2009/8/26 Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com>: >> It seems as though we can comprehend 'mind' only in terms of some >> self-instantiating, self-interpreting context, in which meaning >> depends always on the self-relating logic of differentiation and >> interaction. Hence the 'perspective' of mind is always intrinsic, >> and 'meaning' doesn't survive abstraction to any extremity of >> 'external' observation. We can comprehend the 'externalised' flux - >> i.e. what is abstractable out-of-context - as somehow correlative of >> mind with mind, and mind with matter. But whatever meaning is finally >> recoverable will again be 'as received' - i.e. as re-interpreted in >> its context of arrival. > > This, for instance, seems to be a somewhat Kantian thought. I think. > Based on my single week of reading about Kant's views.
Well, as I've said before, a lot of my thinking is stimulated by reconsideration of a broadly eastern worldview, and many western thinkers - Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, Schrödinger and many others - have also, explicitly or implicitly, articulated positions more or less compatible with this. I've felt for a long time that this style of thinking casts more light on mind-body issues than the Aristotelian alternative, and most of the conventional criticism of this tends to miss the point completely, IMO. You might have a look at my summary of this in a recent response to Stathis in this thread. I wouldn't expect all of it necessarily to be immediately transparent, but I'd be happy to amplify where required. David > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Nyman<david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It seems as though we can comprehend 'mind' only in terms of some >> self-instantiating, self-interpreting context, in which meaning >> depends always on the self-relating logic of differentiation and >> interaction. Hence the 'perspective' of mind is always intrinsic, >> and 'meaning' doesn't survive abstraction to any extremity of >> 'external' observation. We can comprehend the 'externalised' flux - >> i.e. what is abstractable out-of-context - as somehow correlative of >> mind with mind, and mind with matter. But whatever meaning is finally >> recoverable will again be 'as received' - i.e. as re-interpreted in >> its context of arrival. > > This, for instance, seems to be a somewhat Kantian thought. I think. > Based on my single week of reading about Kant's views. > > On the other hand, maybe when all you have is a hammer, everything > looks like a nail... > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
