(Part I)
Phenomenology and Complementarity: Two Inseparable Movements
Although phenomenology is commonly thought to have begun with Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), and complementarity with Niels Bohr (1885-1962), one can trace back their mutual origin in the young Hegel (1770-1831) of the Phenomenology of Spirit, whose perspicuous concern of experience, i.e. ‘sense-certainty’ and whose discovery of non-Aristotelian logic operative therein, i.e. ‘dialectic’, inaugurated the two basic themes of phenomenology and complementarity, respectively. Similarly, an in-depth investigation into the work of William James (1842-1910), who was of pivotal influence to both Husserl and Bohr, and who has been identified as both a “proto-phenomenologist” (James Edie) and the first thinker to discover complementarity (W. Stephenson) would undoubtedly reveal a provocative example of the natal pact between these two movements. Yet despite the fact that Hegel and James play important roles in the mutual development of complementarity and phenomenology, for the purpose of this exposition, we shall do no more than roughly sketch out the convergence of the two philosophical movements in the philosophies of Edmund Husserl and Niels Bohr, who are their explicit founders.
October 4th 2016 at 2:45 pm Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
"Two Philosophers of the Flesh"
...
Lisa, Jonathan, Whit
Lisa wrote: "What if "big G" God created all timelines and possibilities when this Multiverse was birthed into existence, and we are "little g" creators that surf these possibilities depending on where we are putting our mental focus"
For Leibniz, if I remember correctly, matter is made of atoms, monads are not material. And, each monad is independent of all the other monads, with no actual interaction. Atoms and monads are also separate. It is no surprise that Leibniz's thinking about the nature of the world was deeply influenced by political, social, and most critically, religious divisions, between the Protestants and Catholics. So, you we read, "They had to free because the Bible said so." A division, which I am thinking he attempted to reconcile. But, divineness of things still infected his thinking. Understandable, we are all influenced by the culture and society we are embedded in. So, I think the hard logic just softened a bit to mold with the times.
It was not possible for him to conceive of the idea that man and God are one (Spinoza's one Nature), but men (and women of course) are also many and diverse. Little g is big G wanting to manifest Himself/Herself/Itself physically. Hence, when I say I have no free will because God made me the way I am, you have to do a double take, and recognize, now wait, I am God, a little piece of God stuff. I am doing what I want to do, but, I am God. So, I actually do have free will, just not directly aware of it. I am God, camouflaged. Not how Spinoza saw things I'm guessing. (Not a whit how the Mormons do either, I think.) But, to each his own.
"However, as Russell complained, in Leibniz's schema each soul can only ever have one choice, to be that soul at creation; if Socrates, to have decided from the outset to take the hemlock. Multiple choices would mean multiple souls."
Again, Leibniz's thinking id defined and limited by the context he lived in. Sure, all possible worlds, but he only believed in the one actual best possible world existing. Socrates could think he would take the Hemlock, but to actually take the hemlock would be something else. It could be that in our possible world, Socrates never took the hemlock, but that he actually escaped with the help of his friends, and Asclepius via the rooster. You know, just like everyone in this world believes it was Christ who was crucified, when it was really someone who thought he was Christ, the original Messiah Complex.
"The only way I can make sense of individual telicity is to say that each soul, or quantised action is god's choice. "
So, even you are constrained to believe a certain way. Why can't it be both.
"The purpose is the god's purpose, which we are working out."
I think that is exactly right. We are God, experiencing.
"This might sound like getting into abstruse theology, but it is actually hard logic and, if that ends up theology, so be it."
Logically laid out, for God to experience, it was necessary that He/She/It divide Himself/Herself/itself. The one thing that God knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. It reasoned that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself. And so, God divided Itself—becoming, in one moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither. Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.
Now that's Theology.
Joseph
June 26, 2017
Joseph McCard
"Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." To view this discussion on the web visit
...
Dear Joseph,
Study of consciousness should be segregated into at least three different sectors:
1. One's professional life involves a set of skills and values. Those have a bearing on one's conception of consciousness. Those engaged in science are the most affected.
2. As social beings, a practical level of understanding of consciousness is assumed. It needn't interfere with 1. and 3.
3. At the purely personal level, the responsibility of finding what is true is paramount and should be pursued disregarding 1. and 2. Many feel they can search for the truth on their own but tell things that are imperfectly plagiarised versions of earlier propositions.
A main problem in this Forum is people generally conflate the three whereas distinct routes can lead to more honest discoveries.
Thanks,
Tusar (b.1955)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/075d5cf1-d5ac-447f-a11e-c237e3172d14%40googlegroups.com
...
[HTML] Rabindranath Tagore: the poet communicator and opinion leader in Colonial Bengal
S Chatterjee
... Aurobindo Ghosh, an influential leader of Bengal's rebellion 14 against the British power was also influenced by Tagore for his rationalism. ... Later, at Aurobindo Asram in Pondichery Tagore met and praised him for his change of mind from extremism to non-violence. V. ...
[DOC] Curriculum Framework
P Assessment, V Voce
... Gijju Bhai The world of the child. - Swami Vivekananda : Man making education. - Sri Aurobindo Integral education, its basic premises; stages of development. - J. Krishna murthy; Child Centerd Education. UNIT – IV: WESTERN THINKERS. - JJ Rousseau. - John Dewey. ...
[PDF] The Re-Inventions of Sherlock Holmes: A Study of the Fiction by Vithal Rajan, Jamyang Norbu and Neelum Saran Gour
S ROY
... Similarly Rajan's novel Holmes of the Raj, has almost all the public figures living in India during this period — Swami Vivekananda, Tagore, Sri Aurobindo, Ramanujan, Annie Besant, Jinnah, Ronald Ross —appear in a cameo role. ...
Genius: after the last Einstein episode - Last night, the Czech National Geographic aired the last episode of "Genius" about Einstein. The program was rescheduled for another season that will cove...
Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer Adler - *Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy* *Mortimer J. Adler* *Touchstone, (Reprint Edition, 1997) * Mortimer J. Adler is superb at expressing...
The significance of ethics to Candrakīrti’s metaphysics - As I noted last time, I think the disregard of ethics by Indian-philosophy scholars like Dan Arnold is a problem … Continue reading →
Techno-Sorcery: Science, Capital, and Abstraction - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. —Arthur C. Clarke When, under the authority of the sciences, one speaks of the uncann...
The significance of ethics to Candrakīrti’s metaphysics - As I noted last time, I think the disregard of ethics by Indian-philosophy scholars like Dan Arnold is a problem in itself: it’s a misconception of what ph...
TODAY'S INVISIBLE HANDS - *1* On Language Change: The Invisible Hand In Language HERE *2* *Asha Speckman *posts (25 June) on* Business Live* *HERE* “*Market may drive Reserve Bank 'ba...
On Death Taxes and Life Taxes - My friendly readers, this will be a quick post. I have far too little time for much of anything this weekend except doing my duties -- to my “day” job, t...
Images and Artholes of God - A few days ago we spoke of the two kinds of knowledge and how they relate to God. In one it is as if God is at the center of a series of concentric circles...
Sacrality, secularity, and contested indigeneity - Indigenous peoples articulate their indigeneity within the political and legal language of secularism, even as it renders certain claims to indigeneity ill...
- Jussi Backman on finitude. It is only with Heidegger that finitude returns to the center of the philosophical stage in full force and in a radicalized for...
Ten Books For Your Summer Reading - It’s summer! Hopefully this means you have a little down time to read books you might not otherwise. Though it is literally my job to make such recommendat...
various news - There is now a deal in place for a Russian translation of Immaterialism. The conference today at Leicester was great. They will post video of it to a websi...
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute Report – June 3, 2017 - The Evolution of Consciousness excerpt – “We have this human form of life (body) to understand the purpose in life and gain spiritual realization. However,...
Toward a Communicative Cosmos: Whitehead and Media Ecology (updated draft)- Below is a draft of a paper I’ll offer at the MEA Convention in a few weeks. I share it here in the hopes that my readers may provide feedback that helps m...
Walter Benjamin’s Unfinished Magnum Opus, Revisited Through Contemporary Art at the Jewish Museum in NY - I definitely will visit this when I pass through New York: Walter Benjamin’s Unfinished Magnum Opus, Revisited Through Contemporary Art – The New Yorker
Reading and Repetition - A central claim of Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition is that we only ever create something new through repetition. Here, then, we might encounter a fund...
“The Great Holocaust (Cchinnamasta)” – Nolini Kanta Gupta - "The new creation is already here, forming itself; whatever is happening now in the Ashram and outside is happening so that it may come forward all the s...
The Mind and the Action of Sense-Awareness - Ordinarily we look upon the action of the 5 senses as the first line of receiving the sense impressions and delivering those impressions to the mind where ...
When Everything was Perfect - That moment, that morning everything was perfect. Just for a few moments, everything was right, just right, just perfect. Everything was in the right place...
The Nirvana of Sri Aurobindo - The Buddhist idea of Nirvana excludes all sense of personality and existence; it formulates upon the idea of a spiritual negation of Life, and while bein...
And Where We Are At Now… (with a great song in French!…) - The challenges of these more recent years seem to be different, but they are actually the same: it is still the very same Dark Forces doing their best to s...
Savitri Era Open Forum: We are not interested in reading Sri Aurobindo https://t.co/6LTDRwjIlc
Savitri Era: Sound ontological shelter painstakingly built by Sri Aurobindo https://t.co/aZzSo1M16Y
[Sri Aurobindo sees current crisis as part of an evolutionary movement ... creates conditions under which Supermind can ...] https://t.co/Lep6uCOlkr
[Emperor vs Aurobindo Ghosh and others, Alipore Bomb Case, Muraripukur conspiracy, or Manicktolla bomb conspiracy] https://t.co/g3tnibfyRW
No comments:
Post a Comment