Steve Kurtz wrote:
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> As usual I find your analysis mostly cogent and challenging. Perhaps you
> can help me here:
>
> > When the word
> > "transcendental" is as trendy as "algorithmic" there
> > will be some hope for a future.
> >
> I'm familiar with the "Transcendentalist" writers including Emerson and
> Thoreau. What exactly do you mean above? What is to be transcended?
> From/To? I assume you mean by humans. Anything 'Supernatural' involved?
Thank you for the "opening"....
Emerson would certainly be a good place to start (I'm not so sure
about Thoreau...) -- *especially* if one is looking for "home grown
American sources" (my quote from St. Paul in my email signature is the
text of William Ellery Channing's "Baltimore Sermon" of 1819, defining
American Unitarianism -- in this honorable tradition of
American "transcendentalism". (I really do not know much about
Emerson, et al. so I can't elaborate -- but I have been a member of the
Baltimore Unitarian Church, where Channing gave his epochal sermon).
In no way was I referring to anything "Supernatural", unless -- and
this is a quite valid interpretation --
one interprets human existence (thought,
praxis...) as *supernatural*, because it is a[n effectively
transforming...] perspective upon nature rather than just a
part of nature. Emmanuel Levinas wrote (in _Totality and Infinity_
that any belief which does not ultimately resolve to interpersonal
relations is not a higher, but always a more primitive form of
religion -- Marx would have spoken of man's self-alienation by
projecting his own *being* into the world as *a* B/being
separate from himself -- etc.)
But I was thinking in particular of Edmund Husserl (following
Hegel and Kant). The things in the world are *transcendent*: they
are ultimately beyond our control (we did not make them).
We are *transcendental*: we are a perspective
upon everything -- every "thing" [however understood...] is
an object for consciousness, or, if you will, consciousness is
[to use Kant's terminology:] *the condition for the possibility
of [whatever, incl. "everything"...] being anything*.
"Transcendental" is a difficult word. But then our scientists
claim not to be put off by challenges....
Also, I was being a bit cynical. Lots of people (including
prestige Univ. comp sci PhDs!) mouth off
words like "algorithmic", "the brain is a computer", etc.
without really knowing what they are talking about. As Gregory
Bateson emphasized: the metaphors we use to think about
ourselves shape who/what we will be (thinking that a mountain
has thoughts and feelings won't hurt much, since the mountain
remains just a lump even if we "anthroporphize" it; but if
we think of persons as thing-like, then persons will likely
try to act like the things they believe they
are, thus making themselves be *less* than
they might have been -- so the psychologistic,
biologistic, computeristic, etc. fallacies are potentially
very damaging).
Even the things people say that they don't
understand affect what they become. Even though
it is nonsense, if people believe they
are computers, they will become more computer-like.
Even though people might not understand what
"transcendental" means, if they think of persons
as being individually and socially more like a
board of directors of the world, overseeing
all things and legislating the shape of their world,
they'll probably elaborate much richer lives
for themselves, even if they don't understand the
underlying theory. Best of all for Everyman
to deeply understand transcendental [Husserlean, etc.]
philosophy; second best for them to try (e.g.,
mouthing words like "transcendental" which they don't
really understand); bad for them to try to become
degrading things they don't understand (mouthing
off words like "algorithmic", "neurological", etc.).
Does this help any?
Again, I recommend Enzo Paci for his deep
integration of Husserl and Marx. Since we
*are* all childreared, I would also include
Donald Winnicott (another dead person...) here....
Of course there are living persons in academe
who are working in a constructive direction,
e.g., Jurgen Habermas, Axel Honneth... And,
*very* recently deceased: Cornelius Castoriadis
and Hans-Georg Gadamer (you are welcome to add
others...)....
"Yours in [the] discourse [which constitutes
our being human -- transcendental --, in
contrast to all things that can be talked
about...]..."
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
