The conscious is sublime but, the culturally influenced consciousness is subjective.....
On Jul 9, 2011 5:32 PM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
