Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 178
1
General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: November 11, 2019, 02:23:57 pm »
Mr. Robot has been pretty good this season so far.  Also, His Dark Materials has also been a good new show, now 2 episodes in.  I've never read the books though, so I can't compare.

The Watchmen TV show has also been quite good.  At first I was figuring I wouldn't care, since these were new characters, but in actuality, the show is well done and quite interesting in it's own right, plus there seems to be tons of nods to be movie and the comic books.  I'd recommend it, but only if you already saw the movie first.

Also, we checked out the show Dickinson which is on AppleTV+, or whatever they are calling the service.  First, let's start with the good.  The set designs and costumes are top notch.  However, everything that isn't an inanimate object though, unfortunately, is horrendous.  As far as my wife and I could tell, the premise of the show is: "Everyone knows that Emily Dickinson wasn't Dariah, but what this show presupposes is, maybe she was?"  I could go on about the discongruity between all sorts of modern music and notions just don't seem to "work" in the show, but it's wasted breath.  Even the half hour of episode one had me checking how much was left to bear multiple times.

If this the what Apple will be pushing out, I don't expect them to be around long.

2
General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: November 08, 2019, 11:22:40 pm »
Quote
The path from illusion to its critical denunciation is the very core of philoso­phy, which means that successful ("true") philosophy is no longer defined by its truthful explanation of the totality of being, but by successfully accounting for the illusions, that is, by explaining not only why illusions are illusions, but also why they are structurally necessary, unavoidable, and not just accidents.
Slavoj Žižek - Less Than Nothing

3
General Earwa / Re: What is the Eärwan Soul?
« on: November 01, 2019, 05:59:24 pm »
This seems like an on-the-mark take of what Bakker might be getting at with his Tekne. While the analogy of a philosophical zombie has never been helpful for me, your deep dive into Hegelian thinking may shed some light for me. This post, in particular, while difficult for me to understand, may be the key that unlocks Earwan metaphysics.

Great job, H!

That's kind of how I feel, I think I am drawing ever closer, but my thought on it are still not clear and my post definitely was not.

Still, I think this line of thinking has some merit, but it needs to be drawn out more succinctly.  While my typical loose associations sometimes make things easier, they usually make things harder.  This is definitely the case where i they help getting a foot into the door, but hurt prying the door open.

4
General Earwa / Re: What is the Eärwan Soul?
« on: October 31, 2019, 09:57:28 pm »
So, since this thread is basically "H does a bad reading of Hegel and Bakker" I thought, why not roll it forward?

I found this article: Phenomenology of Spirit: Substance as Subject

Which, of course made me think of this quote from TUC:
Quote
“That the No-God collapses Subject and Object,” the one-eyed monk replied. “That it is the Absolute.”

Now, rereading it for probably the 50th time, I have no idea why I thought this was a statement of the No-God's nature, but I realize now that it's pretty clearly a statement of the No-God's purpose.  In retrospect, I have no idea how or why I would ever have considered it otherwise.  In light of that, though, now that I learn to read a bit, lets take this forward a bit.

So, if the purpose of the No-God is to unite Subject and Object, what does that do for our hypothetical Eärwan Soul?  Let's just recall that earlier in this thread, I came to the point that the Eärwan Soul is essentially something of the Hegelian Spirit.

Also, let us recall Bakker's notion:
I've been interested in apophatics for quite some time, but the No-God predates that interest. A better way to think of the No-God is as a philosophical zombie (p-zombie), of a piece with all the other soulless instruments of the Inchoroi. A perfectly unconscious god, and so in that respect, entirely at one with material reality, continuous with it, and so an agency invisible to the Outside.

So, wait now, again, I clearly had been taking this the "wrong way" and now that seems much clearer.

The No-God is a p-zombie, in the sense that it seems conscious, it experiences the experience of consciousness, but is not.  Not only that, but somehow, the Sarcophagus itself, that is The Object, is not a "negative God," whatever that would be, but rather, it is the negation of God's purpose.  So, it, to get to the Mutilated's quote, enforces the notion (somehow) that Subject and Objects are just the same things.

So, let's try to roll together this notion of Spirit or Soul.  The Soul is the ledger, it's the thing with "eternal significance," so the conveyer of Meaning.  That is, it is the conveyance of "purpose."  Spirit, as the eternal sort of teleological substance, is what gives Subjectivity any actual meaning.  Consider, if everything was just an object, what difference, in the grand scheme of things, would it make what one object did in relation to another?  Neither knows or cares.  Neither remembers or considers otherwise.  All things just are, interact in whatever way, and end up in whatever state they do.  Sure, those end states might differer one way or another, but at the "end" what configuration, state, relation, order, or whatever, they are in has no bearing on anything.  Because they are just Objects and only objects to themselves and to each other.  Consider, does your dryer care what configuration the clothes in it are in?  Does it care if they are dry or not?  Does it care in what order they went in or come out?  Does it care about anything?  No, only Subjects would.

So, here, let me ramble a little less.  The No-God is the Materialist God.  As God would be the sort of teleological ratification of Subjectivity, that is, of Spirit so the No-God is the teleological ratification of Materialism, that is, of Objects simply related to each other as Objects.

This would be why the No-God cannot see itself.  It doesn't know what it is.  Because it has no self-awareness, because to be self-aware, you need to be a Subject.  You need to differentiate yourself, from other Objects.  But the No-God is Materialism made a fact.  You might experience self-awareness, you might experience the notion of Meaning, but the No-God reveals this, like it's own existence, as an illusion.  In the same way that the No-God experiences consciousness, but is not in actuality.

Everything is merely meat.  Objects.  Objects operating on, with, against each other.  But in the end, none of it "matters" because things are just material.  Where the God of gods is manifest Idealism, the No-God is manifest Materialism.

Now, what is the mechanism?  I have no idea.  It's "magic," it's fantasy.  I don't know.  But I think the Hegelian approach does yield us some interesting fruit.  That, or give some some fuel to burn in the Nonsense Fire...

Now, back to digging through indirect Schelling for me.

5
I stumbled up a thesis from someone named Benjamin Berger, who says:

Quote
As will become clear over the course of this study, ‘spirit’ is nothing ‘other-worldly’ for Schelling or Hegel, but is simply the inner freedom which defines a distinctive way of being. What makes spirit non-natural is not, therefore, that it is ‘supernatural’, as if there were a spiritual reality above and beyond nature. Rather, spirit is non-natural in that it is structured in a very different manner than any natural forms and is consequently capable of a range of activities which no natural entity—not even highly developed non-human animals—are capable, activities which are expressions of spiritual freedom.[/i]

So, that makes me feel a little better than my likely incoherent rambling is at least somewhat grounded, or at least there is someone else who has a similar idea.

Also, I found this video (which is unlisted, so it wouldn't come up in a search, if you had looked): Schelling's Discovery of the Meaning of History

6
"Wir sehen hiemit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes" ?

Can you elaborate on this? Thanks!

So, Hegel basically says "language is the Dasein of Geist" in the Phenomenology.  Now, most english translation makes Dasein into "being-there" but this hardly make the sentence more comprehendible.  In fact, because Hegel uses the purposely "philosophical" term, one that was often used in Idealism terms.  While "being-there" is a literal translation, Heidegger would later use the term to mean something more like "being-in-the-world" as indicating a more participatory role, something I guess one could call "active" Being, rather than just a passive being, say, mere existence.

So, to me, what Hegel is saying there, or what Hegel says to me, is that language, that is, the action of using language to describe or communicate, is the active participatory creation of what we might call "spirit."  Minus language, notions of temporality, intentionality, meaning fall away, since even if they are thing-in-themselves absent language, what manner would we have to describe them minus it?

So, the sort of "spirit-world" or if you want it, a spiritual "Soul," is born out of language and language is the "Dasein," the actual participation in and so the actual Being-in-the-world, of something "transcendental."  Consider, if the Spirit is transcendental, that is, is not "of matter/material" then where could it be in this world so that we might conceive of it?  In the mind, it would seem, and the mind's manner of forming and articulating such mental content must be, in some way, language?  Right?

Well, I hope this made some sense, but I just got up and haven't had coffee yet.

On a related note, I am trying to read Žižek's book on Schelling, since Schelling's work itself is a bit hard to find.

7
Philosophy & Science / Re: "Scholastic Metaphysics" by Edward Feser
« on: October 28, 2019, 12:24:07 pm »
You might be thinking of Feser himself, I know Sci has mentioned him.  I think I might have a couple of his books around, but I haven't gotten to read any just yet.

8
Well, that first paper was super opaque to me.  This second one seems more helpful.

Considering that my default position was off the Outside as a sort of Hegelian Geist-Realm, now I think actually it does make a bit more sense as a Hegelian-Schelling Geist-Nature "system."

From what little I have been able to gather though, Schelling's "System" (which is what he does actually refer to it as and is likely not a coincidence that Bakker uses that same word in "System Resumption") is actually more apt to the whole of Earwa, only with Hegel's sort of "Wir sehen hiemit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes" layered over it.  Which, thinking along those lines, actually makes some sense as to what the Outside seems differentiated from the Real.

Obviously I need to delve deeper though.

9
I'm not up on Schelling like I no doubt I should be, considering how often I find myself in German Idealism, or something based off it.

I'll read up and get back to you.

10
General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: October 21, 2019, 12:43:57 pm »
I've watched the first 2 episodes of Carnival Row ... first impressions are as follows, hoping someone can tell me it gets better ( lie to me if you have to ).

I think it gets a bit better, IIRC.  I actually think I might actually have fallen asleep myself in the first two or so episodes...

11
General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: October 18, 2019, 03:27:48 pm »
Quote
We are now in a position to draw out the implications of Dasein's special way of being, which is existence. Cultures and cultural institutions have existence as their way of being, and so does each of us. To exist is to take a stand on what is essential about one's being and to be defined by that stand. Thus Dasein is what, in its social activity, it interprets itself to be. Human beings do not already have some specific nature. It makes no sense to ask whether we are essentially rational animals, creatures of God, organisms with built-in needs, sexual beings, or complex computers. Human beings can interpret themselves in any of these ways and many more, and they can, in varying degrees, become any of these things, but to be human is not to be essentially any of them. Human being is essentially simply self-interpreting.

Hubert Dreyfus - Being-in-the-world: A Commentary of Heidegger's Being And Time

12
General Misc. / Re: Board Games and Miniatures
« on: October 16, 2019, 01:00:29 pm »
Twilight Imperium would be awesome, but I don't have anyone that would want to play a game like that with me. Too much time investment for the others I guess. Games that size (gloomhaven, descent, etc.) just aren't on the docket.

It is definitely the sort of game I want to play, just that I don't have the time or anyone to play it with, haha.

My most recent purchase was Ex Libris - you play as the curator of a town library. You compete with other players for the best/rarest books, trying to impress the city inspector who assigns points based on size, stability, variety, rarity, and theme. Basically you collect cards in various ways, arrange them in alphabetical order as best you can. Its pretty fun, a worker replacement game, and the book titles (of where there are some 600+) are pretty witty and brilliant making it fun to read them.

Sounds like fun.  I think I've recommended them to you before, but you might like Stanislaw Lem's A Perfect Vacuum and Imaginary Magnitudes, one is a book of reviews for books that don't exist and the other is introductions to books that don't exist.

13
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 12:57:55 pm »
Could be that the first one is so short you can't get a solid feeling for it. But also, in generally I find people don't like books that are confusing and throw you into the middle of a story that already happening. This is definitely what happens in Gunslinger, so I'm not surprised it is not fondly remembered by many.

I might also just be remembering parts from other books and figuring they were in that first one.  But I do recall liking it for how vaguely it sketched the past.  Of course, I read it probably 15 years ago, maybe even more...

14
Literature / Re: Yearly Targets 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 12:44:12 pm »
I've heard this is bar far the worst in the series, so I was worried about this book and had low expectations. Maybe that colored my opinion about it, but if this is the worst the series has to offer then there's nothing to worry about. Hard to give it a strong recommendations, but there was also nothing in there to turn me away.

Weird.  I read the first three a long, long time ago and I recall taking forever to get through the second one, seemed way "worse" (but not actually bad) than the first one.  Might just be a selective recalling on my part though, but I remember the first as pretty good.

I probably should finish that series one day...

15
General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: October 09, 2019, 06:33:47 pm »
Thanks for the heads up, I missed first episode and it ain't on In Demand, so I missed it.

H - be a sweetie and provide a Spoiler response here with a quick run down of episode 1 so I can just jump into the 2nd this Sunday? Pretty please :) :) :)

Wait you want me to spoil it?  Haha, well, ok.  It's a really good episode though, so I'd highly suggest watching it, if you somehow can.  But, if it's not possible, well, then here you go:

(click to show/hide)

If you bothered to read all that:

(click to show/hide)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 178