Sauwelios
September 25, 2006, 9:26pm
69
But “[e]ven when I speak completely generally of imagination, like here, do I make a persisting thing out of it.” [Nietzsche, Nachlass.]
That’s not one of his better moments. If you refuse to believe that the process of “imagination” does not at least start at executive function of/in the nervous system, even if in consciousness we “experience ourselves in words and thoughts,” then you are denying the foundation for your ability to experience anything at all .
Why in the nervous system? I agree that it must start somewhere; but the nervous system may be a content of the imagination.
This is really an “ego” argument which was examined nicely by the phenomenologists. This is a question of viewpoint and not what is seen .
You cannot deny both what is seen and the seer, which Nietzsche does.
Why not? Why can’t they both be purely imaginary?
I think he was just toying with us, anyway. The deed of the act is what is the event and the subjects are the problem, viewpoint, what is seen, and most of all “seeing that one is seeing.” Transcending transcendence, the pre-reflective cogito. Descartes establish one truth; that experience is happening. But he failed to describe appropriately the dichtomous subjects which compose that reality which is experienced.
This is not really a clear section, détrop - must not be one of your better moments.
The Sartrean point is that there is no ego. He proposes that the only signification of experience is the awareness of being conscious and not just spontaneous consciousness, which is the nature of Descartes cogito. The object of his formula is developed in the contemplation of it and his doubt is no longer spontaneous, it is methodological. This development of viewpoint is not an ontological object, is not a “being,” but a negation of something which already exists in order to proceed through contemplation. A directly real object, the postualte of “ego” is in this case Descartes developed object. Similiar to your case, Sal. The possible “imagined object” you propose cannot be imagined reductio ad absurdum, however the subject of consciousness changes context and is always real.
And that’s not even the problem. The bigger problem is the age old question asked to Brentano- do you lose a part of your “intentional consciousness” when a limb is removed? If not, at which point would I get to the crucial organ that would end the self, if indeed the body is the substantial “ego.”?
A question about the “place” where consciousness becomes greater than the synaptic whole, the quantifiable combinations of binary functions. Firing neurons.
For failure to get to the “ghost in the machine,” I think anything more than Sartrean Being-for-itself is about the best I’ve heard so far in attempts at a proper dichotomy.
Ok, interesting.
You’re not by me. I completely agree with you so I have nothing to say. Lol.
detrop
September 25, 2006, 9:32pm
71
Yes well mine aren’t on purpose, whereas Nietzsche is a suspect.
On Little Professors with Large Moustaches – One’s size is the origins of one’s manner of winning. Smaller men develop intellectually better, have more cunning and rhetorical authority. Exchanging work for talk. That makes Fritz a better writer than detrop; detrop doesn’t make sense naturally, Fritz has the ability to decide to write badly.
You are an imaginer, not the imagined. Why won’t you accept that?
Sauwelios
September 25, 2006, 9:33pm
73
Imagination is thought - it is another word for “thought”, “ich stelle vor” (“I imagine/put forward”) being Nietzsche’s translation of cogito (and a good one at that).
Words may be thoughts, but thoughts are not Thought. Thoughts are the contents of thought, not the thinking process itself.
Methinks that is a belief on your part and not knowledge.
Sauwelios
September 25, 2006, 9:36pm
74
I will accept it when I am certain of it.
Saully, that made no sense.
Lol, just ask someone who’s actually had their brain operated on if they imagined what was being done. Unless, of course, they’re believing without knowing too. After all, they’ve only been there, and you can’t accept experience since it’s all imagined anyway, right?
detrop
September 25, 2006, 9:44pm
76
Dammit Sal I’m tellin you you are in the envelope of your words. There has to be “real” before epistemology can even begin.
Again, how would you know when you found certainty man? What would be the proof? It could be “imagination.”
Its suprising how the rule is only used when in favor of your premise. My premise is that the supposition itself proves there is “real.”
Sauwelios
September 25, 2006, 9:45pm
77
I wrote it with a capital because I did not mean the participle perfect.
SilentSoliloquy:
Lol, just ask someone who’s actually had their brain operated on if they imagined what was being done. Unless, of course, they’re believing without knowing too. After all, they’ve only been there, and you can’t accept experience since it’s all imagined anyway, right?
Let me get this straight, and please listen carefully: how do I know, when I speak to these people, that they do actually exist?
Because that’s what existence is . Speaking to people, interacting, experiencing, that’s existence. You exist.
detrop
September 25, 2006, 9:48pm
79
[size=75]Ask him to define “people,” SS.[/size]
Lol, ok. What is this “people” of which you speak?
Sauwelios
September 25, 2006, 9:56pm
81
“People” is a plural of “human being”. “Human being” is a designation for a certain bundle of impressions.
detrop
September 25, 2006, 10:09pm
82
I hope you aren’t waiting for me, SS. This is your argument.
I’m just a cheer-leader.
SilentSoliloquy:
Because that’s what existence is . Speaking to people, interacting, experiencing, that’s existence. You exist.
You miss this?
'Cause Saully, that answers your question right there.
Sauwelios
September 25, 2006, 10:21pm
84
No, Silly, that only expresses your dogma.
Oh, so I’m not experiencing, interacting, and speaking to people who are there? I don’t exist? It’s dogma?
This is all thought. You exist be it you’re being imagined or not. You exist. You experience. You interact. You speak. You can’t tell me that you don’t exist, Saully. I won’t believe you because I experience you.
KidA41
September 25, 2006, 11:04pm
86
Hey, this thread took off!
Yeppers, and now I’m bored 'cause Sauwelios hasn’t replied yet.
