Dgarr, I say "bread on the water" and you bite, saying, a progression towards Spiritual vampirism. You make an assumption; that trans-cognitive knowledge is a product of a failure of knowledge. That is a bias to categorize all perception beyond one's own as a negative, as a No-thing-ness, as the place of dragons. It will keep you from going places...
As for Latin, I do not speak it, so you will have to tell me if I missed anything. Here is a story. Many years ago, I looked into a PhD in philosophy at the Univ of Chi & they said fine, but wanted me to learn a dead dialect of Greek. Studying primary souces is good, as those things go, but it takes a lot of time away from actually be-ing a philosopher. I then looked at their syllubus and the last thing they had on psychology was Freud! No Jung even. My, my, how the logical positivists have plied their way...
Everyone, here is my request: stop telling me what other philosophers told you about what they saw. That is looking into a mirror. Tell me your philosophy/meta-narrative, or better, just what you *see.*
Nandric: thank you for asking me back, and not in semiotics, etc., which makes my old head hurt these days!
You also make an assumption, again, one symptomatic of an attachment/bias (I do not mean disrespect in saying this, its just the most concise way of saying it...). You assume that a metaphor/symbol, in order to convey knowledge to the "brain," must do so in thought-constructs, which we then use to talk to each other in sentences. Yes, that is knowledge too. But I have a question: when you are not think-ing, who/what are you? Do you disappear when you are not-thinking? If not, then the silence between thought-constructs, like the silence between notes, must be prior to that construct. And, if prior, then actually its ground.
When you are deeply listening to the music, and the attachment to cognitive/objective grasping and control has faded into an open silent ground, do you cease perceiving meaning in the music-constructs greeting you from your stereo?
I would love to take credit for the Geese metaphor, but it was written many centuries ago by someone who knew more than me and is, in fact, not a metaphor - that is another assumption. That is part of its trap, for the mind that grasps to see its knowledge in terms of only thought-constructs (and even though, illogically, that same mind experiences musical meaning from a symmetry of consciousness that is absent of thought). It is actually a koan, meant to produce silence in the mind. How? Because the harder your thinking mind tries to wring its meaning through cognicizing, the more cognitive turmoil it catalyzes. It is a letting-go exercise, or a putting-down exercise, however you want to shake that rattle.
When you stop shaking the cognitive-attached rattle, what can you *see*? If you can logically concede that a knowledge may exist that integrates all cognitive knowledge while at once transcending it, are you not, as minds on a knowledge search, at least obligated to be open to that possibility?
But to the cognicizing mind, attached to the mirror, this feels like a death, with concurrent recoil.
The recoil is from the possibility of a deeper symmetry of perceptive consciousness, one that is equally all of our potential.
As I said, argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours (another stolen quote).
Now, I have to go clean out the gutters. Wish me luck...
As for Latin, I do not speak it, so you will have to tell me if I missed anything. Here is a story. Many years ago, I looked into a PhD in philosophy at the Univ of Chi & they said fine, but wanted me to learn a dead dialect of Greek. Studying primary souces is good, as those things go, but it takes a lot of time away from actually be-ing a philosopher. I then looked at their syllubus and the last thing they had on psychology was Freud! No Jung even. My, my, how the logical positivists have plied their way...
Everyone, here is my request: stop telling me what other philosophers told you about what they saw. That is looking into a mirror. Tell me your philosophy/meta-narrative, or better, just what you *see.*
Nandric: thank you for asking me back, and not in semiotics, etc., which makes my old head hurt these days!
You also make an assumption, again, one symptomatic of an attachment/bias (I do not mean disrespect in saying this, its just the most concise way of saying it...). You assume that a metaphor/symbol, in order to convey knowledge to the "brain," must do so in thought-constructs, which we then use to talk to each other in sentences. Yes, that is knowledge too. But I have a question: when you are not think-ing, who/what are you? Do you disappear when you are not-thinking? If not, then the silence between thought-constructs, like the silence between notes, must be prior to that construct. And, if prior, then actually its ground.
When you are deeply listening to the music, and the attachment to cognitive/objective grasping and control has faded into an open silent ground, do you cease perceiving meaning in the music-constructs greeting you from your stereo?
I would love to take credit for the Geese metaphor, but it was written many centuries ago by someone who knew more than me and is, in fact, not a metaphor - that is another assumption. That is part of its trap, for the mind that grasps to see its knowledge in terms of only thought-constructs (and even though, illogically, that same mind experiences musical meaning from a symmetry of consciousness that is absent of thought). It is actually a koan, meant to produce silence in the mind. How? Because the harder your thinking mind tries to wring its meaning through cognicizing, the more cognitive turmoil it catalyzes. It is a letting-go exercise, or a putting-down exercise, however you want to shake that rattle.
When you stop shaking the cognitive-attached rattle, what can you *see*? If you can logically concede that a knowledge may exist that integrates all cognitive knowledge while at once transcending it, are you not, as minds on a knowledge search, at least obligated to be open to that possibility?
But to the cognicizing mind, attached to the mirror, this feels like a death, with concurrent recoil.
The recoil is from the possibility of a deeper symmetry of perceptive consciousness, one that is equally all of our potential.
As I said, argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours (another stolen quote).
Now, I have to go clean out the gutters. Wish me luck...