Also when it comes to words such as mind, awareness, experience, my
instincts then lead (me) to aspects of time. One carries ones mind or
objectives with them, inherited or pervasive perhaps as we "are" in relation
to our cultural surroundings. One realises consciously and unconsciously
moment by moment
awareness. Experience being more reflective a secondary set of events of
analysis that can be both past or future tense.
-----Original Message-----
From: Serenity Smiles
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:01 PM
To: epistemology@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [epistemology 12179] D1 Immanency and Transcendency
You say things so much better than (me), I so agree Internal
Inter-dependence is just what you have written, conclusive and Lucid
meaning in the manner of intelligible) in the result realising this. So for
(me) the preface is "what is Clarity".
-----Original Message-----
From: Georges Metanomski
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:38 PM
To: workshop...@yahoogroups.com ; physics_and_reality_gr...@yahoogroups.com
; epistemol...@yahoogroups.com ; epistemology@googlegroups.com ;
nominal...@yahoogroups.com ; analytical-indicant-the...@yahoogroups.com ;
analy...@yahoogroups.com ; han.geur...@gmail.com
Subject: [epistemology 12179] D1 Immanency and Transcendency
==============
PREFACE, THE WORDS:
Before proceeding to the issue at hand, let's mention an enormous obstacle
we shall find on our way, to wit the language. Words don't carry
meaning, at best hint at it and in the context of fundamental inquiries
become trees hiding the forest, mainly due to innumerable homonymies and
to syntax totally incompatible with such fundamental concepts as "mind"
or "awareness".
Nobody expressed it better than Sartre:
"Having discovered the world through language, I have over long time
taken language for the world". (my translation).
And yet, paradoxically, this phrase leads to a swamp of misunderstandings.
For instance the addicts of "WOT" (World Out There) see in it a proof
that Sartre is a transcendentalist positing the primacy of WOT. Actually
Sartre means something similar to Popper's World-2. Similar, but not
identical - homonymous. And talking about Popper, he uses three homonyms
of "world". And there are about as many incompatible homonyms of "world"
as philosophical systems.
As for the syntax, let's illustrate with a few examples the essential
incapability of natural languages to deal with basic concepts, such
as "awareness" or "mind".
Awareness, the faculty of experiencing is necessarily thematic: I'm not
just aware, but aware of something and "I'm aware of pain" (or of other
"qualia") means "I feel or experience pain, etc.". One may ask, what's
the use of the term "awareness" if it is synonymous with "experiencing"?
Well, it is not. It is the faculty, the potential, the support of
experiences which are its instances.
The predicative structure of natural languages interprets "I am aware"
as some "I" having the property "aware". But what is this I? It must be
something experienced, or it would be meaningless. But if it is
experienceable, then it is founded in awareness, it's not "I" have
awareness, but awareness has "I". But which, whose awareness?
The only answer: "Mine". "I" is (my) awareness and (my) awareness is "I".
In other terms the predicative structure works well for elementary
statements of every day's life such as "the stone is hard", but can
only mishandle abstract, fundamental concepts.
As for the brackets of "(my)" above, particularly misleading are the
possessive adjectives like "my", prepositions like "of", etc.
We have seen that "My awareness", or "I am aware" misdescribe some "I"
having "awareness". Yet, such forms are unavoidable when using a natural
language. Sartre introduced a convention to put misleaders in brackets,
like in "conscience (de) soi". We shall use it in particularly confusing
cases and write: "(my) awareness", "awareness (of) pain", or "(my) mind".
Not that it is any more precise, but at least it gives a warning against
misinterpretations.
Classic intensional definitions fail by most general concepts, having
no "super-classes" and may only be defined extensionally, by enumeration
of their typical instances. Thus we shall gather any elementary input of
experience usually labeled as "sensation", "feeling", "emotion",
impression", etc. under the term "sensation". Sensations don't appear to
awareness separately, but as elements of structured "events", synonymous
of "experiences".
=================
Afer this preliminaries we may proceed to our issue at hand.
The first idea that strikes me when inquiring into the concept of Mind is
that I can only consider (my own) Mind, (my own) awareness (of) qualia. and
that I cannot in any way experience other qualia than (mine).
Consequently, I may inquire only by introspection and only into (my own)
Mind. The findings of this inquiry will be discussed in some detail in
the following post, "Foundations of Reason". Anticipating on it we shall
mention here very generally some of them without detailed justification.
-Mind appears as bounded by sensorium (domain of sensations) which brings
in events.
-Events are coordinated to form mental entities.
-Orderliness of events makes them appear as maps of some ordered external
territory, some transcendental WOT projected from outside of the sensorium
boundary.
Correspondingly, intellectual views, whether philosophical or scientific
fall into one of three classes:
1.Immanent (or "physical" for reasons explained in the next message),
restricted to the interior of sensorium boundary, i.e. founded in and
restricted to Mind. They may have technical difficulties with coordinating
events, but are ontologically well founded and unproblematic, however
sometimes considered as narrow-minded and too restricted.
2.Mixed, or metaphysical, founded in Mind and deriving WOT as its
territory, They have tough ontological problems with ascending from map
to territory and have greater technical difficulties than the immanent
with coordinating events due to the feedback from the self derived WOT.
3.Transcendent, or speculative, founded in WOT and either deriving from
it or neglecting Mind are simply self-deceptions overlooking that their
speculative "reality" is meaningless unless reducible to experience
and that the view itself, however "objective" and "realistic" is conceived
mentally.
==============
=============
PHYSICAL VIEW. (REVISE)
Monade-like "I" identical with (my) Mind or awareness.accessible only by
introspection which unravels the structure of mind.
Imaginary "world" coordinated by symbolic structures.
=============
METAPHYSICAL VIEW
=============
TRANSCENDENT VIEW.(REVISE)
bad faith and self-deceit. Entry point necessarily via immanent imagery
ordered by some symbolism. WOT is populated with reifications of originary
immanent images and symbols.
=============
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
