Hi Ron --
> I now understand your interest in Micah's "nothing can be
> proved to exist outside humans" and "man is the measure"
> when I was contemplating this I began reading Gottlieb Fichte
> and his concept of "the self positing I" and now after
> reviewing Hegel, all this collects and begins to jell and few
> questions emerge, "essence" seems close to Hegels "geist"
> Essentialism's C++ logic type "negation" is similar to Hegel's
> dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis or law of change.
> Toward ultimate "oneness" with "geist" Hegel was on the
> platonic side and mixed his philosophy with Christianty,
> while others view it as a sort of religion without a god or
> even pantheism, while Marx took it to the materialist side,
> so my question to you is:
1. Where Do you stand on "essence" do you see it as geist?
A mid point between mind and spirit? And if so,
Do you see it as being more moral than material?
Yes, Micah's basic premise is correct in my opinion, although so far he
hasn't seen fit to explain the epistemology underlying it. Until he does,
he's going to be labeled a solipsist in this forum.
Geist is a term I haven't previously dealt with. To answer your question, I
checked out Hegel's use on a website that seems to be based on J.B.
Baillie's critique of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Mind" which I read many
years ago. I've quoted some key statements below:
"In Hegel's concept of Geist a new aspect of the Mind-Body problem appears.
The new difficulty lies in the distinction between collective Geist and
individual Geist. This distinction is unproblematic for Hegel but needs
clarification because many people confuse collective Geist and individual
Geist and so misunderstand Hegel. There are good reasons for this
confusion. The most established translation of Phanomenologie des Geistes,
that by J.B. Baillie does not consistently translate Geist as either 'Mind'
or 'Spirit.' It translates most instances of Geist as 'Mind.' The title
itself, 'The Phenomenology of Mind,' seems to indicate that Geist = 'Mind'
but Baillie also translates Geist as 'Spirit,'" 'human spirit,' or 'spirit
of man.'
"The dual nature of Geist, the key concept of the Phanomenologie, results in
conflicting interpretations of the central theme of the book. This conflict
centers on whether Geist is collective or individual."
I see this whole issue as a refusal by some to acknowledge that Conscious
awareness is not an organic entity. The MoQ makes the same mistake by
lumping it in with a collective notion of Intellect. It's all to avoid the
S/O duality. It seems to me that Mind, as Hegel develops it in his
Phenomenology, is what I call "awareness" -- if you will, the "psychic" or
"spiritual" component of existence. Everything else is "otheness". I,
also, seek to get beyond this otherness; but we can't do it by pretending
that it doesn't exist.
Think of Existence as a dichotomy consisting of Being (the appearance of
things) and Awareness (apprehension). Awareness [or Value-awareness] = the
"I" of each individual, regardless of its organic entanglements. Awareness
is the core "You", your psychic identity, soul, and locus in existence. All
experience is proprietary to this identity.
You ask about morality. Again, morality is a human invention that can't
logically be attributed to Essence. Morality reflects the relative values
of individuals living in a collective society. Human beings can't pass
judgment on whether their absolute source is "moral" or not. For all
intents and purposes, the universe is "amoral."
[Ron]:
2. there seems to be a jump to the assumption of ultimate
resolve instead of negation bringing on a the nihlistic "liar"
paradox. Both are possibilities, why ultimate resolve or "oneness"?
Not sure what you mean by "resolve" -- "resolution", perhaps? Are you
suggesting that we must progress through a heirarchy of levels to reach our
ultimate essence? Why? I base my reasoning on Occam's razor: when in
doubt, the simplest solution is preferred. Essence is man's immanent
source; as the fundamental reality, it is omnipresent and ubiquitous. Only
nothingness is devoid of it; and nothingness is a negation of Essence, which
means nothingness doesn't exist. But the Value of Essence fills our
nothingness. Therefore, although nothingness defines our existential
"identity", Value is our "essential" reality because it's our connection to
Essence.
Does this help?
Thanks for your followup, Ron,
Ham
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
