Criticism

[Soul_of_Shu]

I asked him but, like Wittgenstein, he prefers to remain silent about the mystery...

... Come to think of it, even with one's adeptness to speak and understand English, I'm hard pressed to interpret what James Joyce meant by this ...

"In the ignorance that implies the impression that knits knowledge that finds the nameform that whets the wits that convey contacts that sweeten sensation that drives desire that adheres to attachment that dogs death that bitches birth that entails the ensuance of existentiality.”

[Mark Tetzner]

Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar....

[Mark Tetzner]

I asked him but, like Wittgenstein, he prefers to remain silent about the mystery...

... Come to think of it, even with one's adeptness to speak and understand English, I'm hard pressed to interpret what James Joyce meant by this ...

"In the ignorance that implies the impression that knits knowledge that finds the nameform that whets the wits that convey contacts that sweeten sensation that drives desire that adheres to attachment that dogs death that bitches birth that entails the ensuance of existentiality.”

What is there not to understand? It´s all right there for you.

[AshvinP]

You have just restated the dualism, though (bold). That assumes we are forming ideas about "MAL's ideations" (our sense-perceptions). That is also Kant's assumed starting point for his epistemology. For Goethe and Steiner, our concepts, which manifest inwardly, belong to the sense-perceptible content of whatever we are observing just as much as any properties which manifest outwardly as percepts. Without the concepts, we would be perceiving complete gibberish of pure syntax (outer form) rather than an intelligible language with some semantics (inner meaning).

Trust me, Eugene, the implicit dualism we are speaking here is not easy to get rid of... it is completely habitual to all of our normal thinking. I feel like you are really underestimating it.

No dualism here, MAL ideas and human ideas are of the same nature and so it is in principle possible to for these ideas to be shared. But the universe of ideas is continuous and infinite, not discrete, so most often our own ideas are not exactly the same ideas but only close relatives or approximates of other people ideas or MAL ideas. They are close but still different. This is why it happens so often (including this forum) that we seem to speak about the same topics and ideas but our understanding of them actually differ.

The above is another restatement of dualism. I have tried to explain it you in many different ways, but since you think it is an abstract metaphysical concept, rather than a living habit of mind, and nothing more, you feel that you (and BK) perfectly understand it and have overcome it... let me try one more time.

You feel that your ideas are replicating an objective reality "out there" - it doesn't matter the essence of the objective reality out there, it could be material or mental (MAL ideation), but the dualism comes from the notion that your 'alter' mind is trying to replicate that objective reality in some way, whatever that reality happens to be. That is the only reason you can imagine your ideas not matching up with MAL ideas or other people's ideas. We are not talking about varying shades of meaning, i.e. perspectives on the ideal content, which differ between people, but the essential underlying ideal content of the concepts-ideas. There is no "triangle" concept for you that is essentially different than the "triangle" concept for me. And, if you think they are actually different, then you at least have to admit you are presupposing a metaphysical dualism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar....

Maybe an encounter with the Toad could've cured that

[Mark Tetzner]

Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy beggar....

Maybe an encounter with the Toad could've cured that

Have you enjoyed Toad?

[AshvinP]

Rather, it's all forever a mystery, and thus pointless to attempt any explanation as to how for example 'energy', having inexplicably arisen from Being, comes to be experienced, or exactly 'who' the fuck cares.

I don't think JW ever said it is "forever" a mystery. In response to me, he said there are evolutionary reasons to think we have already started piercing the veil of intellectual cognition to reach deeper, more numinous layers of Reality via "esthetic knowledge". But I am sure he can elaborate on that later.

[Mark Tetzner]

Rather, it's all forever a mystery, and thus pointless to attempt any explanation as to how for example 'energy', having inexplicably arisen from Being, comes to be experienced, or exactly 'who' the fuck cares.

I don't think JW ever said it is "forever" a mystery. In response to me, he said there are evolutionary reasons to think we have already started piercing the veil of intellectual cognition to reach deeper, more numinous layers of Reality. But I am sure he can elaborate on that later.

but even that seems to be belief-based. maybe how problematic things are is exaggerated, maybe what seems out of reach is just a piece of cake. this is a question that is bugging me.maybe a simple concept will do.

[Eugene I]

The above is another restatement of dualism. I have tried to explain it you in many different ways, but since you think it is an abstract metaphysical concept, rather than a living habit of mind, and nothing more, you feel that you (and BK) perfectly understand it and have overcome it... let me try one more time.

You feel that your ideas are replicating an objective reality "out there" - it doesn't matter the essence of the objective reality out there, it could be material or mental (MAL ideation), but the dualism comes from the notion that your 'alter' mind is trying to replicate that objective reality in some way, whatever that reality happens to be. That is the only reason you can imagine your ideas not matching up with MAL ideas or other people's ideas. We are not talking about varies shades of meaning, i.e. perspectives on the ideal content, which differ between people, but the essential underlying ideal content of the concepts-ideas. There is no "triangle" concept for you that is essentially different than the "triangle" concept for me. And, if you think they are actually different, then you at least have to admit you are presupposing a metaphysical dualism.

It's not dualism but continuous (non-discrete) nature of the universe of ideas. The universe of ideas is shared so it is possible to have and share exactly the same ideas that MAL or other people have, it's just that in reality it very rarely happens and most often our ideas are only closely related but not exactly the same. Two ideas can be infinitesimally close to each other and one can approach the other asymptotically, but they still would be different.

This is also related to epistemological discrete-vs-continuous approach to knowledge. In a discrete approach the ideas either match (both true) or do not match (one is true, the other is inevitably false), it's a black-and-white vision of ideal reality. With that approach you will always be in confrontation with other people when you find that their ideas do not exactly match with yours, because the black-and-white paradigm will force you to think that in such case they are plain wrong. The continuous approach is more allowing and open, there is no expectation for other people ideas to exactly match with yours because it practically always never happen (even though in principle possible). Instead of "right-or-wrong" judgement about other people ideas and opinions, you would have "close enough" evaluation of them which is more accommodative and practically leads to cooperation rather than confrontation.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Have you enjoyed Toad?

Nope ... in this case it just happened ... not even involving any spiritual practice. But who knows, perhaps a Daemon booted this corporeal butt into That which shall remain nameless, and utterly identity-free.