• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well put.

This:

the birth of a different kind of be-ing than that which existed before the instantiation of life and its evolution in species

means something truly novel emerged then with life, correct? Not necessarily implicit in the set up before hand? Does it make sense to ask what led up to this or was it one of a set of possibilities?
 
I think this paper on Heidegger and Wieman is really very good. In Shaw's reading of Heidegger and comparison of H with Wieman, the notes struck are those expressed in the later essays collected in Poetry, Language, Thought. And these notes are key themes of Heidegger's later philosophy, captured in the phrase "let Being be" and in the characterization of Dasein's appropriate role as acting as "the Shepherd of Being." One of those essays, entitled "Building Dwelling Thinking," is coming back to me now and I will try to find a copy of it online.
 
Well put.

This:

the birth of a different kind of be-ing than that which existed before the instantiation of life and its evolution in species

means something truly novel emerged then with life, correct? Not necessarily implicit in the set up before hand? Does it make sense to ask what led up to this or was it one of a set of possibilities?

Yes, that's what I meant, that something truly novel emerged with life -- the capacity for meaningful experience, ramifying through evolution in the thinking of meaning.

Whether this complex of capacities was "implicit in the set-up beforehand" is a question that I think we have no possibility of answering through physics or computer technology.

So I don't think it's actually productive to ask "what led up to this or was it one of a set of possibilities?" We can only speculate, as many of our forebears have speculated, about this question -- from the extremes of those who speculated [and still do] that the cosmos was designed to be or arranged itself to be fit for life and is responsive to our being or sense of being, to the present-day memetically successful imagining that everything can be explained in terms of a matrix of 'information' -- whatever 'information' is, and however it produces the intricately layered complexity in which we live.
 
Hoffman. It is just a short blog. I was hoping for a more detailed conversation that's all. I should browse his writing for more on this. I am very interested in this though I should try not to be. It is like the enigma of Dali... all part of the intrigue; part of the marketing act. A modern day Heraclitus maybe.

I'm still curious what both of these mean?

(1) I am very interested in this (2) though I should try not to be.
 
I'm reading this paper, which I think is very informative about the modernist crisis in faith of any kind that what we feel and think possesses, somehow, intrinsic meaning. The paper has recalled for me Eliot's great poem "Ash Wednesday," which I submit as a supplement to what lies in the background of the paper -- the emotion (the crippled emotion) afflicting the modernists. Too long to quote, so please read it at this link:

Ash Wednesday: Ash Wednesday by TS Eliot

What's being called 'theism without God' is something we need to understand, if possible in Heidegger (though he was tortured by his own psychological demons and therefore unable to speak for those still possessing a more whole and hale sense of the possibilities of the human spirit). Given Heidegger's emotional limitations, an immense burden on his thinking, I do think we need to look also to other thinkers such as Wieman, whose ideas are presented in the paper Steve linked. I'm trying to catch up on the conversation since last night and hope we can actually discuss what was at stake in the modernist effort to maintain a conviction of purposefulness and value in human existence after the 'death of God'. I hope you both agree to read the paper on Wieman and also Ash Wednesday and discuss them here without misunderstandings if possible.

I'm trying to catch up on the conversation since last night and hope we can actually discuss what was at stake in the modernist effort to maintain a conviction of purposefulness and value in human existence after the 'death of God'

I'm game! ... re-reading the article and reading Ash Wednesday, now.

Here are some early mentions by Nietzsche of God is Dead (see also Zarathustra) - the point at the end of 125 below (italics) is that Nietzsche was a prophet and foresaw this and it's effects, which many believe have yet to fully play out - I agree.

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (1887)

Neue Kämpfe. — Nachdem Buddha todt war, zeigte man noch Jahrhunderte lang seinen Schatten in einer Höhle, — einen ungeheuren schauerlichen Schatten. Gott ist todt: aber so wie die Art der Menschen ist, wird es vielleicht noch Jahrtausende lang Höhlen geben, in denen man seinen Schatten zeigt. — Und wir — wir müssen auch noch seinen Schatten besiegen!

The Gay Science/Joyful Wisdom, section 108 (Thomas Common translation):

108.
New Struggles. After Buddha was dead people showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave, an immense frightful shadow. God is dead:— but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow. And we we have still to overcome his shadow!

And my more literal translation - an attempt to give a taste of Nietzsche's original style:

After the time Buddha of Buddha's death, his shadow was shown for centuries in a cave, - a monstrous ghastly shadow. God is dead: but the way people are, there will perhaps be caves in which his shadow will be shown. And we - we must also still defeat his shadow!

125.
The Madman. Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: “I seek God! I seek God! “ As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea-voyage? Has he emigrated? the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. “Where is God gone? “ he called out. “I mean to tell you! We have killed him — you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Back wards, sideways, forewards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console our selves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife, who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event, and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!” Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished.

“ I come too early,” he then said, “ I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling, it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star, and yet they have done it!” It is further stated that the madman made his way into different churches on the same day, and there intoned his Requiem aeternam deo. When led out and called to account, he always gave the reply: “ What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God? ”
 
No one says what they think ... no one allowed in public anyway, it's supposed to go through several layers before you'll even admit it to yourself. It's why you put the vague modifier "generally" in there.

Don't take this at all too seriously .... where's the insult?

You said:

"He seemed to lack the were withal to state what he thought."

and then you said:

"I was hoping for a more detailed conversation that's all."

So I pointed out that you should just say what you think. Which might be one or the other but most likely both ... it's not an insult, we all do this sort of thing and it's funny.

I have several heroes and I thought everyone did?

A series of misunderstandings I think@smcder. I am not taking things too seriously... hence the wink/mad tick comment. I think I might drop Hoffman a comment if his blog is still open to them. I want to quizz him on his MH insights.

@Constance. What were Heidegger's emotional limitations? What are yu referning to with this?

Interesting thoughts above.
 
I'm still curious what both of these mean?

(1) I am very interested in this (2) though I should try not to be.
I am just saying that I am drawn to MH the person behind the words. I am drawn to psychoanalyse him. But, if this is what he wants, though pretends not to (!), then... as the psychoanalyst I should not allow the patient to control me thus. The trouble is, I feel that the text has an unstated undercurrent: "This is what I write... but can you work out what I mean: what I really think".

"I hope we can actually discuss what was at stake in the modernist effort to maintain a conviction of purposefulness and value in human existence after the 'death of God' "

Is that official then: 'God is dead'? Or is that still up for discussion in this new world?

I had a look at the wiki entry on humanism after reading Hoffman. A long entry!

On Purpose and value: Both very different things and both very different if one asks the question of humanity in general or merely of oneself.
 
I am just saying that I am drawn to MH the person behind the words. I am drawn to psychoanalyse him. But, if this is what he wants, though pretends not to (!), then... as the psychoanalyst I should not allow the patient to control me thus. The trouble is, I feel that the text has an unstated undercurrent: "This is what I write... but can you work out what I mean: what I really think".

"I hope we can actually discuss what was at stake in the modernist effort to maintain a conviction of purposefulness and value in human existence after the 'death of God' "

Is that official then: 'God is dead'? Or is that still up for discussion in this new world?

I had a look at the wiki entry on humanism after reading Hoffman. A long entry!

On Purpose and value: Both very different things and both very different if one asks the question of humanity in general or merely of oneself.

Is that official then: 'God is dead'? Or is that still up for discussion in this new world?


You should probably ask God

;-)

that's why i wanted to provide the Nietzsche/context
 
I am just saying that I am drawn to MH the person behind the words. I am drawn to psychoanalyse him. But, if this is what he wants, though pretends not to (!), then... as the psychoanalyst I should not allow the patient to control me thus. The trouble is, I feel that the text has an unstated undercurrent: "This is what I write... but can you work out what I mean: what I really think".

"I hope we can actually discuss what was at stake in the modernist effort to maintain a conviction of purposefulness and value in human existence after the 'death of God' "

Is that official then: 'God is dead'? Or is that still up for discussion in this new world?

I had a look at the wiki entry on humanism after reading Hoffman. A long entry!

On Purpose and value: Both very different things and both very different if one asks the question of humanity in general or merely of oneself.


On Purpose and value: Both very different things and both very different if one asks the question of humanity in general or merely of oneself.

For you, specifically.
 
A series of misunderstandings I think@smcder. I am not taking things too seriously... hence the wink/mad tick comment. I think I might drop Hoffman a comment if his blog is still open to them. I want to quizz him on his MH insights.

@Constance. What were Heidegger's emotional limitations? What are yu referning to with this?

Interesting thoughts above.

Interesting thoughts above.

About no one saying what they think? If so, I have a whole spiel connecting that to politics and the beauty of corruption or why in the US we think it's terrible if a President has an affair and in Italy, one is required to have a mistress ... from there I quote Balthasar Gracien liberally.

If not, then let's keep going on the theological stance post God is "dead".
 
Hmm... gobbldigook begets gobbldigook.
B&T demands interpretation because there is no explicit meaning in the text. That is why there are such contrasting interpretations. The freedom to interpret is its genius. This is quite deliberate: that is the sheltered cove it creates. Wriggle room is Being-in-rapture.

I am not trashing it. Far from it. I am taking-in from my reading of B&T. It does entertain me 15% of the time and makes my ears prick up excitedly. Personally, I think it is like the Nag Hamadi... it intriguingly evades explicit comprehension and furthermore, like the Bible, could be compressed by 80% without losing anything.
And @Constance, I am prepping myself for an analysis (but not sure if it will be possible as yet) so you need not lose hope in me just yet.

I have other B&T 'interpretative' material but I am eager to move onto Husserl and Sartre. They probably had intimate knowledge of Heideggar with insights as good as anyone else.

B&T demands interpretation because there is no explicit meaning in the text. That is why there are such contrasting interpretations. The freedom to interpret is its genius. This is quite deliberate: that is the sheltered cove it creates. Wriggle room is Being-in-rapture.
I am not trashing it. Far from it. I am taking-in from my reading of B&T. It does entertain me 15% of the time and makes my ears prick up excitedly. Personally, I think it is like the Nag Hamadi... it intriguingly evades explicit comprehension and furthermore, like the Bible, could be compressed by 80% without losing anything


Nah ... you're just being provocative and I'm not sure why?

;-)

I started listening to Dreyfus lecture's again:

1. substance ontology and the failure of GOFAI
2. Japanese babies
3. how we know exactly how far to stand from other people in any given situation

I'd more likely buy that there is no explicit meaning in the text re: Finnegan's Wake (and I'm not even buying that) or The Voynich Manuscript but Being and Time isn't a limit text. It's actually hard not for their to be explicit meaning in a text (and that's from a Heideggerean argument) you'd have to first strip all of your assumptions, etc out of it and even then language is so structured that pure nonsense is very hard to achieve.

I also disagree that you could compress the Bible (canonical or apocryphal) without losing anything.
 
let death's shadow
hold the ether mask there
clouds obliterate it

a total eclipse
blackout
swallow it a tiny pill

and that sweat that night beginning me
black oil absorb it
a hole drilled deep in calendars

shrivel that night in the hand of history
let it soften in impotence
turn off its little shouts of pleasure

every science unisex it
genetic biology ... advanced psychology
nuclear bomb

no next morning shine on it
through the afterglow
singeing the eyelids of dawn

because it didn't shut the door
of the womb on me
to hide my ears from pain

why couldn't I have been
a lucky abortion
why were there two knees

waiting for me
two breasts to suck
without them I could have stayed asleep

I could have melted away
like spilled semen
in transparent air
wrapped up in quiet dust
with gods of power and influence
and the emptiness of their palaces


.... recognize it?
 
I am just saying that I am drawn to MH the person behind the words. I am drawn to psychoanalyse him. But, if this is what he wants, though pretends not to (!), then... as the psychoanalyst I should not allow the patient to control me thus. The trouble is, I feel that the text has an unstated undercurrent: "This is what I write... but can you work out what I mean: what I really think".

"I hope we can actually discuss what was at stake in the modernist effort to maintain a conviction of purposefulness and value in human existence after the 'death of God' "

Is that official then: 'God is dead'? Or is that still up for discussion in this new world?

I had a look at the wiki entry on humanism after reading Hoffman. A long entry!

On Purpose and value: Both very different things and both very different if one asks the question of humanity in general or merely of oneself.

(1) I am very interested in this (2) though I should try not to be.

I assume this is the answer to (2)?

I am drawn to psychoanalyse him. But, if this is what he wants, though pretends not to (!), then... as the psychoanalyst I should not allow the patient to control me thus.

But the psychoanalyst's job is to psychoanalyze the patient ... ?

The trouble is, I feel that the text has an unstated undercurrent: "This is what I write... but can you work out what I mean: what I really think".

Some context for that:

"The style he preferred in responding to his admirers—like Sartre–as well as his critics, such as Hannah Arendt—was never unconditionally generous, leaving the impression that Heidegger saw his particular mode of expression as appropriate to the subjects he tackled and most interpretation as being either reductionist, or erroneous.
He was not unaware of the power of double-speak as a tool in both political and philosophical discourse. In a 1966 Der Spiegel interview concerning his alleged Nazi sympathies (which finally cost him his teaching career and diminished his reputation in Germany), Heidegger said that in 1935 he had counted on the power of words to convey different meanings to two constituencies (his cleverest students and determined Nazi informants) when he praised the “inner truth and greatness of our movement.”

His sense of how words shape reality and can thus misshape perception and meaning is a constant prickle for anyone who wants to “interpret” Heidegger. It makes equally difficult the task of determining his influence on other thinkers, especially the French philosophers in whose eyes he found grace after 1967."

This is why I think you can't just jump into a text without putting it into historical and biographical (and linguistic) context.
 
How to read a text in 12 easy steps:

ROUGH DRAFT - suggestions welcome!
  1. forget everything you know
  2. analyze it and analyze it and analyze it until you've exhausted it and yourself
  3. sleep on it
  4. repeat 1 - 3 a few times
  5. if it's in another language, learn the language and if possible live in the country as close as possible to where it was written and learn everything you can about the person who wrote it - if possible meet the person or someone who knew them personally and ask lots of questions
  6. find out what everyone else thinkgs about it
  7. sleep on it
  8. read it out loud and record it and listen to it, listen to someone else read it, type it out, write it longhand
  9. If you haven't memorized it by now ...
  10. memorize it
  11. apply it everywhere to your life (if you can't apply it to your life, STOP)
  12. alter your consciousness
  13. repeat everything up to this point a few times
  14. read the second sentence
;-)
 
On Purpose and value: Both very different things and both very different if one asks the question of humanity in general or merely of oneself.

For you, specifically.

Maybe we should all answer all these questions:

purpose?
value?

x

humanity in general?
merely for oneself?

(please use the back of the paper if more space is needed)
 
I've become more and more aware that most of what I think isn't immediately accessible to me and even when it is, can't be put into words because words have to leave out the sensations and feelings, the texture, the phenomenal feel, the "me"-ness of it, all the things that we assign to the hard problem. The part of my thinking that is in words or can be put into words is really the least part of it ... I'm learning to not let my "left hemisphere" - convince me none of that is important, that only words count - because the part I can't express is the biggest part of what I think ... and the smartest thing I can think of to know what I really think (and to be able to put a little more of that into words or to be able otherwise to communicate it) is to watch and listen to myself, sometimes I am amazed at what I think and do, very often I am at least surprised ... many people are poor observers of others, most are poor observers of themselves ... all the ways we can concretely express ourselves: mouth sounds, marks on paper, etc pale to all the ways we do express ourselves (mostly unconscious) in movements, facial expressions, skin tone changes, pupils dilating, pheromones, electrical signals and probably many other ways, some of which we don't know anything about ... and none of those are captured in a philosophical text ... I would think we could have a whole different understanding of Martin Heidegger if we were able to see him every day for several years, see him unguarded, and that is the only way we could get that understanding.

I wonder if we will ever develop a new way to explicitly communicate more of this, more of what we think with one another? My own experience is that as I gain awareness of all these things, I find it harder and harder to communicate my thoughts ... but paradoxically I feel less and less urge to do so, it's becoming less important to be "understood".
 
Ha .... I just read this from Building Dwelling Thinking (BDT) by M. Heidegger:

It is language that tells us about the nature of a thing, provided that we respect language's own nature. In the meantime, to be sure, there rages round the earth an unbridled yet clever talking, writing, and broadcasting of spoken words. Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man. Perhaps it is before all else man's subversion of this relation of dominance that drives his nature into alienation. That we retain a concern for care in speaking is all to the good, but it is of no help to us as long as language still serves us even then only as a means of expression. Among all the appeals that we human beings, on our part, can help to be voiced, language is the highest and everywhere the first.
 
The Gay Science/Joyful Wisdom, section 108 (Thomas Common translation):

108.
New Struggles. After Buddha was dead people showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave, an immense frightful shadow. God is dead:— but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow. And we we have still to overcome his shadow!

And my more literal translation - an attempt to give a taste of Nietzsche's original style:

After the time Buddha of Buddha's death, his shadow was shown for centuries in a cave, - a monstrous ghastly shadow. God is dead: but the way people are, there will perhaps be caves in which his shadow will be shown. And we - we must also still defeat his shadow!

I haven't read much of Nietzsche so I need help in understanding why "we must also still defeat [God's] shadow.". The translation you quoted uses the verb 'overcome' whereas you use the verb 'defeat'. Which verb choice is closer to the German verb Nietzsche used, and what other English verbs have been used, if any, to convey his meaning? I'm aware that N called for the passage of man to what he thought of as 'Superman'. How did he characterize the differences between man and Superman?

In my view the statement that "God is dead" is absurd because our species is in no position to know whether there is or isn't, was or was not, an intentional power that produced the Universe. One can only reasonably say that the idea of God was undermined among our species in Nietzsche's time, and that N apparently needed, wanted, to see that idea buried for all time. The reason why N is included in the development of existentialism is that he did express the view that we must take responsibility for the values by which we choose to live our lives, there being (from the existentialist point of view) no values given in existence from outside or beyond our experience of being. Nietzsche's 'enemy' seems to have been the influence of Christianity as understood and practiced in his time. To destroy Christianity he apparently believed that it was necessary to destroy the idea of God.

Heidegger, by contrast, continually maintained what he called 'the fourfold' structure in which our species has thought about the nature of reality from its beginnings, recognizing that we do not know but have long sensed the possibility of gods (higher powers or intelligences) in the regions beyond the local horizons within which our understanding of being and Being has developed.

As I see it, it is this perennially expressed sense of distinction between existential being and 'Being' that calls for understanding of human history and thought, and I think Heidegger attempted to clarify it.
 
Maybe we should all answer all these questions:

purpose?
value?

x

humanity in general?
merely for oneself?

(please use the back of the paper if more space is needed)

I haven't read Hoffman (started to a day or two ago but became bored with the text). Tell me if I need to read Hoffman to respond to your questions. It seems to me that we cannot -not- value some things, others, behaviors, and ideas over others, and that human values have always [but perhaps less so recently] included reference to and a sense of obligation toward the others among whom we live. Such other-directedness is already evident in primates in general and also in other species of life. And this valuing of others is not simply, in my view, an extension of nurturing behaviors toward the young and the drive to protect one's social group from outside aggression. Humans have felt and have needed to enhance, affirm, and expand their emotional integration with one another as a major aspect of what they are as individuals. Empathy is a major outgrowth of consciousness. It expands our concern beyond ourselves as individuals and underwrites all historical attempts to form mutually sustaining social environments and structures. It enables and drives the concept of social justice. So our purposes, at our best (and depending on the extremity of immediate factical circumstances such as starvation and imminent death), express our capacity for empathy as a major value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top