It's so difficult to stop and say...

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

94 posts / 0 new

Comments

The Momentary G-d

"The first mythical impulse...was not toward making a sun g-d, or a lunar deity, but a community of stars." -Ernst Cassirer

"Man lives with his objects chiefly...as language presents them to him. By the same process whereby he spins language out of his own being, he ensnares himself in it; and each language draws a magic circle round the people to which it belongs, a circle from which there is no escape save by stepping out of it into another. - Wilhelm von Humboldt.


There are different understandings of the relationship between myth and language. We have studied theories of language using Wittgenstein's early critique of the positivistic discursive, or logical function of language as a hidden calculus whose critique assumed a therapeutic role of philosophy finding and correcting logico-linguistic defects. Paul Tillich once wrote that all understanding of spiritual things is ultimately circular. The very definition of logical consistency, or validity, is nothing more than the tautologous sentence form. In fact, propositional tautological circularity is the standard of "proof" for all logically deductive valid arguments. Myth and language also exist in circularity.

The most common understanding of the interaction between myth and language is the "diseased language" theory of myth. At first glance this view has some merit and is frequently used to generate anti-religious boilerplate polemics by naive realists. The diseased language view has its roots in romanticism and is expressed in the thoughts of Herder and Schelling. Language has within it a "faded mythology" that holds the distinctions in verbal stories and names. In this view myth dominates language and so is mythic-linguistic.

Another understanding of myth is exactly the opposite: language generates myth, or linguistic-mythic in function. Max Muller represents this point of view. This position methodologically investigates the factual nature of linguistic usage by comparing the use of language in varying cultures and times. In both schools of thought myth is seen as a verbal-linguistic activity. In both schools of thought myth is a deviant use of language.

Ernst Cassirer understands "radical metaphor"(Greek: μεταφορ-ά , metaphora, meaning transference) as the concept that links together language and myth. Metaphor brings together concrete objects to represent abstract ideas. Mythic metaphor brings together concepts and names in substitution of one another to explain an idea in terms of another dissimilar idea. However, something amazing happens is this seemingly innocent transference: we find that there is also a creation and transition to new categories, meanings, and significance. There is a μετά-βα^σις εἰς ἄλλο γένος , "A change into another genus, or kind." The Greek term, μετά-βα^σις, metabasis, means "shifting" to a different, γένος, genus, or kind. Such a change could result in a Copernican scale shift in perception of sense experience, and accepted mythico-religious formulations.

Cassirer writes of language and myth:

They are two diverse shoots from the same parent stem, the same impulse of symbolic formulation, springing from the same basic mental activity, a concentration and heightening of simple sensory experience. In the vocables of speech and in primitive mythic figurations, the same inner process finds it consummation: they are both resolutions of an inner tension, the representation of subjective impulse and excitations in definite objective forms and figures...The intellectual process here involved in one of synthetic supplementation, the combination of the single instance with the totality, and its completion in the totality. But by this relationship with the whole, the separate fact does not lose its concrete identity and limitation. (Language And Myth, by Ernst Cassirer, 1946, Harper and Brothers, p. 88-89.)

Through mythic conception a new genus, the holy, reveals patterns in experience that were once invisible. Eliade coined the term "hierophany" which has its eytmological origin in the Greek word ἱερός heiros, meaning sacred, and φαίνω, phainein, meaning to show. The appearance of the sacred is a prelogical conception of thought and acts as "organs of reality."

"...myth, art, language, and science appear as symbols: not in the sense of mere figures which refer to some given reality by means of suggestion and allegorical renderings, but in the sense of forces each of which produces and posits a world of its own....Thus the special symbolic forms are not imitations, but organs of reality, since it is solely by their agency that anything real becomes an object for intellectual apprehension and as such is made visible to us. The question as to what reality is apart from these forms, and what are its independent attributes, becomes irrelevant here....the central problem now is that of their mutual limitation and supplementation." (ibid, p.8.)

Whenever the ancient Greeks encountered the experiences of fear, joy, creation, destruction ,or philosophical insight and became focused on a concrete objective point of intense mometary excitment and contemplation, the δαίμων, or deity appears to organize, summarize, its essence into some subsituting dissimilar foreign concept. The Cora Indians' cultural mythmaking first formed a community of stars as a necessary requirement for establishing the sun g-d and other lunar deities. Such creative acts changes meanings and expands the boundary of our collective intersubjective world.

Since language really becomes actual as conversation, the g-ds have acquired names and a world has appeared. But again it should be noticed: the presence of the g-ds and the appearance of the world are not merely a consequence of the actualisation of language, they are contemporaneous with it. And to the extent that it is precisely in the naming of the g-ds, and in the transmutation of the world into word, that the real conversation, which we ourselves are, consists....The poet names the g-ds and the names all things in that which they are. This naming does not consist merely in something already known being supplied with a name; it is rather that when the poet speaks the essential word, the existent is by this naming nominated as what it is. So it becomes known as existent. Poetry is the establishing of being by means of word. (Existence and Being, Martin Heidegger, p. 279-281.).

When we name the g-ds, we name ourselves in an act of self revelation.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Surat Al-Baqarah, 2:26

Indeed Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable whether it is that of a gnat or anything above it. As for those who believe they know it is the truth from their Lord; and as for those who disbelieve they say, what does Allah mean by this example? Thereby He leads many astray, and thereby He guides many. And He leads none astray except the transgressors.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I keep trying to finish this review of the Prophet's Way with some summary comments, but new and old important themes keep coming to mind. One issue is the role of modern science and its incompatibility, or compatibility with what is often called mysticism. We have spent a long time critiquing (post #257) today's dominate school of modern science called logical positivism.

Our guide is Wittgenstein's work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which is the bible of today's radical school of empirico-materialist scientism, and his later antithetical philosophical work, Philosophical Investigations, which is an investigation of the Tractatus itself. Wittgenstein was his own worst critic which isn't possible in today's militant scientism. Any university professor who would criticize his own thinking would be a laughing stock in today's vicious, petty, and authoritarian academic environment. Dissent is a very serious self destructive act in the business called higher education. This attitude has its origin in a particular kind of science metaphysics. American universities are really vast corporate kingdoms where feudalistic students are a inconvenience at best, and an annoying danger at worst. Students come and go through the university, but the university administrations are eternal. I don't want to repeat those anti-positivistic arguments; however, the obvious question is what school of science is more coherent for explaining what we call reality.

The American theoretical physicist Dr. John Wheeler wrote,

A... drastic conclusion emerges out of quantum geometro-dynamics and displays itself before our eyes in the machinery of superspace: there is no such thing as spacetime in the real world of quantum physics....

On this picture physics is a staircase. Each tread registers a law....Each riser marks the transcendence of that law...The staircase climbs from step to step: density, and density found alterable; valence law, and valence law melted away: conservation of net baryon and net lepton number, and these conservation laws transcended: conservation of energy and angular momentum, and these laws likewise overstepped; and then the top thread displaying all the key constants and basic dynamic laws--but above a final riser leading upward into nothingness. It bears a message: With the collapse of the universe, the framework falls down for every law of physics. There is no dynamic principle that does not require space and time for its formulation; but space and time collapses; and with their collapse every dynamic principle collapses.

From Forgotten Truth by Huston Smith (Harper Torchbooks, 1976), pp. 116, quoting "From Relativity to Mutability,' in Jagdish Mehra (ed.), The Physicist's Conception of Nature (Dordrecht-Holland/Boston-U.S.A.: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 227,241.

In other words, the fabric of the Universe is a fabrication.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Stan Goff is a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant who was an instructor at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, and taught Military Science at West Point...and a inspiration.

Christian Soldier at 60 on Veterans Day

10th November 2011, 02:28 pm by Stan

Soldier at 18, baptized when I was 56 years old, and born the day after Veterans Day in 1951, I am on this November 11, 2011, mere hours away from being officially 60 years old. I was a soldier. I am a Christian. I am 60...

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You're welcome.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Leonard Cohen sings "Show Me the Place."

What a beautiful spiritual poem and song. I fall down.

"...Show me the place where the word became a man.

Show me the place where the suffering began..."

Leonard Cohen has released his first new song since 2004, taken from his forthcoming album Old Ideas. Show Me the Place is one of 10 tracks that will appear on the LP, due 31 January. It seems Cohen has not traded in his famous blue raincoat. Show Me the Place shows all the hallmarks of his latest music, especially 2004's Dear Heather: synth strings, keening backing vocals, Cohen's baritone moan. It's a religious song typical of "[Cohen's] most overtly spiritual" record, according to a press release. "The album's 10 songs poetically address some of the most profound quandaries of human existence – the relationship to a transcendent being, love, sexuality, loss and death."

"...a shred of light a particle away..."

The first gospel song ever to cite Quantum physics.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The connection between Wittgenstein's thought on logic and his reflections on the meaning of life was to be found in the distinction he had...between saying and showing. Logical form, he had said, cannot be expressed within language, for it is the form of language itself; it makes itself manifest in language--it has to be shown. Similarly, ethical and religious truths, though inexpressible, manifest themselves in life...'Ethics does not treat of the world. Ethics must be a condition of the world, like logic.' Just as to understand logical form one must see language as a whole, so, to understand ethics, one must see the world as a whole. When one tries to describe what one sees from such a view, one inevitably talks nonsense (as Wittgenstein wrote about his own attempts to do so: 'I am aware of the complete unclarity of all these sentences), but that such a view is attainable is undeniable: 'There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.'

(Lugwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, by Ray Monk, The Free Press, 1990, p.142-143.).

Wittgenstein commenting on a poem by Ludwig Uhland (1787-1862) entitled, "Count Eberhard's Hawthorn."

...'logic and mysticism have here sprung from the same root'...'Almost all other poems (including the good ones) attempts to express the inexpressible, here that is not attempted, and precisely because of that it is achieved...And this is how it is: if only you do not try to utter what is unutterable then nothing gets lost. But the unutterable will be--unutterably--contained in what has been uttered!' (Ibid.,p. 150-151.).
Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A friend of Wittgenstein, Paul Engelmann, wrote that he thought Wittgenstein lacked faith. Wittgenstein wrote back,

If you tell me how I have no faith, you are perfectly right, only I did not have it before either. It is plain, isn’t that when a man wants as it were, to invent a machine for becoming decent, such a man has no faith. But what am I to do? I am clear about one thing: I am far too bad to be able to theorize about myself: in fact I shall either remain a swine or else I shall improve, and that’s that! Only let’s cut out the transcendental twaddle when the whole thing is as plain as a sock on the jaw. (Lugwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, by Ray Monk, The Free Press, 1990, p.153.)

Wittgenstein wrote in the introduction to the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus , “The whole sense of the book might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.” Scholars think this introduction was inspired by a quotation from Ferdinand Kurnberger

“…anything a man knows, anything he has not merely heard rumbling and roaring, can be said in three words.” (Ibid.,p.155.)

While in an Italian prisoner of war camp at Monte Cassino during World War I, Wittgenstein wrote to Bertrand Russell about the Tractatus. After WWI started Bertrand Russell wrote an anti-war leaflet and was fined £ 100 for violating the Defense of the Realm Act. Russell refused to pay the fine hoping the British government would send him to prison, but the great British government auctioned off his books instead to pay the fine. Russell had a copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police." Later Russell was sentenced two years in prison as a conscientious objector by the great British government for publicly advising against the United States joining Britain in the war effort. Russell was fired from his lectureship at Trinity College and served six months in the Brixton prison.

So I guess they were both jailbirds.

However, the point I want to bring attention to is Wittgenstein’s belief that he found a logical method for resolving all philosophical problems. Wittgenstein’s demeanor wasn’t that of a braggart as portrayed in the media trash today.

I believe I’ve solved our problems finally. This may arrogant, but I can’t help believing it. I finished the book in August 1918 and two months after was made Prigioniere.I’ve got the manuscript here with me. I wish I could copy it out for you; but it’s pretty long and I would have no safe way of sending it to you. In fact you would not understand it without a previous explanation as it’s written in quite short remarks. (This of course means that nobody will understand it; although I believe, it’s all as clear as crystal. But it upsets all our theory of truth, of classes, of numbers and all the rest.) I will publish it as soon as I get home. (Ibid.,p.160.)
Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I am embarrassed to say that I had to search for this passage in the Bible. The quote below is from my deceased mother’s hardback copy of William Barclay’s, The Gospel of Matthew. Vol. 2. p. 355. Her bookmarker was already on page 355. She died on December 8th a few years ago. I really didn’t have to search for it.

The link is for the parable text. The quote is from William Barclay. How many talents do you have, or didn’t you ever get a chance?

The Parable of the Talents

In Palestine the talent was not a coin, it was a weight: and therefore the value of the talent obviously depended on whether the coinage involved was copper, gold or silver. The commonest metal involved was silver; and the value of a talent of silver was about 240 [British pounds]…. The useless servant took and buried his master exactly as it was. The whole aim of the Scribes and Pharisees was to keep the Law exactly as it was. In their own phrase, they sought “to build a fence around the Law.” And change, any development, any alteration, anything new was to them anathema. Their method involved the paralysis of religious truth, and the hatred of everything that was new. Like the man with the talent, they desired to keep things exactly as they were—and it is for that that they are condemned. In this parable Jesus tells us that there can be no religion without adventure, and that G-d can find no use for the shut mind. But there is much more in this parable than that….(The Gospel of Matthew. Vol. 2, Westminster Press Philadelphia, 1957, p. 355. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 59-8233.)

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nothing is Sacred.

The Secular City by Harvey Cox.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The work “mystic” derives from the Greek root mu, meaning silent or mute—μύω (muo) = “I shut my mouth”—and by derivation unutterable…The mystic vision is not a feeling: it is a seeing, a knowing...It is noetic. (Forgotten Truth by Huston Smith, p. 110, 112.).

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Up the hill…

…down the hill,

and around the corner.

Into the good part of town,

and into the bad part of town….

I used to be able to climb these hills,

so easily….

They have gotten steeper,

or I have gotten weaker,

or both,

if we want to be logical about it.

But there was something missing,

not a sorrow was expressed,

present,

kindness that is a stranger instead.

Up the hill…

…down the hill,

and around the corner.

Into the good part of town,

and into the bad part of town….

I used to be able to climb these hills,

so easily….

They have gotten steeper,

or I have gotten weaker,

or both,

if we want to be logical about it.

I approached a black Man drumming away,

And it was beautiful….

I thought there were fifty drumming,

but there was only One.

And it was beautiful….

A million sounds,

became a million g-ds.

And it was beautiful….

But he had no drums!

just some pans.

And it was beautiful….

I threw what was in my pocket away,

Yeah!

He looked up,

and was not in this world.

Nor was I for a moment.

And it was beautiful….

far too short!

But it was beautiful….

...and transcendental.

When I made a turn,

the drumming was gone.

Up the hill, down the hill,

and around the corner.

Into the good part of town,

and into the bad part of town….

I used to be able to climb these hills,

so easily….

They have gotten steeper,

or I have gotten weaker,

or both,

if we want to be logical about it.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

THE WIG

It is said to have chanced in England that a man was attacked on the highway by a robber who had made himself unrecognizable by wearing a big wig. He falls upon the traveller, seizes him by the throat and shouts, "Your purse!" He gets the purse and keeps it, but the wig he throws away. A poor man comes along the same road, puts it on and arrives at the next town where the traveller had already denounced the crime, he is arrested, is recognized by the traveller, who takes his oath that he is the man. By chance, the robber is present in the court-room, sees the misunderstanding, turns to the judge and says, "It seems to me that the traveller has regard rather to the wig than to the man," and he asks permission to make a trial. He puts on the wig, seizes the traveller by the throat, crying, "Your purse!"—and the traveller recognizes the robber and offers to swear to it—the only trouble is that already he has taken an oath. So it is, in one way or another, with every man who has a "what" and is not attentive to the "how": he swears, he takes his oath, he runs errands, he ventures life and blood, he is executed—all on account of the wig. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, by Soren Kierkegaard, p. 544.

In relation to Christianity, on the other hand, objectivity is a most unfortunate category; he who has an objective Christianity and none other, is eo ipso a pagan, for Christianity is precisely an affair of spirit, and so of subjectivity, and so of inwardness.Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard,p. 43.

Confusing the "What" (the wig, or object) with the "How" (subjective intention) makes Christianity into a modern version of Pharisaical legalism.

Today, Christianity is a cult religion of specifications.

Can the religious be a Specification? "Religious geniuses" are theological geniuses. Their God is the God of the theologians. Admittedly, that is not the God of the philosophers, but neither is it the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of the theologians, too, is a logicized God, and so is the God even of a theology, which will speak only dialectically and makes light of the principle of contradiction. So long as they practice theology, they do not get away from religion as a specification. When Pascal, in a volcanic hour, made that stammering distinction between God and God, he was no genius but a man experiencing the primal glow of faith; at other times, however, he was a theological genius, and dwelt in a specifying religion, out of which the happening of that hour had lifted him.

Religion as a specification misses its mark. God is not an object beside objects, and hence cannot be reached by renunciation of objects. God is, indeed, not the cosmos, but even less is he being minus cosmos. He is not to be found by subtraction, and not to be loved by reduction. The Question of the Single One.The Writings of Martin Buber, p. 80.

According to Martin Buber, a relationship with God is an "I-Thou" relationship (subject, subject). Organized religion, according to Martin Buber in "Eclipse of God" in the chapter "God and the Spirit of Man" treats God as an "I-It" (object, object) relationship. This is my strongest objection to Christian Fundamentalism because it reduces God to an object. All these anti-evolution polemics are designed to "prove" God and is born out of this desire for "objective certainty." This objectivist ideology is disastrous for Spirituality. These theists are no better than the atheist they are against: both are arguing for or against an "objective" God--God as "It."

Every real relation with a being or life in the world is exclusive. Its Thou is freed, steps forth, is single, and confronts you. It fills the heavens. This does not mean that nothing else exists; but all else lives in its light. As long as the presence of the relation continues, this 'its cosmic range is inviolable. But as soon as a Thou becomes It, the cosmic range of the relation appears as an offence to the world, its exclusiveness as an exclusion of the universe.

In the relation with God, unconditional exclusiveness and unconditional inclusiveness are one. He who enters on the absolute relation is concerned with nothing isolated any more, neither things nor beings, neither earth nor heaven; but everything is gathered up in the relation. For to step into pure relation is not to disregard everything but to see everything in the Thou, not to renounce the world but to establish it on its true basis. To look away from the world, or to stare at it, does not help a man to reach God; but he who sees the world in him stands in his presence. "Here world, there God" is the language of It; "God in the world" is another language of It; but to eliminate or leave behind nothing at all, to include the whole world in the Thou, to give the world its due and its truth, to include nothing beside God but everything in him—this is full and complete relation.Men do not find God if they stay in the world.

They do not find him if they leave the world. He who goes out with his whole being to meet his Thou, and carries to it all being that is in the world, finds him who cannot be sought. The Question of the Single One. The Writings of Martin Buber.p. 57.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote:“…anything a man knows, anything he has not merely heard rumbling and roaring, can be said in three words.” (Ibid.,p.155.)

"Wait, I'm confused."

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote:“…anything a man knows, anything he has not merely heard rumbling and roaring, can be said in three words.” (Ibid.,p.155.)

Leighmf wrote, "Wait, I'm confused."

LOL!!!

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I am so appallingly literal that when you wrote " and then we put in your coffin next to your right hand. Boy, you are really going to be surprised on Resurrection Day to see the Book of Revelations with our messages in it right there with you!, " I actually thought you meant she would wake up in the coffin with the book. Perhaps a dash after "in it- right there with you!" I apologize, because it is a lovely letter, and I lost my dear mother when I was nineteen, but now that I look again it says, "and then we put in your coffin next to your right hand.

Most of the hymns go with meeting at the river, "Crossing the Bar," or at least a self-propelled approach as in "Going Home" where Mother waits at the door, with all the friends you knew. She has your book, and you have hers. The beginning was the Word which was with God, Alpha and Omega. "Many waters cannot quench Love."

That sounds to me like we go through some sort of birth canal or Stargate, then, once we meet whom we've lost, we, only by having died, can fully understand this tearful existence we are forced to endure now. Children start with Noah's Ark, but when we get to the adult version, there is no rainbow guarantee, only faith.

I have faith that using the KISS Rule some universal agreement can be reached based on "God is Love," by establishing actual synonomy. Even Hate Groups want Love!

What is this Thing called Love?
When You're in Love the Whole World is Jewish
What I Did for Love
Love is a Many Splendored Thing
Love Divine, All Loves Excelling
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?

It's not so funny how society clamors after Love in every category of merchandise while not having a unified definition of what Love is. We need some E pluribus unum, and stuff like 'at.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dear Mom,

I found your bookmarker in your hardback copy of William Barclay’s commentary of the Gospel of Matthew at Chapter 25 where Matthew writes about the The Parable of the Talents. Had it not been for some intelligent fellow that figured out and told everybody that the Pharisees got into the silver business, I would not of known its meaning. I sent only a small amount of silver to a special school for disadvantaged and disabled children. It would be nice if I could do something like that for the Cherokee school for Indian girls that you grew up in when you were a child, but right now we need it for the coming hard times—not unlike the hard times you and Grandma experienced during the 1930s depression.

I took your entire seventeen-volume hardback set of Williams Barclay’s commentary except for the last book, The Revelation of John, Vol. 2 and wrote in it like you always did, adding notes, and thoughts. It’s really nice and kind of eerie to read the commentaries and know that you read the very same words and see your comments written in the margins. I handed the commentary to your grandson and he wrote something it, and then we put it in your coffin next to your right hand. Boy, you are really going to be surprised on Resurrection Day to see the Book of Revelations with our messages in it right there with you! Hopefully, the entire family will be present and rejoicing also, but that remains to be seen.

Dad turned out to be a pretty good Christian--thanks to you. Everybody else gave up on him. I would not of believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes. Dad even cries in church--and very easily at that--which makes me want to laugh hysterically since there was of time when he was young and he couldn’t cry at all no matter what. So, I guess there really are miracles just like you said. Amen to that!

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ah. I see what you mean Leighmf. My cursor keeps jumping around the paragraph and I must of deleted "it." I have complained bitterly about this board software, and then add my bad typing, and it's a gamble what comes out the end. But, thank you for mentioning it because I never would of caught it. Her family was broken up during the 1930s economic depression, her father died of a heart attack, and her five brothers were scattered to the wind, and they never recovered.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Poor Wittgenstein, I don't think he could make to an American University today...too odd. These are weeded out. This type of person just does not follow instructions properly. You know, something is wrong with him.

Wittgenstein was not, strictly speaking, a learned man. His temperament was very different from that of the typical scholar. 'Cool objectivity' and 'detached meditation' are labels which do not suit him at all. He put his whole soul into everything he did. His life was a constant journey, and doubt was the moving force within him. He seldom looked back on his earlier positions, and when he did so it was usually to repudiate them...

Wittgenstein had done no systematic reading in the classics of philosophy. He could read only what he could wholeheartedly assimilate. We have seen that as a young man he read Schopenhauer. From Spinoza, Hume, and Kant he said that he could only get occasional glimpses of understanding. I do not think that he could have enjoyed Aristotle or Leibniz, two great logicians before him. But it is significant that he did read and enjoy Plato. He must have recognized congenial features, both in Plato's literary and philosophical method and in the temperament behind the thoughts. Wittgenstein received deeper impressions from some writers in the borderland between philosophy, religion, and poetry than from the philosophers, in the restricted sense of the word. Among the former are St Augustine, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. The philosophical sections of St Augustine's Confessions show a striking resemblance to Wittgenstein's own way of doing philosophy. Between Wittgenstein and Pascal there is a trenchant parallelism which deserves closer study. It should also be mentioned that Wittgenstein held the writings of Otto Weininger in high regard. Norman Malcolm. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir (Oxford Paperbacks) (Kindle Locations 218-230).

I view The Prophet's Way as mysticism, but mysticism that doesn't need that name. As William Barrett once wrote, "We forget that what we call mysticism was once a natural condition of mankind, and could be again if we let ourselves enter it. The mysticism that matters is one that has no need of the word." (The Illusion of Technique by William Barrett, p. 370.). .

It has been said that he was at once a logician and a mystic. Neither term is appropriate, but each hints at something true. Those who approach Wittgenstein's work will sometimes look for its essence in a rational, matter-of-fact dimension, and sometimes more in a supra-empirical, metaphysical one. In the existing literature on Wittgenstein there are examples of both conceptions. Such 'interpretations' have little significance. They must appear as falsifications to anyone who tries to understand Wittgenstein in all his rich complexity. They are interesting only as showing in how many directions his influence extends. I have sometimes thought that what makes a man's work classic is often just this multiplicity, which invites and at the same time resists our craving for clear understanding. (ibid., Loc.244.)

On My Way

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The early names of the top tier demonic glass and steel entities were: The Atlas Companies, the Union Pacific, and Fried. Krupp, longtime associate trustees of our wars, bonded together via patents and the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders, since at least 1868.

Their magnum opus thus far being The Manhattan Project, intimidated anyone with a brain. This has directly affected our progress. It is safer to be a professor than to give your mind over to the government, military or industry, in exchange for security.

Lawyers, doctors of the law, have replaced doctors, healing men of science, in the totem of society.

Because, they are the government, military and industry, which was the only fear we had to fear.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Cyril Smith reminds us that metals and glass were invented for art and religion rather than utility, but technology bestows utilitarian favors as well, and science in addition to its intrinsic disclosures of truth can inspire awe and serve as a symbol to confirm the spirit’s quest...Latin “laboratory” (labor-oratory) means a place to work and pray. The converse of the foregoing is that out of place, as angel that has fallen, science turns demonic. It presumes to control too much and to disclose more of reality that in fact it does. To approach existence as if it were purely or even primarily physical and mathematical is to falsify it. (Forgotten Truth by Huston Smith, Harper Torchbooks, 1976, pp. 117.).
Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Chocolate Jesus

Hershey's chocolate: always good for a pleasure rush, a sense of hedonistic satisfaction. When applied to a spiritual level, Hershey's chocolate is dogmatism: it is overwhelmed by one sensation, one interpretation. To the well trained pallet, chocolate is more than just chocolate: it is the taste of the earth itself. It is complex, subtle, tantalizing, and satisfies your mind and spirit as well as your body.

Unfortunately, a true theologian is rare in these times of hate-filled dogmatism.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Chocolate is also a commodity which has been mis-traded along with necessities. Our American The Hershey company, due to their early ties to the Pennsylvania syndicate which drained the Everglades for Big Sugar, is a little bit fascist-controlled by the Vendor Mafia. Of course, the Hersheyans would rather be free of such tyranny, but then our other choice would be the chocolate of Swiss Bankers.

So I continue to enjoy Hershey's Cocoa before bed, without sugar.

The chocolate plant, Theobroma, is a member of the Theobromaceae. Theobroma means "food of the Gods."

Thus, Chocolate Jesus? But I wouldn't want to eat one. It's different than sinking your teeth into the head of a chocolate Santa.

leighmf's picture
leighmf
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The chocolate plant, Theobroma, is a member of the Theobromaceae.Theobroma means "food of the Gods."

I'll be darned. How about that...I'll be darned. It could of been, Theo-sitos, (σῖτος), but I didn't know the word βρόμος . I'll be darned.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Theo-sitos

I exist on an mountain

at the bottom of the sea...

where the sun is eclipsed

by a spiritual apocalypse.

I suspect the g-ds’

true vocation

is not that

of a technician,

but that the keepers

of the universe

are actually

good musicians.

Half unconscious,

flickering shadows

are my only light,

so I am forced to live

by logical insight.

But these lifeless stones of logic

are only good for defense,

while my spiritual hunger

is immense.

I heard of a divine food of the g-ds,

called Theo-sitos,

that can avert

starvation’s odds

and Thanatos.

But this spiritual food

cannot be stored

like oats,

but evaporate instead

like musical notes.

In this symphony,

I desire instead

Theophanies

to relieve my

spiritual agony.

Not mystic feeling,

but a vision

of spiritual

actualization.

Theo-sitos

makes me wise,

healing my eyes.

It helps me see

on my mountain

under the sea.


by Antifascist

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Greek Word Study:

Sitos (see-tos)

para- (beside, as in parallel) + sitos- (food): as in parasite.

Silo: sitos-(food): as in a farmer’s corn silo.

Zechariah 9:17

For how great is his goodness and how great is his beauty corn shall make the young men cheerful and new wine the maids

... oti ei ti agathon autou kai ei ti kalon par' autou sitos
neaniskois kai oinos euōdiazōn eis parthenous ...

It is narrated in the hadith Sahih Muslim that the Muslim prophet Muhammad said "Truffles are part of the 'manna' which Allah, sent to the people of Israel through Musa (Moses), and its juice is a medicine for the eyes."
Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I once wrote in regard to PIP (Post #321) that this theory of language needed to explain error completion in speaking.

Picture/Imagination/Pattern Model (PIP) for the Formulation of an Understanding of Language.

An explanatory paradigm, or theory for investigating the formulation of language must meet at least these seemingly impossible criteria:

-It must be able to explain simply the infinite variety found in language use.

-A Language theory must be able to explain simply how complex encoded grammatical information in sentence structures is conveyed to another person with a minimum of constructive elements.

-It must explain error completion. Take for example a person who is not a native speaker of English, or a person with a stroke speaks erroneously giving only a subject and verb of a sentence and the listener has to supply the object and yet the listener understands the speaker by supplying missing parts of speech.

-How does one formulate language unconsciously?

Wittgenstein’s Picture theory and his account of how language is derived from mental pictures, and the reverse, can explain errors based on mental pictures. Wittgenstein taught his students the following example of such a picture error in philosophy. A close friend of Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm, and gives the following account.

Wittgenstein related a riddle for the purpose of throwing some light on the nature of philosophy. It went as follows: Suppose that a cord was stretched tightly around the earth at the equator. Now suppose that a piece one yard long was added to the cord. If the cord was kept taut and circular in form, how much above the surface of the earth would it be? Without stopping to work it out, everyone present was inclined to say that the distance of the cord from the surface of the earth would be so minute that it would be imperceptible. But this is wrong. The actual distance would be nearly six inches. Wittgenstein declared that this is the kind of mistake that occurs in philosophy. It consists in being misled by a picture. In the riddle the picture that misleads us is the comparison of the length of itself is correct enough: for a piece one yard long would be an insignificant fraction of the length of the whole cord. But we are misled by it to draw a wrong conclusion. A similar thing happens in philosophy: we are constantly deceived by mental pictures which are in themselves correct.

Another striking illustration of a misleading picture that Wittgenstein gave, was a drawing of the earth as a ball with the people at the antipodes upside down and ourselves right side up. The drawing, he said, does not misrepresent; yet it tempts us to think that the inhabitants of the antipodes are beneath us, and that they really hang head downwards.) This illustration is discussed in Investigations, § 3 51•) Norman Malcolm. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir (Oxford Paperbacks) (Kindle Locations 574-582).

However, picture thinking is involved in all fields of human consciousness. The same errors of picture thinking occur even in modern science. Huston Smith wrote:

A... drastic conclusion emerges out of quantum geometro-dynamics and displays itself before our eyes in the machinery of superspace: there is no such thing as spacetime in the real world of quantum physics....

On this picture physics is a staircase. Each tread registers a law....Each riser marks the transcendence of that law...The staircase climbs from step to step: density, and density found alterable; valence law, and valence law melted away: conservation of net baryon and net lepton number, and these conservation laws transcended: conservation of energy and angular momentum, and these laws likewise overstepped; and then the top thread displaying all the key constants and basic dynamic laws--but above a final riser leading upward into nothingness. It bears a message: With the collapse of the universe, the framework falls down for every law of physics. There is no dynamic principle that does not require space and time for its formulation; but space and time collapses; and with their collapse every dynamic principle collapses.

From Forgotten Truth by Huston Smith (Harper Torchbooks, 1976), pp. 116, quoting "From Relativity to Mutability,' in Jagdish Mehra (ed.),The Physicist's Conception of Nature (Dordrecht-Holland/Boston-U.S.A.: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 227, 241.

And, we “see” picture thinking literalism as a problem in Christian Theology. It is important to note that “literalism” is the key concept of how error is generated in all symbolic thinking and mythology in particular. There are three philosophical interpretations of the concept of “G-d.”

Beyond Naturalism and Supranaturalism

...we may distinguish three ways of interpreting the meaning of the term “G-d.” The first is the concept of the supranatural G-d.

The first one separates God as a being, the highest being, from all other beings, alongside and above which he has his existence.... Certainly this is a primitive form of supranaturalism, but a form which is more decisive for the religious life and its symbolic expression that any theological refinement of this position.

The main argument against it is that it transforms the infinity of G-d into a finiteness, which is merely an extension of the categories of finitude. This is done in respect to space by establishing a supranatural divine world alongside the natural human world; in respect to time by determining a beginning and an end of G-d’s creativity; in respect to causality by making G-d a cause alongside other causes; in respect to substance by attributing individual substance to him. Against this kind of supranaturalism the arguments of naturalism are valid and , as such, represent the true concern of religion, the infinity of the infinite, and the inviolability of the created structures of the finite. Theology must accept the antisupranatural criticism of naturalism. (Paul Tillich. Systematic Theology Vol. II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951, 1957 & 1963. page 5.).

The second interpretation is pantheistic.

The second way of interpreting the meaning of the term “G-d” identifies G-d with the universe, with its essence or with special powers within it. G-d is the name for the power and meaning of reality. He is not identified with the totality of things. But he is a symbol of the unity, harmony, and power of being; he is the dynamic and creative center of reality.... In modern naturalism the religious quality of these affirmations has almost disappeared, especially among philosophizing scientists who understand nature in terms of materialism and mechanism....

The main argument against naturalism is whatever form is that it denies the infinite distance between the whole of finite things and their infinite ground, with the consequence that the term “G-d” becomes interchangeable with the term “universe” and therefore is semantically superfluous. This semantic situation reveals the failure of naturalism to understand a decisive element in the experience of the holy, namely, the distance between finite man, on the one hand, and the holy in its numerous manifestations, on the other. For this, naturalism cannot account. (Ibid., p. 6).

The third interpretation is Paul Tillich’s view, which he calls, “self transcendent.”

This criticism of the supranaturalistic and the naturalistic interpretation of the meaning of “G-d” calls for a third way which will liberate the discussion from the oscillation between two insufficient and religiously dangerous solutions...It agrees with the naturalistic view by asserting that G-d would not be G-d if he were not the creative ground of everything that has being, that, in fact, he is the infinite and unconditional power of being or, in the most radical abstraction, that he is being-itself. In this respect G-d is neither alongside things nor even “above” them; he is nearer to them that they are to themselves. He is their creative ground, here and now, always and everywhere...To call G-d transcendent in this sense does not mean that one must establish a “superworld” of divine objects. It does mean that, within itself, the finite world points beyond itself. In other words, it is self-transcendent. (Ibid., 7.)

Thinking in pictures creates error--and sometime dangerous errors—in the disciplines of philosophy, science, and religion.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Luke 2:8

"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."

Καὶ ποιμένες ἦσαν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ αὐτῇ ἀγραυλοῦντες καὶ

φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν ποίμνην αὐτῶν.

The shepherds were despised by the orthodox good people of the day. Shepherds were quite unable to keep the details of the ceremonial law; they could not observe all the meticulous hand-washings and rules and regulations. Their flocks made far too constant demands on them as very common people. It was to simple men of the fields that G-d’s message first came. But these shepherds were in all likelihood very special shepherds. We have already seen how in the Temple, morning and evening, an unblemished lamb was offered as a sacrifice to God. To see that the supply of perfect and unblemished offerings was always available the Temple authorities had their own private sheep flocks; and we know that these shepherds were in charge of the flocks from which the Temple offerings were chosen. It is a lovely thought that the shepherds who looked after the Temple lambs were the first to see the Lamb of G-d who takes away the sin of the world. (The Gospel of Luke: Daily Bible Study, by William Barclay, Westminster Press Philadelphia, 1953, p. 17.)
Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

...he [Bertrand Russell] refused to accept Wittgenstein’s view that any assertion about the world as a whole was meaningless. To Russell, the proposition: ‘There are at least three things in the world’ was both meaningful and true. During discussion of this point Russell took a sheet of white paper and made three blobs of ink on it: ‘I besought him to admit that, since there were these three blobs, there must be a least three things in the world; but he refused resolutely’:

“He would admit there were three blobs on the page, because that was a finite assertion, but he would not admit that anything at all could be said about the world as a whole.”

‘this part of his doctrine’, Russell insisted, ‘is to my mind definitely mistaken.’ (Lugwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, by Ray Monk, The Free Press, 1990, p.182.).

Although Wittgenstein did not present this argument, I believe this is what he was thinking.

1. The world is all that is the case. Tractatus.
(post #284)

(∀x)Wx

“For all x, x is the world.” I think that notation captures Wittgenstein’s meaning.

But is the predicate nominal “W = is the world,” just another object, or is it a constructed unity of relations? In other words, the capital letter “W” (the predicate, or property constant of Predicate Logic) is being used to denote both relational and non-relational properties. “All that is the case” include relations. Wittgenstein said, "Situations can be described but not given names." (3.144). Therefore, since a relation cannot be named, it cannot be an object. Wittgenstein On Objects.

How would the logical expression be written to imply that “the world” is a constructed unity of relations? The logician would say that the expression “for all x” means whatever it can be expanded or quantified to—a very long conjunction of “ands”, (Wa and Wb) and (Wc and Wd) and (We and Wf), and so on. However, this would only be true if 1.) there were a finite number of entities in the real universe. 2.) We had a name for every entity in the real universe. So the universal quantifier (∀x) “for all x” is a shorthand and necessarily exclusive.

5.64 Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.

5.641 Thus there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk about the self in a non-psychological way. What brings the self into philosophy is the fact that 'the world is my world'. The philosophical self is not the human being, not the human body, or the human soul, with which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical subject, the limit of the world--not a part of it. (Tractatus, Wittgenstein).

This same argument can be applied to the question, “What is substance?” Can you show me matter, or substance? Not the qualities of matter (secondary qualities-post 371) like color, extension, solidity, number, movement, but the primary qualities—the object. John Locke said that we have no sensation of substance, only of their qualities so Locke only refers to substance as “something I know not what.” Locke, the empiricist, knew better than to postulate the existence of matter for that would beyond experience. What possible experience could on have to verify matter?

After analysis, concepts such as matter, the world, and G-d are solipsistic.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wittgenstein’s Dream

G-d’s logician,

reluctant as he may be

has seen

reality’s depravity.

Finding only illogical syllogism

and paralogism

he worried

for the mystical a priori.

Where is the morality of rationality

when theology is merely tautology?

Ludwig Wittgenstein tried to pass the altar to the mystical stairs

but his progress ended in despair.

He sought a higher spiritual level

not knowing if it would be gold, silver, or iron metal.

He cleverly combined magic, logic,

and spiritual panic

to form

metallurgic magic.

The alchemic transformation is done

by illogical negation,

and a-theologic speculation.

G-d showed him a sacred rug,

in a dream,

its tapestry beautiful

with complex designs and schemes.

The sacred rug’s beautiful center

is cataphatic,

but its faded and undefined edges

are apophatic.

And yet spiritual agony remains.

I was a priest. In the front hall of my house there was an altar; to the right of the altar a stairway led off. It was a grand stairway carpeted in red, rather like that at the Alleegasse. At the foot of the altar, and partly covering it, was an oriental carpet. And certain other religious objects and regalia were placed on and beside the altar. One of these was a rod of precious metal.

But a theft had occurred. A thief entered from the left and stole the rod. This had to be reported to the police, who sent a representative who wanted a description of the rod. For instance, of what sort of metal was it made? I could not say; I could not even say whether it was of silver or gold. The police officer questioned whether the rod had ever existed in the first place. I then began to examine the other parts and fittings of the altar and noticed that the carpet was a prayer rug. My eyes began to focus on the border of the rug. The border was lighter in colour than the beautiful centre. In a curious way it seemed to be faded. It was, nonetheless, still strong and firm. (Lugwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, by Ray Monk, The Free Press, 1990, p.199.).

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Spirit Level

Benjamin Zephaniah in Belly of the Beast.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

A contradiction arose from which there were two exits. Either that which I called reason was not so rational as I supposed, or that which seemed to me irrational was not so irrational as I supposed. And I began to verify the line of argument of my rational knowledge.

Verifying the line of argument of rational knowledge I found it quite correct. The conclusion that life is nothing was inevitable; but I noticed a mistake. The mistake lay in this, that my reasoning was not in accord with the question I had put. The question was: "Why should I live, that is to say, what real, permanent result will come out of my illusory transitory life - what meaning has my finite existence in this infinite world?" And to reply to that question I had studied life.

The solution of all the possible questions of life could evidently not satisfy me, for my question, simple as it at first appeared, included a demand for an explanation of the finite in terms of the infinite, and vice versa.

I asked: "What is the meaning of my life, beyond time, cause, and space?" And I replied to quite another question: "What is the meaning of my life within time, cause, and space?" With the result that, after long efforts of thought, the answer I reached was: "None."

In my reasonings I constantly compared (nor could I do otherwise) the finite with the finite, and the infinite with the infinite; but for that reason I reached the inevitable result: force is force, matter is matter, will is will, the infinite is the infinite, nothing is nothing - and that was all that could result.

It was something like what happens in mathematics, when thinking to solve an equation, we find we are working on an identity. the line of reasoning is correct, but results in the answer that A equals A, or X equals X, or 0 equals 0: the same thing happened with my reasoning in relation to the question of the meaning of my life. The replies given by all science to that question only result in - identity.

And really, strictly scientific knowledge - that knowledge which begins, as Descartes`s did, with complete doubt about everything - rejects all knowledge admitted on faith and builds everything afresh on the laws of reason and experience, and cannot give any other reply to the question of life than that which I obtained: an indefinite reply. Only at first had it seemed to me that knowledge had given a positive reply - the reply of Schopenhauer: that life has no meaning and is an evil. But on examining the matter I understood that the reply is not positive, it was only my feeling that so expressed it. Strictly expressed, as it is by the Brahmins and by Solomon and Schopenhauer, the reply is merely indefinite, or an identity: o equals o, life is nothing. So that philosophic knowledge denies nothing, but only replies that the question cannot be solved by it - that for it the solution remains indefinite.

Having understood this, I understood that it was not possible to seek in rational knowledge for a reply to my question, and that the reply given by rational knowledge is a mere indication that a reply can only be obtained by a different statement of the question and only when the relation of the finite to the infinite is included in the question. And I understood that, however irrational and distorted might be the replies given by faith, they have this advantage, that they introduce into every answer a relation between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution....

.... All these conceptions in which the finite has been adjusted to the infinite and a meaning found for life - the conception of God, of will, of goodness - we submit to logical examination. And all those conceptions fail to stand reason`s criticism.

Were it not so terrible it would be ludicrous with what pride and self-satisfaction we, like children, pull the watch to pieces, take out the spring, make a toy of it, and are then surprised that the watch does not go.

A Confession: Part Nine, by Leo Tolstoy, 1882.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Leonard Cohen video interview about his new album "Old Ideas" and spirituality.

"O, see the darkness yielding

That tore the light apart

Come healing of the reason

Come healing of the heart"

-Leonard Cohen, Come Healing.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wittgenstein is known for his famous quote at the end of his treatise on language, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,(1921), “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” This is not a statement of nihilism that denies the existence and meaning of anything that is not an object of positivistic science, but rather an observation about the limits of language that is constructed for and functions in a world composed of material objects. The Hindu Adaivtins understood this limitation of language.

Human language has its source in phenomenal experience; hence, it is limited in its application to states of being that are beyond that experience; logic is grounded in the mind as it relations to the phenomenal order; hence, it is unable to affirm, without at the same time denying, what extends beyond that order, “All determination is negation.” to apply a predicate to something is to impose a limitation upon it; form, logically, something is being excluded from the subject…The Real is thus unthinkable: thought can be brought to it only through negations of what is thinkable.”(Advaita Vedanta, Eliot Deutsch,(1969) page, 11.)

However, this object-based language even has difficulty communicating experience in the sensible world. Wittgenstein believed the problem is the use of language that fundamentally misunderstands the phenomena that it attempts to explain, or to convey the meaning of some experiences. Later in life he understood philosophy as solely an attempt to clear up the misunderstandings that improper language use creates. Many thinkers disagree that the only role of philosophy is to correct the misuse of language, or that all philosophical problems are only the result of using unclear language. Be that as it may, Wittgenstein was able to go a long way in resolving many philosophical puzzles and identifying hidden mistakes in the use of language. In his later philosophical work, Philosophical Investigations, (referred to hereafter as PI) published posthumously in 1953, he wrote,

“We feel as if we had to penetrate phenomena: our investigation, however, is directed not towards phenomena, but, as one might say, towards the ‘possibilities’ of phenomena. We remind ourselves, that is to say, of the kind of statement that we make about phenomena…Our investigation is a grammatical one. Such an investigation sheds light on our problem by clearing misunderstandings away. Misunderstandings concerning the use of words, caused, among other things, by certain analogies between the forms of expression in different regions of language” (Philosophical Investigations, published 1953, paragraph §90).

Our topics of spirituality, and mystic experience are exactly the kind of problems Wittgenstein had in mind. He does not discuss mysticism directly in the Philosophical Investigations, as he did in the earlier work, Tractatus; however, he does discuss philosophical problems that have the same problem of language as mysticism—that is subjective phenomena that only the person experiencing it could know, like the sensation of pain for example. Fortunately, there is one particular quote in the PI that summarizes his view and exposes the misunderstanding that language creates when applied to our subjective inner private worlds.

“If I say of myself that it is only from my own case that I know what the word “pain” means—must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize that one case so irresponsibly?

Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own case! –Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a “beetle”. No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. —Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. —But suppose the world “beetle” had a use in these people’s language? —If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing is the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. —No, one can ‘divide through’ by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is.

That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of ‘object and designation’ the object drop out of the consideration as irrelevant” (Philosophical Investigations §293)

In this quote Wittgenstein is using the phenomenon of pain sensation as an example of a private object, but later he also uses color-impressions, feelings of fear, or headaches as other examples of sensations in a world of private objects. He attempts to examine how language is used in describing this private world, “Now, what about the language which describes my inner experiences and which only I myself can understand?” (PI §256).

One problem is we are each trapped in our own world of inner experiences and we really cannot know the objects in the private worlds of others—that is, we cannot look into the other persons box, or inner world of private objects. Color-sensations are another case of not being able to know if the next person is experiencing the same color sensation, as you might be experiencing, “The essential thing about private experience is really not that each person possesses his own exemplar, but that nobody knows whether other people also have this or something else. The assumption would thus be possible—though unverifiable—that one section of mankind had one sensation of red and another section another” (PI §272).

Our ordinary language ignores this problem of private inner experience because it really cannot deal with it as a functioning language: there cannot be a private language so we simply out of habit assume that the color-sensation I experience is the same color-sensation that others experience, “Look at the blue of the sky and say to yourself “How blue the sky is!”—When you do it spontaneously—without philosophical intentions—the idea never crosses your mind that this impression of colour belongs to you. And you have no hesitation in exclaiming that to someone else” (PI §275).

This is where language use creates a misunderstanding. We cannot assume that the “beetle” in my container is the same as the other person’s yet our ordinary language is built on that assumption, “I can only believe that someone else is in pain, but I know it if I am” (PI §303).

We apply the concept of identity to our inner experiences and then generalize that sensation to other persons when we speak of it, or even deny it as an experience. The identity language rule cannot be assumed to work in the world of private objects: “But if I suppose that someone has a pain, then I am simply supposing that he has just the same as I have of often had.” –That get us no further. It is as if I were to say; “You surely know what ‘It is 5 o’clock here” means; so you also know what ‘It’s 5 o’clock on the sun’ means. It means simply that it is just the same there as it is here when it is 5 o’clock.”—The explanation by means of identity does not work here…(PI §350).

Wittgenstein formulated the theory of language-games. The word “game” means rule based linguistic activity, not game as in the cynical sophistic use of language as some try to interpret it, which misses the point. Naming objects--where a child is taught to match a word with an object--is a language game in this sense. Wittgenstein defined language-games as the following: “…And the processes of naming the stones and of repeating words after someone might also be called language-games. Think of much of the use of words in games like ring-a-ring-a-roses. I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven, a “language-game”” (PI §7).

When Wittgenstein wrote, “The thing is the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty,” he is pointing out that the language-game being used in his beetle example is based on a language of material objects that creates misunderstanding when used to described private objects such as pain, color-sensation, or feelings in our inner private world. These sensations are not objects! When we try to use this obsessive material-object based language-game to speak of our inner subjective world, we are creating an impossible language—a private language. He does not mean that a coded language cannot be created, since the code is based on public language. Wittgenstein defined a private language as the following: “But could we also imagine a language in which a person could write down or give vocal expression to his inner experiences—his feelings, moods, and the rest—for his private use?—Well, can’t we do so in our ordinary language?—But that is not what I mean. The individual words in this language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking, to his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the language” (PI §243). Such a private language based on only what the originator could experience would in principle be unintelligible to others and even to the originator themselves because they would be unable to create a language-game built on the word-object model of linguistic meaning.

Wittgenstein is not denying that we experience pain, or see colors, or have inner experiences. He is pointing out the inadequacy of ordinary language built on the model of ‘object and designation’ to describe the subjective world of experience.

“…It is not a something, but not a nothing either! The conclusion was only that a nothing would serve just a well as something about which nothing could be said. We have only rejected the grammar which tries to force itself on us here.

The paradox disappears only if we make a radical break with the idea that language always functions in one way, always serves the same purpose: to convey thoughts—which may be about houses, pains, good and evil, or anything else you please.” (PI §304).

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dalai Lama self-identifies as a Marxist - Salon.com

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The awesome lie of your foolproof perception

by Mark Morford on March 2, 2015

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sei Still, Wisse ICH BIN ("Be quiet, I am") --1980

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

All the people and animals in this old film are dead now.

"Why do I still sleep?"

*This film was taken May 7, 1907 by a Seattle film maker named William Harbeck in Vancouver.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The waves of life eventually get us all.

Death of the Green Snake

"Against all expectations, the slave trade is successfully maintained under the new King, thanks to da Silva's [Played by actor Klaus Kinski] resourcefulness. However, da Silva eventually falls out of favor with the new King, and discovers that in the meantime the Portuguese have outlawed slavery and seized his assets, and the English have placed a price on his head. Despite the adversity, da Silva is glad that finally a change has come. The exhausted bandit tries desperately to take a boat to water, but despite his best efforts, he is unable to accomplish the task. He collapses next to the ship as the tide slowly laps in. The film ends with the hauntingly symbolic image of an African man stricken with polio walking along the shore, and a group of young native women laughingly chant over the credits.--Wiki"

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I am not sure man has a spirit, or that a god(s) exist, but Astral Weeks by Van Morrison just might be proof that man has a soul.

Thank you Van the Man

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
The Revolutionary Jesus (video interview)

...JAY: How do you deal with this in the church? The message of love, the message of Jesus, is one of giving and loving, forgiving. At the same time, people's rights, as you were saying, are being so violated. How do you deal with this yourself? I mean, you're based in Detroit, which, like Baltimore, is a devastated city.

BULLOCK: Right. Indeed. You know, I'm not sure that we should continue to say that Jesus's message was forgiving and loving and giving. I think we need to back up a bit. Jesus primarily, when you encounter Jesus talking to people and teaching them, he's either teaching his disciples or he's teaching his enemies Sadducees and Pharisees and other sects. And some of the things that he says primarily, about the Sabbath and about the legalism and about the sign of holiness or the sign of being blessed, who God's people are, this isn't just kind of some individual love your neighbor, give, and forgive. I mean, this is deep critique of legal systems of oppression. The work that Jesus does in the Temple, which is also a bank, right--and, of course, people never read the bank temple. They read the temple as the sanctuary of worship. It's a bank. And so the high interest fees that are being charged on poor people who have tied their religious worship to a deity, right, to their financial prospectus--so they can't opt out, because if you opt out, you're a bad worshiper. So you have to pay the exorbitant amount of being charged for the turtledove and charged for the sacrifice. And Jesus comes and says, no. Right? I mean, so that Jesus--.

...HEDGES: Well, it's a revolutionary movement in this sense--and, you know, I'll see if you agree--in that it understands that power is always the problem, that in order to live the moral life, one must always be alienated and stand in opposition to power on behalf of the oppressed.

JAY: But he was very specific. They were fighting against the Roman Empire.

HEDGES: Well, of course. They were fighting against empire. But that's how power manifested itself. And there were--Jesus is very clear throughout the gospel that to serve systems you cannot serve two masters. To serve God, one cannot serve systems of power, and certainly systems of empire.

And I think, as David said correctly, that it's also very clear from the gospel that justice is the physical or public manifestation of love. And it is true that the Roman Empire executes Jesus as an insurrectionist and yet Jesus is also a pacifist. But what Jesus is asking followers to do is to turn their backs on the values that empire imparts. So in our empire it is the values of consumerism, of consumption. And Jesus is opposed to it.

And I think that when we go back and look at the early 19th century, with William Jennings Bryan, all sorts of other figures, the Chautauqua movement, although segregated, but you saw--and certainly the black prophetic tradition saw this--they got that radical message, and then in the early 19th century we had the Rockefellers and the Carnegies, who actually invested tremendous sums of money to promote the prosperity gospel, to challenge this narrative, which had fired up the abolitionists and fired up a lot of the socialists, even those around Debs, and that black prophetic tradition came under assault. You're seeing it under assault today with the rise of Booker T. Obama and Booker T. Sharpton and the attacks on figures like Jeremiah Wright, Cornel West, and others, and because that core, I think, fundamental message of the gospel is anticapitalist, anti-imperialist. Remember when Jesus is taken to the desert by Satan and Satan offers him not only riches, but control of land, which is empire? And that is a condemnation. The Gospels are such a clear condemnation not just of the Roman Empire, but of empire. And remember, as Jeremiah Wright correctly points out, that Jesus wasn't white. The Romans were white. Jesus was a person of color and came out of the cast of the oppressed, racially and religiously.

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I discovered a real treasure in the music of the unknown English poet/singer Nick Drake. Here is a documentary about his work and life. Nick Drake - Under Review

I think "Way to Blue" and "Voice From the Mountian" best represents the spiritual quality of his writing and music.

Way to Blue

Don't you have a word to show what may be done
Have you never heard a way to find the sun
Tell me all that you may know, show me what you have to show
Won't you come and say if you know the way to blue?

Have you seen the land living by the breeze?
Can you understand a light among the trees
Tell me all that you may know, show me what you have to show
Tell us all today if you know the way to blue?

Look through time and find your rhyme, tell us what you find
We will wait at your gate, hoping like the blind

Can you now recall all that you have known?
Will you never fall when the light has flown?
Tell me all that you may know, show me what you have to show
Won't you come and say if you know the way to blue?

Voice From the Mountain sung by Nick Drake

Voice from the mountain
And a voice from the sea
Voice in my neighborhood
And a voice calling me

Tell me my friend, my friend
Tell me with love
Where can it end, it end
Voice from above

The sound on the ocean wave
And the sound in the tree
Sound in a country lane
Say you can be free

Tell me, you crowd, you crowd
Tell me again
Tell me out, loud out, loud
This sound is rain

Tune from the hillside

And tune full of light
A flute in the morning
And a chime in the night

I know the game again
I know the score
I know my name my name
But this tune is more

Voice from the mountain
And voice from the sea
Voice from in my neighborhood
And a voice calling me

Tell me my friend, my friend
Tell me with love
Where can it end, it end
Voice from above

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

INVISIBLE STORY by Szemző-Hamvas - YouTube

Antifascist's picture
Antifascist
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm