JW,JeffreyW wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:46 am ...
It is also a gross error to suggest I remain trapped in dualism. I propose that consciousness is a physical part of Being, just as everything else is. It is the idealist who is trapped in dualism when he tries to claim consciousness as non-physical.
I have every desire to continue this conversation, which could turn very interesting. But I do ask that we at least proceed from a better understanding of what I have presented. Sometimes people project onto me what they have seen others write.
I don't see how it can turn interesting when you are ignoring every substantive part of my argument. I keep pointing out how the concepts are functioning in your system and you keep going back to an analysis of specific abstract terms used by previous thinkers and how they differ in form alone from the abstract terms you use. In your last comment, you once again illustrate my point - "I have continually said that we can only know Being POETICALLY or musically in its unmediated experience, but only what Being reveals to us. If we know it poetically, then you could hardly claim I say we cannot know or say it, but rather I limit ontological knowledge to poetic speech, music, and art - not objective representation."
That is nothing other than Schopenhauer's epistemic position. The intellectual gymnastics which must be done to distance your own view from Schop are impressive, but not at all convincing. Anyone can contemplate the underlying meaning of what you wrote there, compare it to the underlying meaning of Schop's epistemology, and see they are exactly the same. Schop is clearly within the tradition of Kantian epistemology as well. You have taken your own personal inability to perceive the ontic and objectively valid ideal dynamics of aesthetics and projected it onto Reality itself. You say it is now a limit which applies to Being and its phenomenal representations, now and (practically) forever. So, ironically, you objectify Being and reduce it down to the size of your intellect, rather than letting-it-lie where it remains in its full richness and seeking to overcome your own limitations.
Tarnas wrote:The modern mind has demanded a specific type of interpretation ofthe world: its scientific method has required explanations of phenomena that are concretely predictive, and therefore impersonal, mechanistic, structural. To fulfill their purposes, these explanations of the universe have been systematically "cleansed" of all spiritual and human qualities. Of course we cannot be certain that the world is in fact what these explanations suggest. We can be certain only that the world is to an indeterminate extent susceptible to this way of interpretation. Kant's insight is a sword that cuts two ways. Although on the one hand it appears to place the world beyond the grasp of the human mind, on the other hand it recognizes that the impersonal and soulless world of modern scientific cognition is not necessarily the whole story. Rather, that world is the only kind of story that for the past three centuries the Western mind has considered intellectually justifiable. In Ernest Gellner's words, "It was Kant's merit to see that this compulsion [for mechanistic impersonal explanations] is in us, not in things." And "it was Weber's to see that it is historically a specific kind of mind, not human mind as such, that is subject to this compulsion.
- The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View