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 21, 7:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Okay Slip, so we accept that, now what is the porpose of your
> > > > > > stance?
>
> > > > > > Is it really merely to say 'facts are facts and our subjective
> > > > > > understanding of them does not change them'?
>
> > > > > (seems simple enough)
>
> > > > > > It seem to me that in expressing such a thing you side with Rand, I
> > > > > > for one would love to move this thread forward and get to the meat
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the matter. You have said two things here:
>
> > > > > > The first I can only say is blatant lie by you and that is your
> > > > > > comment about getting of the ride, umm you still take your seat I
> > > > > > notice.
>
> > > > > (I said and repeat, IF the thread reaches an impasse then in a sense
> > > > > it is a carousel at which point I get off the ride. Obviously some
> > > > > have returned to break the stagnation, I don't see why this is not
> > > > > clear, so you are rash in your attack and unjust in your assessment.)
>
> > > > > > The second is that you have just said you have no interset in
> > > > > > discusing Rands Objectivism vs Altruism,
>
> > > > > (Is that what I said? I thought it was something like "examining
> > > > > facts". You might try reading my post, not reading into it.)
> > > > > (If you want to bring up something that you want to discuss concerning
> > > > > Rand then bring it up and we can discuss it.)
>
> > > > > Blah blah...........Let me say this Lee, IF you and anyone else wanted
> > > > > to discuss Rand's Objectivism vs Altruism there would be an ongoing
> > > > > discussion instead of this focus on Slip. You kick it off with the
> > > > > others and I'll come back later with my thoughts.
>
> > > > > I answered your question already and I covered that issue with gw, so
> > > > > why don't you take some more time to read back so I don't have to keep
> > > > > repeating myself, not that it may make much of a difference if you
> > > > > don't understand what I already wrote! There is a breakdown in
> > > > > translation and communication is hampered.
>
> > > > > I don't agree that fact's are meaningless without interpretation, it
> > > > > is the interpretation itself that renders something non factual based
> > > > > simply on the varying degrees of interpretation.
> > > > > H2O is a fact and cannot be interpreted as R2D2, is that not
> > > > > understandable? <(question mark)
> > > > > Does someone have a different interpretation of H2O?
> > > > > Do I really need to experience some mystical guru enlightenment to see
> > > > > H2O as a fact?
>
> > > > > Too much nanoscopic pedanticism!
>
> > > > > so once again I'll have to
>
> > > > > > question your motives for both your stance re: facts, and for
> > > > > > posting
> > > > > > in this thread in the first place?
>
> > > > > > Ohh and by-the-by, you notice that little qestion mark, that means I
> > > > > > was asking a question. I asked fif we could agree that
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
