Chris,
every so often your emails seem to include some doctoral thesis of yours spewed out in alphanumeric code ie, loads
of formatting rubish-can you get rid of it from your emails?
I am just a bit tired of
"///
> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBA582.F39461E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding:
>quoted-printable ..."
for 2 or 3 pages.
i take it that you were answering my questions:
1. both forms of truth-I agree
2. the question is, is one sometimes more appropriate or more alien or more necessry or more...?
3. > All we should want is to behold it as such, and not to preconceive it in = any form or as any notion.
is not truth, though, sometimes a self-directed bias?
ands does not impartial beholding against one definition of truth?
(maybe you are more a physicist than a Greek?)
Perhaps one form of truth (via art) opens us up to our past closedness.
Perhaps it also allows for selective closure.
Perhaps it refuses closure.
Perhaps all three.
4 >> "Is it the correspondence theory, or is it some form of personal = heimlichkeit, of attunement to one's world, for after all, the
world
>>of = self is not created by mathematical proofs?"
> Why the dichotomy between hardcore math and poetic rapture that builds a = dwelling? Is not the latter a kind of
>correspondence? A correspondence = of thinking to the matter itself?
I am not talking of building but of dwelling.
The latter is a subset of the former, not vice versa.
> "We might need trig or the Doppler effect to travel to other planets, = but do we need self-affirmed knowledge of
>mathenatical=20 truth (truth independent of us) to survive?"
> To survive as animals, no. To survive as rational, yes.=20
Hmm. I guess I should
a-define survival
b-ask if we are rational
c-expalin that maybe there is a difference between that which has helped us to be where we are and that which is part of who we
are.
And then ask myself, are the two so distinct or importantly different?
> Now, of course, "self-affirmed" is *ratio* in its derogatory sense (a = sense made famous by Heidegger), but there are (to
>paraphrase = Shakespeare) more things in logos and physis than are dreamt of in your = Cartesian or Heideggerian philosophy,
>and hence *ratio* is still worthy = of thought: it is more than mere mathematical certainty, and more than a = straw missive of
>Beyng.
Oi! Descartes and Heidegger on the same team? How could you!
> That is how I understand him. Still, perhaps even "consideration of the = consequences" is too calculative for the quiet task of the
>shepherd of = Being... :-)
Baaa.
Sorry MH, Beyng is not specifically pastoral OR sheepish. Too close to classical fascism of the grand style.
> "If truth only has meaning independent of us, I question the validity of = even discussing it. Yet I am not suggesting an argument
>for the title above."
>
> Truth neither is solely dependent on us nor solely independent from us. = We exist in the inbetween, in the methexis. In truth we
>live and move = and have our being. And we can know truth because of the intellect.=20
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
every so often your emails seem to include some doctoral thesis of yours spewed out in alphanumeric code ie, loads
of formatting rubish-can you get rid of it from your emails?
I am just a bit tired of
"///
> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBA582.F39461E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding:
>quoted-printable ..."
for 2 or 3 pages.
i take it that you were answering my questions:
1. both forms of truth-I agree
2. the question is, is one sometimes more appropriate or more alien or more necessry or more...?
3. > All we should want is to behold it as such, and not to preconceive it in = any form or as any notion.
is not truth, though, sometimes a self-directed bias?
ands does not impartial beholding against one definition of truth?
(maybe you are more a physicist than a Greek?)
Perhaps one form of truth (via art) opens us up to our past closedness.
Perhaps it also allows for selective closure.
Perhaps it refuses closure.
Perhaps all three.
4 >> "Is it the correspondence theory, or is it some form of personal = heimlichkeit, of attunement to one's world, for after all, the
world
>>of = self is not created by mathematical proofs?"
> Why the dichotomy between hardcore math and poetic rapture that builds a = dwelling? Is not the latter a kind of
>correspondence? A correspondence = of thinking to the matter itself?
I am not talking of building but of dwelling.
The latter is a subset of the former, not vice versa.
> "We might need trig or the Doppler effect to travel to other planets, = but do we need self-affirmed knowledge of
>mathenatical=20 truth (truth independent of us) to survive?"
> To survive as animals, no. To survive as rational, yes.=20
Hmm. I guess I should
a-define survival
b-ask if we are rational
c-expalin that maybe there is a difference between that which has helped us to be where we are and that which is part of who we
are.
And then ask myself, are the two so distinct or importantly different?
> Now, of course, "self-affirmed" is *ratio* in its derogatory sense (a = sense made famous by Heidegger), but there are (to
>paraphrase = Shakespeare) more things in logos and physis than are dreamt of in your = Cartesian or Heideggerian philosophy,
>and hence *ratio* is still worthy = of thought: it is more than mere mathematical certainty, and more than a = straw missive of
>Beyng.
Oi! Descartes and Heidegger on the same team? How could you!
> That is how I understand him. Still, perhaps even "consideration of the = consequences" is too calculative for the quiet task of the
>shepherd of = Being... :-)
Baaa.
Sorry MH, Beyng is not specifically pastoral OR sheepish. Too close to classical fascism of the grand style.
> "If truth only has meaning independent of us, I question the validity of = even discussing it. Yet I am not suggesting an argument
>for the title above."
>
> Truth neither is solely dependent on us nor solely independent from us. = We exist in the inbetween, in the methexis. In truth we
>live and move = and have our being. And we can know truth because of the intellect.=20
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---