JeffreyW wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:44 am
“ You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, ”
What reasoning and what assumptions?
That "knowing" is a modelling, by way of internal representations, an external reality. That what comes to the phenomena by way of conceptual activity is something added on top of them, something imposed on them by us, rather than a critical aspect of their Being, i.e. the meaningful aspect. I have tried to explain this is many ways so far and I think the major problem is that it all sounds too simplified and abstract to you, which it admittedly is given my own cognitive capacity, perhaps not befitting a rigorous esthetic philosophical discussion. That's why I took the other approach of quoting Cleric re: concrete relation of musical aesthetic, logic, and thinking. I asked for your thoughts on that and am still interested in reading them.
Here is also an illustration. To be clear, I am not claiming anything described below is the underlying reality (which is prior to abstract space-time in my view, as it is in yours), but rather it illustrates how the conceptual element belongs to the phenomena being observed rather than our so-called "personal representational mind".
Let us return to our example of the thrown stone. We connect the sight perceptions that originate from the individual locations in which the stone finds itself. This connection gives us a curved line (the trajectory), and we obtain the laws of trajectory; when furthermore we take into account the material composition of the glass, and then understand the flying stone as cause, the shattering of the glass as effect, and so on, we then have permeated the given with concepts in such a way that it becomes comprehensible to us. This entire operation, which draws together the manifoldness of perception into a conceptual unity, occurs within our consciousness. The ideal interrelationship of the perceptual pictures is not given by the senses, but rather is grasped absolutely on its own by our spirit. For a being endowed only with the ability to perceive with the senses, this whole operation would simply not be there.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:44 am
“ You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, ”
What reasoning and what assumptions?
That "knowing" is a modelling, by way of internal representations, an external reality. That what comes to the phenomena by way of conceptual activity is something added on top of them, something imposed on them by us, rather than a critical aspect of their Being, i.e. the meaningful aspect. I have tried to explain this is many ways so far and I think the major problem is that it all sounds too simplified and abstract to you, which it admittedly is given my own cognitive capacity, perhaps not befitting a rigorous esthetic philosophical discussion. That's why I took the other approach of quoting Cleric re: concrete relation of musical aesthetic, logic, and thinking. I asked for your thoughts on that and am still interested in reading them.
At this point I don’t see any way to continue the conversation. You simply seem unable to grasp that I do not reduce knowing to representation. I’ve explained that multiple times and have no interest in doing it again. Just take or reject what you want from what I wrote, and I will move on.
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:44 am
“ You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, ”
What reasoning and what assumptions?
That "knowing" is a modelling, by way of internal representations, an external reality. That what comes to the phenomena by way of conceptual activity is something added on top of them, something imposed on them by us, rather than a critical aspect of their Being, i.e. the meaningful aspect. I have tried to explain this is many ways so far and I think the major problem is that it all sounds too simplified and abstract to you, which it admittedly is given my own cognitive capacity, perhaps not befitting a rigorous esthetic philosophical discussion. That's why I took the other approach of quoting Cleric re: concrete relation of musical aesthetic, logic, and thinking. I asked for your thoughts on that and am still interested in reading them.
You simply seem unable to grasp that I do not reduce knowing to representation. I’ve explained that multiple times and have no interest in doing it again. Just take or reject what you want from what I wrote, and I will move on.
To all on this board:
For the most part I have enjoyed my stay here, but at this point I need to move on. My original purpose here was to discuss Kastrup, who really no longer interests me. If his recent actions to evade opposition haven’t convinced you he is a fraud in search of a cult following, consider yourself part of the cult. I do wish you all the best.
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:12 pm
To all on this board:
For the most part I have enjoyed my stay here, but at this point I need to move on. My original purpose here was to discuss Kastrup, who really no longer interests me. If his recent actions to evade opposition haven’t convinced you he is a fraud in search of a cult following, consider yourself part of the cult. I do wish you all the best.
Well that wound up pretty much how I anticipated it might, with the us-vs-them cult as prevalent as ever.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
If his recent actions to evade opposition haven’t convinced you he is a fraud in search of a cult following, consider yourself part of the cult.
If BK wanted a cult following, he'd cultivate his followers. He doesn't - as you know, he left his own forum. Cult leaders usually tear members from their families and have sex with them to bond them into the group. I haven't noticed that happening yet, either...
I hope you have proof of source of funds, though. I don't want to do time for money laundering
You said the desire to seek proof was a bad trait. "Sorry, m'lud, the defendant must be declared not guilty because our society does itself a disservice by seeking proof of his crimes..."
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:44 am
“ You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, ”
What reasoning and what assumptions?
That "knowing" is a modelling, by way of internal representations, an external reality. That what comes to the phenomena by way of conceptual activity is something added on top of them, something imposed on them by us, rather than a critical aspect of their Being, i.e. the meaningful aspect. I have tried to explain this is many ways so far and I think the major problem is that it all sounds too simplified and abstract to you, which it admittedly is given my own cognitive capacity, perhaps not befitting a rigorous esthetic philosophical discussion. That's why I took the other approach of quoting Cleric re: concrete relation of musical aesthetic, logic, and thinking. I asked for your thoughts on that and am still interested in reading them.
At this point I don’t see any way to continue the conversation. You simply seem unable to grasp that I do not reduce knowing to representation. I’ve explained that multiple times and have no interest in doing it again. Just take or reject what you want from what I wrote, and I will move on.
What you say above makes no sense, because I am talking about about representational knowing. You have somehow failed to understand this entire time that I hold representational knowing (Reason) as a path towards genuine knowledge and essentially continuous with Imaginative knowing (what you call "esthetic knowing"). Anyway, I didn't really expect you to understand given your abstract intellectual academic background and the progression of your comments here, especially after you could not figure out why "energy prior to consciousness" is abstract metaphysics of the sort you claim to be challenging. I will take your failure to comment on Cleric's post altogether as an admission that you had never thought of or consciously experienced Music or Logos in that way.
But thanks for participating, anyway.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:34 pm
If BK wanted a cult following, he'd cultivate his followers.
Alas, it is BK who has been lured into the cult of cat pic posters on Facebook
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Cleric K wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:38 am
I think this attempt to present spirituality as some elitist club that exploits the ignorant souls has worn out. And I'm not saying that this hasn't been the case all over the world, in the past and today, in Churches and Ashrams. But to present this as an excuse for not pursuing deeper understanding of reality is really just that - an excuse.
The point was that no philosophy can be abstracted from the social context in which it arises. Compare the breadth, scope and rigour of the social analyses of Hegel with Steiner's simplistic notion of the threefold social organism with its legal , economic and cultural domains. There is simply no comparison. Steiner's social analysis merely reflects the middle class attitudes of his day, and if Steiner's social analyses cannot be relied on then the same is likely to be the case for other areas he explored.
I'm not denying the brilliance of PoF. But it seems that after his philosophical work was ignored by the philosophical mainstream Steiner increasingly turned inward, generating inner reflections of his outer cultural world. This is not to say these insights have no value, but Hegel's philosophy is a vastly superior form of idealism IMO.
Anyway, to avoid generating further circles to nowhere, I will also bow out of this thread. Bye for now.
