Criticism

[AshvinP]

I will gladly host it whenever you want.

Thanks Jeffrey ... So far no volunteers, but we'll give it some time to sink in.

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation... I think we should be very precise in what exactly will be discussed - maybe even find a few passages from a book, whether it is BK or Schop or Steiner or whoever, and stick to discussing the issues raised in that.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I will gladly host it whenever you want.

Thanks Jeffrey ... So far no volunteers, but we'll give it some time to sink in.

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation... I think we should be very precise in what exactly will be discussed - maybe even find a few passages from a book, whether it is BK or Schop or Steiner or whoever, and stick to discussing the issues raised in that.

I see no point in discussing whatever respective issues we have with BK's model. Albeit for different reasons, I think we'd all be better off discussing those issues with him, however unlikely that is to happen. Neither Jeffrey or I have really delved into Steiner, so not sure how far we'd get with that. Meanwhile, I now remember I thought I would ask him about his take on Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Admittedly, I suppose my highly eclectic approach may not be conducive to a conversation exclusively focused on a specific philosopher. Now that I'm about to delve into Merrell-Wolff's Transformations in Consciousness: The Metaphysics and Epistemology, I was hoping it might inspire some questions for JW, and others, to address. So I may wait and see what comes of that.

[JeffreyW]

Thanks Jeffrey ... So far no volunteers, but we'll give it some time to sink in.

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation... I think we should be very precise in what exactly will be discussed - maybe even find a few passages from a book, whether it is BK or Schop or Steiner or whoever, and stick to discussing the issues raised in that.

I see no point in discussing whatever respective issues we have with BK's model. Albeit for different reasons, I think we'd all be better off discussing those issues with him, however unlikely that is to happen. Neither Jeffrey or I have really delved into Steiner, so not sure how far we'd get with that. Meanwhile, I now remember I thought I would ask him about his take on Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Admittedly, I suppose my highly eclectic approach may not be conducive to a conversation exclusively focused on a specific philosopher. Now that I'm about to delve into Merrell-Wolff's Transformations of Consciousness: The Metaphysics and Epistemology, I was hoping it might inspire some questions for JW, and others, to address. So I may wait and see what comes of that.

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better. He was at University of Chicago a few years before me but didn’t stay long.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better.

Well there's at least some sentiment that we can agree on. Perhaps an avenue that we could follow into further convergence. But unless any others here have read Pirsig, it may only be efficacious for us.

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation...

Yet, as perchance a basis for dialogos, here's where I'm somewhat baffled. Ashvin's take is that there is a way that we can reason our way into the numinous that doesn't involve mere abstract metaphysical speculation, or just sitting in silent meditation waiting for some ineffable revelation. My take is more like, to quote Pascal, the heart has its reasons whereof reason knows nothing, and that when open to it, the numinous finds us. Jeffrey's take is that the numinous is an archaic metaphysical error. Where could we go from there, if like those Greek philosophers of old, we actually got together in person to parse it out orally, instead of behind these textbound thoughts transfixed like a butterfly collection on this electron screen?

[Martin_]

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation... I think we should be very precise in what exactly will be discussed - maybe even find a few passages from a book, whether it is BK or Schop or Steiner or whoever, and stick to discussing the issues raised in that.

I see no point in discussing whatever respective issues we have with BK's model. Albeit for different reasons, I think we'd all be better off discussing those issues with him, however unlikely that is to happen. Neither Jeffrey or I have really delved into Steiner, so not sure how far we'd get with that. Meanwhile, I now remember I thought I would ask him about his take on Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Admittedly, I suppose my highly eclectic approach may not be conducive to a conversation exclusively focused on a specific philosopher. Now that I'm about to delve into Merrell-Wolff's Transformations of Consciousness: The Metaphysics and Epistemology, I was hoping it might inspire some questions for JW, and others, to address. So I may wait and see what comes of that.

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better. He was at University of Chicago a few years before me but didn’t stay long.

Books of Quality for sure...

[AshvinP]

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better.

Well there's at least some sentiment that we can agree on. Perhaps an avenue that we could follow into further convergence. But unless any others here have read Pirsig, it may only be efficacious for us.

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation...

Yet, as perchance a basis for dialogos, here's where I'm somewhat baffled. Ashvin's take is that there is a way that we can reason our way into the numinous that doesn't involve mere abstract metaphysical speculation, or just sitting in silent meditation waiting for some ineffable revelation. My take is more like, to quote Pascal, the heart has its reasons whereof reason knows nothing, and that when open to it, the numinous finds us. Jeffrey's take is that the numinous is an archaic metaphysical error. Where could we go from there, if like those Greek philosophers of old, we actually got together in person to parse it out orally, instead of behind these textbound thoughts transfixed like a butterfly collection on this electron screen?

This is not quite my take. For ex., I think Emerson expresses my view very well when writing:

What is true of proverbs, is true of all fables, parables, and allegories. This relation between the mind and matter is not fancied by some poet, but stands in the will of God, and so is free to be known by all men. It appears to men, or it does not appear. When in fortunate hours we ponder this miracle, the wise man doubts, if, at all other times, he is not blind and deaf; “Can these things be, And overcome us like a summer’s cloud, Without our special wonder?” for the universe becomes transparent, and the light of higher laws than its own, shines through it.

The key is to see that these higher laws are in no way discontinuous to or independent of our living Reason (reasoning which not only proceeds horizontally, by asking what is true, but also deeply and vertically by asking why it is true, and how/why we know why it is true). Most people view this as an endless recursive loop of reflection, leading us straight into a dead-end of thought from which we cannot escape, or can only escape by mystical thoughtless state. Cleric and myself have been trying to illustrate here why that is not at all true. And, I have been trying to point out how Cleric is a clear example on this forum of the living Reason which metamorphoses into Imagination and what degrees of thought-freedom are opened up as a result.

[Soul_of_Shu]

This is not quite my take. For ex., I think Emerson expresses my view very well when writing:

What is true of proverbs, is true of all fables, parables, and allegories. This relation between the mind and matter is not fancied by some poet, but stands in the will of God, and so is free to be known by all men. It appears to men, or it does not appear. When in fortunate hours we ponder this miracle, the wise man doubts, if, at all other times, he is not blind and deaf; “Can these things be, And overcome us like a summer’s cloud, Without our special wonder?” for the universe becomes transparent, and the light of higher laws than its own, shines through it.

The key is to see that these higher laws are in no way discontinuous to or independent of our living Reason (reasoning which not only proceeds horizontally, by asking what is true, but also deeply and vertically by asking why it is true, and how/why we know why it is true). Most people view this as an endless recursive loop of reflection, leading us straight into a dead-end of thought from which we cannot escape, or can only escape by mystical thoughtless state. Cleric and myself have been trying to illustrate here why that is not at all true. And, I have been trying to point out how Cleric is a clear example on this forum of the living Reason which metamorphoses into Imagination and what degrees of thought-freedom are opened up as a result.

Granted, for the sake of brevity at 4am, in the predawn withdrawal from the dreamtime, I was oversimplifying ... thanks for the elaboration.

[JeffreyW]

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better.

Well there's at least some sentiment that we can agree on. Perhaps an avenue that we could follow into further convergence. But unless any others here have read Pirsig, it may only be efficacious for us.

I am up for it. But I can already anticipate some things which would make me regret my participation...

Yet, as perchance a basis for dialogos, here's where I'm somewhat baffled. Ashvin's take is that there is a way that we can reason our way into the numinous that doesn't involve mere abstract metaphysical speculation, or just sitting in silent meditation waiting for some ineffable revelation. My take is more like, to quote Pascal, the heart has its reasons whereof reason knows nothing, and that when open to it, the numinous finds us. Jeffrey's take is that the numinous is an archaic metaphysical error. Where could we go from there, if like those Greek philosophers of old, we actually got together in person to parse it out orally, instead of behind these textbound thoughts transfixed like a butterfly collection on this electron screen?

I think I know where we could do that.

[JeffreyW]

I see no point in discussing whatever respective issues we have with BK's model. Albeit for different reasons, I think we'd all be better off discussing those issues with him, however unlikely that is to happen. Neither Jeffrey or I have really delved into Steiner, so not sure how far we'd get with that. Meanwhile, I now remember I thought I would ask him about his take on Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Admittedly, I suppose my highly eclectic approach may not be conducive to a conversation exclusively focused on a specific philosopher. Now that I'm about to delve into Merrell-Wolff's Transformations of Consciousness: The Metaphysics and Epistemology, I was hoping it might inspire some questions for JW, and others, to address. So I may wait and see what comes of that.

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better. He was at University of Chicago a few years before me but didn’t stay long.

Books of Quality for sure...

I see what you did there.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It’s a great book. I thought Lila was even better. He was at University of Chicago a few years before me but didn’t stay long.

Books of Quality for sure...

I see what you did there.

A punster after my own heart.