@Pythagorean,
"I don't think that what you're saying has very much to do with the philosophy of empiricism. Because it doesn't fit."
Pythagorean, I think your right it does not quite fit does it.Empircism though is subjectivity, and if you approach the object with a nihilistic understanding it should be apparent the qualities of the object belong to the subject. Although there are some commonalities between subjects[example sense perceptions] empricism could never be a hundred percent.
"What you are talking about I think, is what I would call "the unity of thinking and being".
Yes,I have never heard it expressed like that, but yes your on the right track.It is a time when you lose entirely any sense of being separate from the world [object].
"It is perhaps best described as a special kind of thinking. It is a thinking within which the act or process of coming to direct knowledge or certainty is done without the use of reasoning or inference: or it is done within an immediate cognizance or conviction without rational thought: experienced as a kind of revelation by insight or like 'innate' knowledge: or as a kind of perception gained by intutition."
You are right here again,it is not a rational process,often it is entered into without intent and the experience is only later evaluated as to its meaning for the subject.
"I would describe it as a kind of thinking which knows what it's true content is and which simultaneously posesses the unity of thinking and being clearly before it. So that the so-called "external" part of the pure perception is acting as if it were a subjective mental element -but more than that, this 'external-come-mental element' seems to somehow
know itself as part of the subject, so that it is all together a kind of sheer unified subjectivity even though it is real perception."
Well,I do not know about the later part here,"The external seeming to somehow know itself as part of the subject."I am reminded here of Nietzsche's,"He who believes the stars are above him,lacks the eye of the deserning one."I have taken things off track though I fear,you are correct it is not empircism,but it is not a leap of faith either,it is not even a concept at the time of its event{actuality}.
This would be what I would call "a gripping of ontological grounds." In this state there will be no difference between external and internal. Here we might say:
"The ground is my body, my mind moves in what moves the world."
Yes,you pretty much have it,but if you were there, there would be no discription, perphaps the proverbal awe!
"Plato might have called it participation in the "Idea"."
The Upanishads call it participation in divinity.When one sees from the mountains top the wide expanse of oceans,when one looks into the starry heavens and says,awe,this is partispation in divinity.
Just an added thought,perhaps the experience of the sublime is often the gateway to this experience.
--Pythagorean,
I want to thank you,yes you were on the mark! Much thanks for the feedback,it is most helpful! Happy Trails Pythagorean!
).
