School of Economic Science
A Small Reflection on the Tempore of Modern Philosophy
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Avital Ronell
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

“Why should metaphor be crisp and clear? Is anything in life ever crisp and clear?”

Definitions are arbitrary, but when we stick to them we can communicate. Crisp means, direct and fresh. Clear means easy to understand.

What is easy to understand in this case is something like the examples I gave above. I see the floor, I see the computer. I express that very directly. I see the computer, there it is. It is fresh because when it was said it was said now, at this time, about that thing. Not about the past, not about abstract things.

The thing here is that we have common sense, which posits hypotheticals, and we say, what is not hypothetical? It is what is concretely given, the immediate things. That is a definition, but it is also an attempt to ground ourselves. We ground ourselves not with the intention of remaining forever on the ground, but only for now. We ground ourselves so as to point with words towards what we can no longer analyze, what we can’t make more defined, more determinate. We look for the limit of clarity, we take clarity and ask, what is the clearest we can be about clarity.

This is a way of moving forward in thought. It involves presuppositions, and we might watch them with a thousand eyes, we don’t avoid the ambiguity that comes from figuration in speech, but from those metaphors that take us away from what we call concrete, we remind ourselves of that. Again and again.

These questions are necessary, but as you see, if we really wanted to answer each of them we enter a seminar, we enter a lecture. That is a very long task.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1099
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is crisp and clear about Plato's nurse and receptacle of all becoming? It is the greatest of metaphors (IMO) but is also ambiguous. If metaphors are too crisp they have only one reading making them more like allegories claimable by by those who profess to know.

My example, what could be more simply stated, a mirror in an empty room, can gignomenon (in whose province it dwells) divine it? I first put it forward because I thought that as there was so much subjectivity in your initial post (which I do not criticize) , I wondered how you would tackle a subjective conundrum. Perhaps I should have explained more, for none of your responses have come near . I was expecting you to tackle the thing in itself, which is ambiguous, instead of telling me what to think (though in another setting I would welcome that, for I have respect) but my little conception is neither yet a metaphor nor is it this person you gently lambast. It needs the treatment here, not me, O doctor.

I see a koan of this nature as a discourse tool for tackling a greater conception in Timaeus, though of course it may turn out inadequate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Stocks



Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 640
Location: Wood Green, London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THE HARD SCREEN NOW SPIKE !

Spark!

The heard scream now spake, and crying seas itself flowing watery by glass breath

The Four of us in attention

Four corner lengths of the glassroom and upright

Then...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Avital Ronell
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What is crisp and clear about Plato's nurse and receptacle of all becoming? It is the greatest of metaphors (IMO) but is also ambiguous

Yes, but I am not speaking of Plato. But of the present. Of a normative prescription for this analysis.

Why? Because I am trying to get at something Plato never tried to do. We can do some things he didn't can’t we? Is that impossible? We rely on the foundation, for he is us, our past, but we live now.

My question to you is, do we start with the things that are before us, that can answer for themselves, or already with wander, already with the remote? Don’t we stump ourselves, because we come to something that the things close to us won’t answer, and only then make metaphors? Do you say all things are hypothetical, or are some more hypothetical than others? Do you say, one starts with metaphor, or one starts with the things before one, those that when I ask why, I can answer, just by looking around, or do I start with the remote questions: the brightness of the moon, why is it bright, some strange question? And then being, and then the all.

Emerson said, arguments convince nobody, for they present themselves as arguments. They are like truth, one is inhospitable to it, it always belongs to another. But, what is said simply is different, it hints at distant depths. Do you deny it? I am trying to show a method that works with what is simple.

The problem is that it contradicts common sense, this brings prejudice. It is a Germanic pattern, because unlike with the Anglo-American tradition, we superseded common sense with our idea. To point ourselves at what will illicit a hint. A fire.

Quote:
"If metaphors are too crisp they have only one reading making them more like allegories claimable by by those who profess to know."


But this is just what we want to dispel, this prejudice. For the deep confusion is in what is very simple, and lies before us. I say: There is the floor. What is a floor, what is this there is? We have too much trouble already, but you insist on adding more? What is it you imagine has but one interpretation, nothing real is like that. Do you deny it?

Again: Is it not that we start with what is simple, and then add much much more trouble than we can take by going also to a metaphor? Or does anyone ever begin with a metaphor, one that they have an interpretation to, such as the cave metaphor? We add more trivial problems? There are enough even with what is most simple.

Metaphors are as bad as our science, our human science. Let us stay away from these truths and metaphors. They go too far. They are impressive, and great. This is not what I wish to go to. I wish to think at last.
Back to top
Mark Stocks



Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 640
Location: Wood Green, London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

THESE TWO-EYES ARE THE FOCAL POINT (OPERATION)

Thence twice the vocal point of silence............a day

The blue collar-gene

Give me a hand

Hour glass grind and sand

Nose kornet blow weave

A bit of confusion

Cone fused just esnuff to breath

Horney glass and whey hay

Meet the need'le in a hay stack


P.S.

Just learnin' me trade, it's not easy, got to earn a crust!

Anyway (rub hands) got me hot pot inth'oven

Yummy Very Happy ..................................in heaven

Just what the doctor ordered
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark Stocks



Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 640
Location: Wood Green, London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LET THINE HAND ON THE MOUSE

Let it weave a heart felt message

Let this peripheral be the cure of all disease

Let this mat be clean in movement

Let these notes undo the knots of our own doing

Let it be done that this screen is scanned and clear

Let the cursor be thine enterprise

Let it be known you are here in peace

And there you are

Making it known

That we are free

Of the curse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1099
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, lead on Ms Ronell. We have these things before us - even to say 'sense objects' or to call them onta tempts us back into a particular way of seeing. We are in the midst of things and that is where we begin. But what is the next step? The young boy suddenly wakes up to the fact that he exists, and somehow it shatters his assumptions. Surely there is a need for some kind of order, but maybe not the old order?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Avital Ronell
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But, firstly, before we start to narcissize better and to musculate more, some odious and oppressive tasks are threatening our humble study:

The way to the stuff I have been trying to get to is meant to point us to thinking, not mere meditative thinking, and not to calculative thinking. We make an intervention into the essence of human existence, but not only to find a specific different way, or an instance of another essence, but to thinking.

The housekeeping issues still linger, and so our feather duster must be again animated, if it is not to chauvinistic, we have to deal with this: It seems to me that you make a mistake, if you indeed take the example of the old peasant woman’s shoes, as you seem to do on this board, for something that speaks to being. That example speaks to the world in its fullness, in the way it is being let seen by van Gogh. A thing in its fullness means that the value qualities, as much as the sensible world, and the world of the mechanical idealism of physics as the seizing hold of the presence of the mathematically graspable things in a phase space, belongs to the full thing. The full thing is by specific modification the thing in itself in Husserl. And we see it when we get an intuition about the whole life, or world, of an historical people. If that was as far as we went, we would do nothing more than the Hindu and far Eastern thought, or even than Plato, we go to a different ‘over there.’ There are a thousand and one people. The people that we are being the final one, at the opening of historicism. Our life being the foundation that stands in the light of the discovery of historicism.

That means the same as, that although in a mechanical sense, our field of vision differs when we are on eg, Mount Diablo (so that we see many more miles, kilometers, etc), from when we are closed into a small room, in another sense we always have the same horizon of sight, always catch the same amount of being. Catching the same amount of being doesn't mean subjectively, nor quantitatively, it is lying in the shadow and chasm of a deep confusion, a deep ambiguity. Time, then, like this is to be thought in the same manner, like a pool, pooling up around us, neither a point system nor a creative unfolding of rythemed novelty.

A historical world is one world. But we have enough knowledge to know, without at all being able to see, that there are more than one. And this opens the door on being. We can say of being only that it is, there is this truth about being, that there is being, but no more can be said here.

We deal here, with rich presuppositions.

Now we must stop and seek strong engagement, everything must be understood plainly.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1099
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dislike what the terms being and becoming have ‘become’. The only thing I would say is that we may awaken, or fall to slumber from one to the other. That doesn’t say much. What we have before us may not always save us from fear and tremblings nor lead us to wonder and astonishment. It is what is before us and something else, I believe, that achieves that.

I think it is unfair of you to ban Plato and yet allow Huserl. Why not ban the whole lot of ‘em, and truly start from where we are? I believe there is enough common ground in human common sense to make that resolution. Though we should guard against inadvertently slipping down olde side-streets

What think you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1099
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe my last post was insufficient. I’d like to give an example.

You say that housekeeping issues still linger, the feather duster, etc.. I’d say they are exactly the crux of the matter, where philosophy starts. Let’s say a simple task that has to be performed or else unhelpful consequences follow. One example is, for me anyway, washing up. Why should such an activity be outside philosophy when there is something astonishing about it - if only for a moment we step out of doziness and habit? I mean that the job suggests itself from the outside, and the information continues to arise from the outside. The hand stretches for a glass … or the correct place to put a pan just seems to present itself, and, as I say, all seems to happen from the outside - unless we should be so unfortunate as to be working from habit, sleepwalking as it were.

I know that it isn’t quite as simple as that (it never is) for there is the little matter of the right kind of order. If you perform this simple task in a stranger's house, you seem to spend most of the time asking where things are or where they go. But even that is philosophy.

This I believe is given, and for myself it is where the adventure starts and thereby the astonishment that all this is outside. What is not outside is simply the wonder one experiences, and the desire to find out more.

I am fortunate enough to be a carer and what I have learnt, for my survival and my wifes, is that a task should be done for its own sake. Human dianoia is always seeking to apply logic to tasks, to save time and, maybe inadvertently, kill this astonishment I talk about. Sometimes it is necessary to apply logic, but reasonably we only need to save time when we have something better to do with the time saved. Otherwise it is simply time ‘stolen’ from the task at hand and the implications of that are to me philosophical; and this is my general drift.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Avital Ronell
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Instead of BEING unfair, we should show that one can not be fair enough. This is what I am, in a way, getting at with my recent essay. Not a ‘forget together’ or a suicide, but a get together with history, with everything that stands there, but of course we can not take it all into our understanding, anymore than we can survey our whole memory.

The question here, we pin to our chests, is: Is the origin now?

What I am saying is we have before us, the fullness of the thing, as understood by Plato, AND, the thing-in-itself as we find it stuck to Husserl. History is very large. It also means there is the most bildet, educated, thought: historicism. And there are its remorseless enemies, Nietzsche and Darwin.

Being says there is something there as a species, as Darwin, for example has it. Plato calls the species an eidos. It means a kind of thing, a stone, a dog, a human being. If one only asks, for example, about the mass, the spatial frame of reference, or the type of motion, one comes up with a leveled truth. I have, for example, an object of so many kilograms, but it makes no cardinal difference to me if it is a Chus Martinez or a cow, a stone or a mischievous girl.

Becoming says there is no eidos, no kind, no human, no forest wilderness and no Faust, every kind is transforming, and serving the obscure thing: change.

You must ask yourself if you truly do not understand what being is, however debased that word is in theory, there is a man there, a woman there, the curves of that being differ, essentially, from those of a dead thing, from a stone. Aristotle says, a hand severed from a body is no hand. It is no longer part of the body, it is become some thing. Is it not that we do indeed live in the world of essences, in the world of the senses? And this world we live in is contrasted with the true world, of, for example, physics, where one is blind to essences.

The Darwinian & Nietzschean question (to some extent also the other Darwinian, Freud) push the difficulty beyond the debate between the reductionists, or levelers, and the people who live in the human world, the world that concerns us. The thinking of Being does this in a different way, but it is scandalous to the hilt.



--

On your second remark:

When someone becomes too involved in the difficulties of what you designate as the outside, of the things that go beyond simple dealing, they become concerned with their appearance, with their achievements, and with human greatness in general. That is the root of the existential orientation, which stems chiefly from the rich doctrine of Rousseau. One must consider the spoliation of simple being in the ego, in the self reflection of the social being or political self.

The existential problem is very different from the theoretical problem, from the difficulty with truth and so from the difficulty with being and becoming. The ground here is complicated and imbricated.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1099
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I should have said not outside but ‘outside’ used non-dualistically. But this would have meant ‘outside is my greater self’, mildly heretical in this day and age.


The cat walks across the lawn, the eye follows it, enwrapped and enrapt. I swear that cat is Being until I see it as Jack a particular cat of flesh and blood, walking across my lawn – a bit of its tail missing. In other words man’s thoughts and assumptions alone hold becoming, and apart from that there is perfect being. In more other words, Being or essence is what we know, all we can really know; becoming lives in and rules our thoughts. Another one of those Greek men de constructions I'm afraid - on the one hand noesis on the other dianoia.

Familiarity is not knowing.

I hope you don't mind me being brief. I find it stops 'cascading'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Avital Ronell
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being here just means you see it as a cat, not a stone.

Becoming, here, means the same as what happens in the Catholic Mass, the little wafer becomes flesh through a change in substance, it captures new qualities.

Historicism is aware that changes in substance happen naturally, some people don't see a cat with a short tail. They may not intuit a carefully constructed distinction between animals and human being or plants, for instance.

We are still at an amazingly remedial level here, because you are showing a remarkable degree of indolence. You seem educationally challenged, try to think over even one sentence of what I write for once, instead of answering by rote as you have been doing all along.

I hope, unexpectedly, to catch a thinker armed with the capacity to help with this study. So far we are traveling mindlessly!
Back to top
Mark Stocks



Joined: 28 Jul 2012
Posts: 640
Location: Wood Green, London

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello All

It is good to see we are havin' a smashin' time in this circley circus torquing away as we do pressurising the release of our precious thoughts.

Was are we sinking about?

A boat?

A pout?

An outpour of salivating hot jittery words making there mark with clean splices called teeth?

Are we a striking match made in Heaven?

Let us dink again shall we and hit the nail on the head

Not a rusty nail with too much past trying to catch up with itself. But a growing nail that pierces through finkers and dumb found.

What is meditative thinking?

I think that your thinking is fantastic. It is a photogragh that I think. I am immersed and content in the content.

I've got me brief sentence on, fancy a swim?

Let us continue to sea it that way

What is proper thinking?

Thinking that is done, and so enjoy....a little word play

In the beginning was the word. The rest is a play. A play.....on the word


Just a reminder..

For me I get and forget, and so I don't know I am forgetting

For you I give and forgive, and so we are together in remembering

The Purpose of Memory

The continuous dent shall continue to turn without grinding but stillness and of a Pure Pose and reflective kinkdome

P.S.

Can our maturity polish beyond these infantile teethings and make beautiful work?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1099
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, m’dear, let’s hope someone does step up to confront this challenging material. It’s far beyond my interest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved