Baal I asked you to check the video section on how to quote if you had you would also have noticed one on how to multi-quote, you can't miss it, it's right there on the home page when you first hit this site. I was not critising you're context of your post, (if you go back and check what I said), hell I couldn't even follow you or read you, I do beg your pardon.
Thanks.

The concept I think that is being simplified is that explanations of dialectics are invariably synchronic, in the way that any explanation of is a static snapshot of durative experience. The thought is the interpretive experience of the spirit and the spirit is internally omnipresent, yet innexplicable in the empiric. Any point of memory is not the memory of the process of duration it is a memory of a specific moment. The spirit and the dialectic is the process of the present and is always in the present and experienceing the duration. We however, never consciously experience the present. Once the experience is processed consciously it is already a memory, a snapshot. One of the things that Hegel, I think, was trying to express has a similar base to that which Bergson tried to explain. That which we are and the process of our thought is not attainable in any meaningful way because the concepts of memory, and the synchronic are not compatible with the happening or becoming of the process.

GoshisDead,

What you have said is thought provoking. Excellent!

I agree that each moment that happens within the mind is like a snap shot. These snap shorts are so quick, and come up and go down so rapidly, (like the picture on a reel of film), that they only give the illusory impression of movement through time.

Some have said that all of these moments supposedly taking place are in fact simultaneous within Spirit. I, on the other hand, do not see how this is possible as the Spirit is not a thinking instrument of any kind or some kind of a non-functioning mind in stasis. Spirit is a whole other dimension. Spirit requires no objects to mull over, and each thought is a mind object albeit short lived.

I wouldn’t say that Spirit was experiencing duration, at least not as duration. If Spirit were transcendent of time and space then duration wouldn’t be a real possibility.

There is so much that Spirit doesn’t experience as mind does. Mind is constantly playing catch up or dwells in the past as you have said. In order to be completely in the Present everything that has happened before must be let go of. (Clear the deck for the All of the Present) Mind simply cannot do that. Mind is the accumulation of the past. If it totally lets go of previous ideas, it simply isn’t.

We do however experience the present at a more subtle level than that of the mind. Some have called this Pure Awareness.

Bergson’s “Synchronic not being compatible with becoming.” If I understand this correctly, is about the size of it. But to go even further, it isn’t that we can’t string events together in a lineal fashion much like language does, it is more that even a single moment in the mind is too slow to dwell in the Immediate with Spirit. By the time you have processed any single moment of thought, it too is already the past.

This is why, although Spirit is full and alive, Spirit is not graspable in at Its very essence by the mind. Yet we can 'Be Spirit', because 'Being' is 'Spirit' is without any need of processing.

Subjectivity9.

For Hegel, pure being is nothingness. I think that's the beginning of his Logic.

But I offer this in humility. I'm still learning about the man.

I think there's a fascinating correlation between Hegel's concept of Being and Jung's concept of the Archetype. Just as indeterminate being is a nothingness, so is the archetype apart from its contingent manifestation.

I think we do dance around the maypole, and this maypole is the archetype behind god-self-kosmos (there is no proper name for an archetype -- for the archetype is essentially indeterminate, ineffable).

I read that Hegel simply felt as a young man that "all is one." I see this as the operation of what Jung would call an archetype. Note that Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Parmenides were similar in their drive toward monism.

I posit a hard-wired tendency toward monism inherent in the human mind. We find it in the Christian religion, as God (singular) in man (singular). We find it in Physics as the quest for the unified field theory. We find it in Occam's Razor. We find it in modern art. (Ad Reinhardt, Yves Klein, Richard Serra.)

We say "reality" (singular). We say "the world" (singular). "The world is all that is the case."
The word "all" is singular.

See what I mean?

Reconstructo,

I mean this in no way as a comment upon you. These are just a few things bumping around in my head. : ^ )

I believe that Hegel had a more complex understanding of ‘being’ and ‘nothingness’ than what could be summed up in one small sentence. Don’t you?

I would go so far as to say that, investigating into ‘being’ and or ‘nothingness’ would be a lifetime pursuit, and not something to accomplish on weekends. I believe that what we would be looking for here is, a depth on understanding, and this like any wisdom takes time.

I personally see logic as a truncating of reasoning, and death to any investigation of any depth. Although logic in its more mathematical manifestation is good/useful for many things, in the case of something like ‘Being,' I believe that it could only skim along the surface of what could be understood. I daresay, 'Being' may be more intimate than most subjects we look into.

Logic is similar to our saying that H2O is water. But water, itself, is certainly more complex and wondrous that 3 little symbols.

I do not see Archetypes as being the same thing as ‘Being, at/all. I see Archetypes as symbolic in a similar way as H2O is, whereas Being is really hard to pin down in such a manner. Being is our essential Self. Archetypes, on the other hand, are just some of our possibilities once we in fact do exist.

Archetypes are within Psyche, and a part of her architecture. Psyche, however, abides within Being, like a dream or imagination, or story line. In a way, these are a hierarchy of sorts.


I do not see ‘Being’ as being trapped in time and space, or finitude. Too many people, like myself, have questioned this concept based upon our own personal experience of “Being.” ‘Being’ is not a thought, or even a concept. And, ‘Being” is not becoming.

I believe that we may very well be tapping into another dimension here. Something transcendentof the mind. In this way, Being would stand alone and apart. Being may not even be subject to the duality of the mind, and so would even transcend one-ness. (Not to mention transcending the concept of zero.)

Yes, mind does seem to be hard wired into duality and therefore finds its highest understanding of being in monism, or even unity. But, Being may not be all about homogenization of everything within finitude or the mind.

If I have misunderstood you in any way, please bare with me. I am curious about your reply.

Warm regards,
S9

Sentences are virus. "Being" is just a word. What it refers to is something else. I suspect that totality / unity/ singular being are programmed in us. 1 is the loneliest and holiest of numbers.

Reconstructo,

When you say, “Sentences are virus,” do you mean that a sentence is dependent upon its host, Being, in order to exist, and that this is much like a virus depends upon a living cell in order to exist? Therefore a sentence is in no way autonomous, or independent.

The word “Being” is representational. It is also instrumental as Zen says, “A finger pointing,” at actual ‘Being.’ This ‘Being’ is a more deeply intimate and directly experienced, than our more conceptual self is.

It is, of course, questionable as to what is being programmed into us (genetically speaking), and what we continue to see momentarily as our ‘Present Reality.’ For instance, if totality, meaning wholeness, is what we Present Are, why would we need programming of this fact? We could simply LOOK.

To me that is what Ultimate Reality “IS”, “Isness” right there in your face every given moment, and calls for no memory or reasoning. “Isness” is that obvious. (Once you know where to look.) But we constantly clothe “Isness” in concept and opinion to the point where we can no longer see “Isness” directly. So we feel lost in a forest of words.

1 (ONE) would only be lonely if there was any possibility of separation, and then you could long for that part/person/place that you were separated from. But, if 1 (ONE) was the same thing as ‘non-separation,’ than you would have all of everything, all of the time, or rather BE everything. You would finally find a satisfaction, which is not possible in a dualistic world of separate thinks/persons.

I’m off to read a bit more about Hegel’s ideas.

Soon,
S9

I may be missing the point here, or I may be getting back to it.

Kant's first antinomy is about whether or not the world has a beginning.
He has proofs for both (beginning or no beginning) hence there is an antinomy.

After reading the passage, I got the impression that Hegel had decided that the world must have a beginning. Does Hegel give his reasons for deciding that the world must have a beginning? If instead, the world had no beginning and always was, would Hegel's passage have any bearing on reality?

I'm probably missing the point but I do think I am right in that the first question to answer is this:

Was Hegel successful in resolving Kant's first antinomy?

Deckard,

It is my opinion that the antinomies come up only because we are comparing apples and oranges here. Transcendence isn’t about the world and isn’t subject to the same laws. The world (one dimension), is superimposed on top of Transcendence is entirely different dimension altogether. The world is finitude, and Transcendence is Eternal. It doesn't work out if we try to homogenize these two.

There is no first question that needs to be answered. There is only what questions are you interested enough in to spend the time looking into it.

Joseph Campbell, “Follow your bliss.”

No one was successful in resolving Kant’s antinomies. That is why we are still looking into these things.

I am told that very few people even understand Hegel, if he did figure it out. So we still need an interpreter. Are you he? ; ^ )

S9

Something very like that. A sentence is written. It's a sequence of letters and spaces. It only comes alive in the mind of an idiosyncratic reader. I suppose I'm emphasizing that meaning only exists in its full sense privately. Burroughs used the "cut-up method" for inspiration. Words allow us to do this. They exteriorize and de-temporalize our discourse. We can juggle the pieces and see what happens. We have word processors that modify it for us (spelling and grammar checking, etc.) Also, a good phrase is remembered and repeated, so sentences reproduce this way. Our written culture could be described as a virus in symbiotic relation with its human host.

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 10:42 PM ----------


I agree. This is why Heidegger put the word "under erasure." He wrote it and crossed it out, to emphasize the point you make. I suspect that "consciousness" and the Wittgensteinian philosophical self are similar entities, that point away from themselves.

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 10:45 PM ----------


I agree. But I must add that much of this "is-ness" is the consciousness of words. Let's assume that this "isness" is received in a non-dual form. SO quickly our mind will process it for us! It seems we only get it always already processed. As soon as we talk or think about it, we enter the realm of logos, which is a nexus of metaphors, living and dead. It occurs to me more and more lately how important negation has been to man. Just as the zero in math is vital, so is negation in philosophy. Words like "in-finite," "in-effable," etc. It allows us to distance ourselves...

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 10:52 PM ----------


Yeah, when I said "lonely," I was mostly quoting that catchy song. Indeed, totality and oneness is another name for the goal (which I have decided to symbolize with the matheme "o"). "o" is replacing "meta-ideal" for me. It's a circle and and also a letter. What we want is "o." But this "o" is ineffable. If we dance around in a ring and suppose, this "o" sits in the middle and knows.

As to being everything...I've had great great moments. As soon as I remember/describe them, I'm forced to squeeze them into the duality of logos. The more I think about it, the more I am tempted to use the word "feeling" for mystical experience. Especially when talking to a cynic. We all know what "feeling" means. Even if feeling is an understatement, it sneaks under the radar of "scientific" prejudice.

The Byronic/Satanic hero would be a lonely sort of oneness, now that I think about it. It's egotism, self-as-god, gallows humor, etc. Byron wrote a play called Manfred a lot like Faust, but darker. Nietzsche was obsessed with as a teen. Nietzsche is just a late ironic Romantic, I think. Of course I still think he's great, while not denying his many faults.

Enjoying the conversation by the way!
recon

---------- Post added 12-24-2009 at 11:01 PM ----------

Kojeve makes Hegel sound like Spinoza on wheels.....

Reconstructo,

Perhaps personal meaning exists privately because imagination exists privately. I don’t believe there is any such thing as ‘group meaning,’ only ‘agreed upon meaning’ out of our need to co-operate. But, we don’t genuinely live by group meaning. We only abide by it.

Culture also comes out of our need to co-operate. But, whereas, meaning is a necessity of our mental comfort, culture is more of a necessity for our physical survival.

I believe that our more physical self, and our mental self-image are only representative of what we believe ourselves to be. We try to make ourselves objects. This is certainly not the Truth of the matter. Some have described us to be “Pure Possibility.” But, in my way of seeing it, even that it too limiting.

I don’t believe that ‘Ultimate Isness’ plays with words at all. Eckhart describes ‘Ultimate Awareness’ as a Dark Mystery. Everything proceeds out of it, but no mind can peer into it. It is mind that first puts words to this mystery. But, in so doing, immediately loses ‘Immediate Correspondence with Pure Isness.’

‘Isness’ is, of course, non-dual but takes no form, whatsoever.

I think we have insights on multiple levels. In some insights (breakthroughs) we are within Being, which isn’t the same as viewing Being or “Isness,” from without. We are inside Isness looking out, with no possible way of describing where we are, and yet there is a ‘Certainty’ that we are Isness, pure and simple, (much like you know that you have an arm without the need to check first, if it is still there.)

Other insights of a lesser kind, do seem to come into our minds like a full grow child. No need to grow them with attention. This may come close to what Christian’s call “Grace,” or a gift.

The mind is purely capable of distancing itself, and viewing itself and its life like a movie. We are no longer tossed about like the waves in the ocean. Some people refer to this stage of ‘standing apart,’ as “The Witness.” The experience of this is a little like standing in the eye of a hurricane. While life goes on, it is no longer owned.

I don’t mean to be difficult, but in my way of seeing it, the symbol “o” would be limiting, as “Isness” is has more freedom than that. “Isness” has neither center, nor a circumference.

“o” has both. Just look at the symbol “o.” The circular line is representative of circumference, and the emptiness within is the center.

I thought you might have had some insights/breakthroughs. You have a clarity that is unusual.

Feeling is certainly one of the better words to describe the experience of everything. But like you say, no word is perfect, and they all cannot jump high enough. Some describe it as solitude, other as “Being alone with the alone.” Alone with satisfaction might be a good one.

S9

Both "isness" and "o" are names of the unnameable. We both have our favorites, whether those or them or not. Also I think humans have an anxiety of influence. We don't even want to agree completely. Not in usual circumstances.

I find myself in general agreement with your post. If I like "o," it's because I also love math and Lacan. Lacan used mathemes and I came to understand why. A matheme is not even a word, just a symbol. For me, it's about whittling it down as much as possible. But perhaps we are using "o" and "isness" differently.

For me, "o" symbolizes the archetype which is never experienced directly (from a Jungian point of view). I use the symbol "x" for particular human conceptions of the goal. For instance, compare your ideal with someone on here who is your opposite. I don't know who, but they have their own quite different conception of virtue. It seems that all thinking types have an ideal of some kind. It's the power they either align themselves with or incarnate. Some call it "reason" or "science." Some call it "transcendence." These would be x's. It seems as thought behind all the particular contradictory x's is an "o." So "o" is a view from the outside. It would be part of depth-psychology rather than religion. In depth-psychology, a word is necessary. In the true religious experience, perhaps not.