To some degree we have done away with many potential aspects of thinking because we have found 'better' ways to articulate 'nature'. Somewhere in Kant (the Critique of Judgement I think) he talks about 'the sublime'. The feeling associated with the sublime is a feeling of pleasure in the superiority of our reason over nature, but it also involves displeasure. In the case of the mathematically sublime, the displeasure comes from the awareness of the inadequacy of our imagination; in the dynamical case it comes from the awareness of our physical powerlessness in the face of nature's might. Kant is not consistent in his descriptions of how the pleasure and the displeasure are related, but one characterization describes them as alternating: the “movement of the mind” in the representation of the sublime “may be compared to a vibration, i.e., to a rapidly alternating repulsion from and attraction to one and the same object” Kant also describes the feeling of the sublime as a “pleasure which is possible only by means of a displeasure” and as a “negative liking”. He also appears to identify it with the feeling of respect, which in his practical philosophy is associated with recognition of the moral law. Kant thought introspection likely to be flawed, though it's hard to see how you can get to any of this without. There is more than words and concepts here and more senses than the 5 we generally accommodate are available, potentially, in mind. What we call knowledge now, may be achieved only by limiting to certainty or familiarity.
This notion of the sublime seems one we could use in trying to discover more on what is present in argument that isn't the words and one that reminds us on what they may be creating and limiting. My own interest is why 'memory' is so often eliminated from argument or the consciousness formed in it. Much of this 'consciousness' is now extra- somatic, but still organised as in Bacon's Idols. The question is why much we might describe as the content of individual consciousness has been encouraged to take such form and why it is not experienced in revulsion. On Jul 9, 3:01 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > “Isn't having stages a contradiction of henology?” – Chaz > > Perhaps…although I was addressing the actual process of ascesis… > something I’ve been working with for quite a while now. In fact, I’ve > been working many knowledge school methods. Being interested in mind, > I practice methods so I can know what is what…an actual first hand > scientific study. > > Theosis is possible as Plotinus found out. When it comes to > ‘contradiction’, in any ultimate and/or integral sense, there is no > contradiction that I can find. > > For those who have devoured Plotinus, Neil and/or Wikipedia one finds > henology is“…a "metaphysics of radical transcendence" that extends > beyond being and intellection.[2] It can be contrasted with ontology, > as ontology is "an account of being" whereas henology is an "account > of unity."” > > These words above only approach the first 3 aspects of ascesis. This > isn’t in contradiction with the process of ascesis though…it is merely > a part of the whole…you know, a distinction about the One and the > many. Long ago I would have been afraid to even consider the notion > let alone the experience of “radical transcendence” except perhaps at > arm’s length through academics. > > For an internet heuristic re: Plotinus, > see:http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/plotinus/plotinus.htmlhttp://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_029.htmlhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/ > > “And what has this got to do with our discussion?” - Chaz > > Little except by association…particularly with Neil’s offering me as > being worth a month of study. Also, the thread does start out having > to do with epistemology…Kant’s in particular. I’ve been looking at the > nature and scope of knowledge for a while now. I don’t claim to be > well read nor to be able to recall let alone present or to having > assimilated most philosophers; however, I have been interested in > firsthand experience(s). As an aside, the different presentation > levels found in this group are quite vast. Some I can make no sense of > at all. > > Further, in an admittedly troll-like maneuver, I posted that which I > had guessed would evoke a response. Also, I’ve had some very recent > (last night) experiences in this vein. > > Years ago I ran across Eck online and even one person who I talked > with quite a bit. She actually seemed coherent and at worst well > versed. I haven’t studied the method more than a cursorily glance. > Through Ichazo and his School, I’ve found plenty to help me go beyond > where I find myself at any one moment. Even before I met Oscar, I knew > that there was much more than words and concepts. > > On Jul 8, 4:59 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Isn't having stages a contradiction of henology? > > > And what has this got to do with our discussion? > > > On Jul 8, 10:25 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > For any serious student of mind, one ultimately arrives at henology. > > > The 5 stages of ascesis provide one basic map. The first 3 are > > > involved with words. The 4th on ‘True Opinion’. The 5th is the 5th. > > > > On Jul 8, 9:12 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I had an external trying to fail my best student for swearing last > > > > year. I've been asked to do some work on a PhD programme at a US > > > > university (better not mention it by name in case I have to take the > > > > work). Compared with what you got at Sussex Chaz, it's baby play! > > > > And clapped-out nonsense equating to the personal development drivel > > > > all over undergrads like a rash at the moment. I'm old enough now > > > > that I mat have inaugurated the angle, though in my version I'd have > > > > accepted stuff like 'spending a month with Orn' or going Bohemian or a > > > > few weeks with some nuclear scientists or biologists (etc.) - now it's > > > > all dreadful. > > > > Pleasing Sussex didn't neuter you mate. > > > > > On Jul 8, 8:38 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:12 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hmm, thanks for the cautionary tale Chaz! Now and then I contemplate > > > > > > returning to some academy or another…and on the rare occasion with > > > > > > more idealistic considerations than to merely glean a ‘practical’ > > > > > > bit > > > > > > of credentialing. I too greatly appreciate your sharing and recent > > > > > > path…’tis one due to great personal ignorance I wish I had the > > > > > > tenacity and means to follow. > > > > > > > By the way, your writing is far better crafted and assimilable than > > > > > > it > > > > > > appeared to me a couple of years ago. > > > > > > Thanks for the compliment. > > > > > > As for the caution. I have to say that I did enjoy the study despite > > > > > feeling a little restricted. > > > > > My first term I studied Theory and Practice in IH, and Philosophical > > > > > ideas in IH. The lecturers were under 30 and were not so didactic nor > > > > > dogmatic like the two I had in the second term. They were less > > > > > experienced and this meant they were more like facilitators - which is > > > > > what a good teacher ought to be - to help students draw out the > > > > > picture of their learning for themselves; assisting discussion and > > > > > debate. The second term; Scientific Ideas, and Political Ideas were > > > > > taught by 2 guys that were older and more dogmatic having lost their > > > > > humility - they KNEW their subject and TOLD you how it was. There was > > > > > little debate and the process was basically rote. Science deals with > > > > > the gradual unfolding of objective position about the nature of > > > > > reality, and that fact made it easier to accept the teaching style. > > > > > But the twat teaching the politics pretended 'objectivity', in a > > > > > discipline in which the elite views of past thinkers were being > > > > > regurgitated without critique. This simply enough rendered out of date > > > > > views and refurbished them for the present - an attitude I though of > > > > > as repugnant. I didn't complete that course and switched to Critical > > > > > Theory where I was able to study Walter Benjamin's and Nietzsche's > > > > > views on History. It meant absorbing a 10 week course in 4 weeks but > > > > > it was worth it. > > > > > > In 12 months all the fees are going to triple in price for BAs. As per > > > > > usual no one is daring to mention fees for higher degrees, but one > > > > > assumes that they will also go up. So this is the last year that means > > > > > are reachable. > > > > > > A sad reflection on the state of Britain! And what 'orrible little > > > > > toadies are Dawkins and Grayling for wanting to set up a high fee > > > > > paying college. > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 2:55 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 11:35 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Chaz - a good read. Well-balanced yet still charged with > > > > > > > > something worthwhile. > > > > > > > > Thanks - you liked it batter than my 'masters' at Sussex. It's odd > > > > > > > reading it again after a year. > > > > > > > There is so much more I wanted to say but was juggling between > > > > > > > wanting > > > > > > > to present a good academic essay and not offending the discipline > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > was writing in. In the end I pulled too many punches. > > > > > > > Even so the reaction to it was patronising and reactionary. One > > > > > > > comment was "If only he had read Harrington, Chaz would have > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > otherwise" - which is complete bullshit. > > > > > > > > Interesting to note that your bibliography is > > > > > > > > > similar to much Sue got through in her research methods MA at > > > > > > > > Manchester. If we leave aside the reasons for the production > > > > > > > > of your > > > > > > > > essay, I'm struck that claims about 'interest' in the > > > > > > > > Enlightenment > > > > > > > > aren't true - I mean this in the obvious sense that we wouldn't > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > anyone if we went on a pub crawl. Quite how we can really > > > > > > > > discover > > > > > > > > origins of terms like Enlightenment seems set interests now and > > > > > > > > I like > > > > > > > > the way you address this. > > > > > > > > I think the 'interest is clear, though I did not push it home > > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > The E is an invention, a meta-narritive upon which careers in > > > > > > > Intellectual History are based. There is some argument about the > > > > > > > birth > > > > > > > of the idea within IH but too many people have taken it as an > > > > > > > assumption, and based books and articles on it as if it was an a > > > > > > > priori concept that an attack upon it, or a description of its > > > > > > > roots > > > > > > > is a personal attack upon the fabric of the discipline. The > > > > > > > Enlightenment has become their most important Shibboleth. THe > > > > > > > claim is > > > > > > > that only IH people are allowed to define what it means. > > > > > > > Me, I like to unpack myths - not accept them. And Kant never once > > > > > > > said > > > > > > > THE enlightenment, and neither Smith, nor Hume - the word was > > > > > > > never in > > > > > > > their vocabulary. > > > > > > > > > The more important issue is no doubt why there is so little > > > > > > > > spread of > > > > > > > > "enlightenment" into the village idiot population. My own > > > > > > > > interest is > > > > > > > > why they have been included in the vote process. This is not > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > swipe at letting low IQ in - more a wonder on whether > > > > > > > > power-interests > > > > > > > > are at work in ways we are not spotting. We've both been in > > > > > > > > front of > > > > > > > > enough classes to know how hard teaching is. I'd have readily > > > > > > > > wired > > > > > > > > my lot up to an 'enlightenment button' on the bad days! > > > > > > > > Wel, now that would all depend on what you mean by > > > > > > > 'enlightenment'. As > > > > > > > far as I can see that is nothing particular about the 18thC. The > > > > > > > entire time from c1450 to the present is in a process of > > > > > > > Enlightenment > > > > > > > in science, and > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
