We can easily infer the World through some kind of a priori synthesis of correspondence with phenomenology. When we do phenomenology, there are as many ways to infer the existence of the world-in-itself (Absolute Spirit) as there are different perspectives of the world ontically.
You could take the sense perception of an insect, say a spider, and examine it through empathy and compassion. We can say with some certainty that if we squash a spider it's sense perception ends, perhaps with physical sensations in the insect of pain and suffering. Further, we can say when we see a spider in our living room that this being is an entity of sorts, and it's own sensory perception - far different from ours - has perception of the perceiver (the "I"). So by the eidetic reduction of the conscious, unconscious and even preconscious perception between two entities in the proximity of each other we may surmise quite succinctly that, while the world-in-itself may be difficult to prove the existence of, we may understand - through thoughtful comportment - that the ontico-ontological being of sense perception (Dasein) is such that we can apprehend a being's sentience.
So let's examine our own sentience,
through the totality of our own sense perceptions...
How can we be certain that what we see, hear, smell, touch or taste correspond with the world and ontical beings (entities) in-the-world?
Through the ontology of phenomenal reduction of specific qualia of what constitutes experience or sense perception or conscious awareness of our senses within ourselves, perhaps?
Maybe it has to do with examining logically the physical nature of how sense perception occurs within our-own-selves in-the-world, eh?
With a brute layman's understanding of how the brain works and using common sense logic, we can ascertain that the phenomenon of sense perception is a priori preceded by the mechanisms of our neurology... How does this work?
Well I'm not very learned,
but it seems that if we have, say a sense perception of immediacy where our body acts without conscious thought, that a priori electro chemical stimuli and neural networks that carry these impulses are preconscious, so to speak, and somehow hardwired...
Bob Solomon, who if he had lived to see the recent advances in the study of the brain would no doubt be thrilled about the event horizon of the new philosophers, said that when it comes to science (he had a degree in biology before philosophy) the easiest sense perception to analyze in a laboratory setting is - in fact - "fear" by virtue of the application of an electro-shock (i.e. pain).
The fear reaction in, say, rats is easily reproducible in scientific analysis using the Scientific Method and seems to be consistent with what we know about neural networks. The pain stimulus through the administering of an electrical shock in the rat induces fear, every single time.
I'm thinking, outside of science, of what we know about fear-as-such...
Let's look at the word of the Bible!
Fear, in scripture, is seen as a necessary sense activity in knowledge.
FEAR GOD~
They say...
Fearing god, again, is seen in the New Testament as the first step to knowledge and wisdom, and further the first step to truly knowing God. We can know God through some kind of sense perception, in this case fear (not leaving out love etc.), and come to conclusions about ourselves, the universe and the Spirit of the Times- How can we do this with certainty?
Well,
as I said,
I'm no professor of philosophy and hardly scientific whatsoever in my politik (I agree with Hegel's anti-Physics bent), so I'll have to rely on merely sophomoric approaches to the problem~
The equation is thus:
Inferring Correspondence Through Sense Perception + Eidetic Phenomenological Reduction of Given Phenomena = An Adequate Everyday Understanding of Sense Certainty
Correspondence, as observed by many in academia in regards to the question of Sense Certainty, is seen as inadequate to determine the existence of objects of consciousness. Why?
I can't see it to be frank.
If my hand touching a table gives me this sensory input I can infer through both Faith-as-such and common sense that the nerves in my hand triggering out of touching the object perceived (i.e. the object of consciousness) correspond with the Absolute, Objective, Unequivocal and Universal "table-as-such" that I can touch and see by virtue of the electro-chemical interaction in the empty space behind my eyes - the brain (which by the way one cannot really 'feel' the same way as other parts of the body - excluding, say, a headache or what have you) - and may sensibly infer that this table is existent in the world and my world of sense perception.
But there's still a problem here...
It was put best by Fichte and expanded on ad infinitum in Hegel's Phenomenology...
"There is no consciousness of objects,
only consciousness of our consciousness of objects."
-Fichte
So it seems that my sophomoric 'correspondence theory' won't hold water...
...or will it?
How can an entity in the world determine correspondence?
I think the question here is the difference between consciousness-as-such and honest to goodness factical correspondence of the world to our sense perception. In fact, what is consciousness?
And can there be a kind of "Absolute Consciousness"?
I'm doubtful.
Consciousness in the present age and for some time since the cultural revolution in the 60's has really lost most of it's significance philosophically and is -at best- a buzz word for pop psych bulling...
I mean honestly,
What's that phrase again?
"Expand your consciousness"...
I'll let it go at that,
but let's -as an exercise in phenomenology- examine what Fichte and Hegel must have thought of as qualifying consciousness-as-such.
More than likely consciousness for them must have had something to do with thoughtful circumspection. So we could say, with certainty, that consciousness-as-such corresponds with consciousness-in-the-absolute. The reducible ego of the "I", with our minds eidetic reduction preceded by ontically existent functions of our Mind, Spirit or "Ghost".
I'm reminded here, again, of the Bible and our Creation Story-as-such.
We're told that, in the beginning, God created mankind in his image - meaning creation corresponds to individual consciousness of the World-as-Such, and even our own Being-In-The-World in terms of Spirit (Geist).
So does that mean, in some sense or another, that our consciousness of our own consciousness is a byproduct of Creation? Could it mean that our consciousness "Corresponds-in-Itself" with the World-as-Spirit?
Maybe I'll leave the tired Germanic phraseology here for arguments sake-
If we can only be conscious of our consciousness of the world and not the "World- In-Itself", ergo ipso we see an easy leap of judgement from our consciousness of consciousness to say that this type of conscious cognition - in all facticity and Universal Absolute truth-as-such - this type of cognition (consciousness-as-such conscious of its own consciousness of the world) corresponds with the Totality of the Universe, through a single qualia or quanta - if you will - of Geist (Spirit, Mind or Ghost).
So we can know that we don't know the Absolute world, and by virtue of this quasi-Socratic effort know via Faith that our sense perception refers to the creations of God-as-such, and Absolute Truth.
Apologies if this all seems a bit loopy...
But those are my basic tractates for today.
"We know ourselves as Spirit, when we become conscious of the world as the Absolute and the Universal Individual as ourselves, ontical beings suffering the experiences of God's Creation - I.E. Absolute Being-In-The-World as the "I". When we raise our own being to be likened to the form of Creation, then we can truly in an Hegelian sense of ourselves as the world and the world as ourselves understand the world as Absolute Spirit."
-RT Stillwell
So what does all this blather really amount to?
A Paleo-Hegelian apology for or justification of Evangelical Theology & Hermeneutics,
proven through the phenomenological method and existential verstehen as the Will to Truth.
Domestic Democracy United 2020
You could take the sense perception of an insect, say a spider, and examine it through empathy and compassion. We can say with some certainty that if we squash a spider it's sense perception ends, perhaps with physical sensations in the insect of pain and suffering. Further, we can say when we see a spider in our living room that this being is an entity of sorts, and it's own sensory perception - far different from ours - has perception of the perceiver (the "I"). So by the eidetic reduction of the conscious, unconscious and even preconscious perception between two entities in the proximity of each other we may surmise quite succinctly that, while the world-in-itself may be difficult to prove the existence of, we may understand - through thoughtful comportment - that the ontico-ontological being of sense perception (Dasein) is such that we can apprehend a being's sentience.
So let's examine our own sentience,
through the totality of our own sense perceptions...
How can we be certain that what we see, hear, smell, touch or taste correspond with the world and ontical beings (entities) in-the-world?
Through the ontology of phenomenal reduction of specific qualia of what constitutes experience or sense perception or conscious awareness of our senses within ourselves, perhaps?
Maybe it has to do with examining logically the physical nature of how sense perception occurs within our-own-selves in-the-world, eh?
With a brute layman's understanding of how the brain works and using common sense logic, we can ascertain that the phenomenon of sense perception is a priori preceded by the mechanisms of our neurology... How does this work?
Well I'm not very learned,
but it seems that if we have, say a sense perception of immediacy where our body acts without conscious thought, that a priori electro chemical stimuli and neural networks that carry these impulses are preconscious, so to speak, and somehow hardwired...
Bob Solomon, who if he had lived to see the recent advances in the study of the brain would no doubt be thrilled about the event horizon of the new philosophers, said that when it comes to science (he had a degree in biology before philosophy) the easiest sense perception to analyze in a laboratory setting is - in fact - "fear" by virtue of the application of an electro-shock (i.e. pain).
The fear reaction in, say, rats is easily reproducible in scientific analysis using the Scientific Method and seems to be consistent with what we know about neural networks. The pain stimulus through the administering of an electrical shock in the rat induces fear, every single time.
I'm thinking, outside of science, of what we know about fear-as-such...
Let's look at the word of the Bible!
Fear, in scripture, is seen as a necessary sense activity in knowledge.
FEAR GOD~
They say...
Fearing god, again, is seen in the New Testament as the first step to knowledge and wisdom, and further the first step to truly knowing God. We can know God through some kind of sense perception, in this case fear (not leaving out love etc.), and come to conclusions about ourselves, the universe and the Spirit of the Times- How can we do this with certainty?
Well,
as I said,
I'm no professor of philosophy and hardly scientific whatsoever in my politik (I agree with Hegel's anti-Physics bent), so I'll have to rely on merely sophomoric approaches to the problem~
The equation is thus:
Inferring Correspondence Through Sense Perception + Eidetic Phenomenological Reduction of Given Phenomena = An Adequate Everyday Understanding of Sense Certainty
Correspondence, as observed by many in academia in regards to the question of Sense Certainty, is seen as inadequate to determine the existence of objects of consciousness. Why?
I can't see it to be frank.
If my hand touching a table gives me this sensory input I can infer through both Faith-as-such and common sense that the nerves in my hand triggering out of touching the object perceived (i.e. the object of consciousness) correspond with the Absolute, Objective, Unequivocal and Universal "table-as-such" that I can touch and see by virtue of the electro-chemical interaction in the empty space behind my eyes - the brain (which by the way one cannot really 'feel' the same way as other parts of the body - excluding, say, a headache or what have you) - and may sensibly infer that this table is existent in the world and my world of sense perception.
But there's still a problem here...
It was put best by Fichte and expanded on ad infinitum in Hegel's Phenomenology...
"There is no consciousness of objects,
only consciousness of our consciousness of objects."
-Fichte
So it seems that my sophomoric 'correspondence theory' won't hold water...
...or will it?
How can an entity in the world determine correspondence?
I think the question here is the difference between consciousness-as-such and honest to goodness factical correspondence of the world to our sense perception. In fact, what is consciousness?
And can there be a kind of "Absolute Consciousness"?
I'm doubtful.
Consciousness in the present age and for some time since the cultural revolution in the 60's has really lost most of it's significance philosophically and is -at best- a buzz word for pop psych bulling...
I mean honestly,
What's that phrase again?
"Expand your consciousness"...
I'll let it go at that,
but let's -as an exercise in phenomenology- examine what Fichte and Hegel must have thought of as qualifying consciousness-as-such.
More than likely consciousness for them must have had something to do with thoughtful circumspection. So we could say, with certainty, that consciousness-as-such corresponds with consciousness-in-the-absolute. The reducible ego of the "I", with our minds eidetic reduction preceded by ontically existent functions of our Mind, Spirit or "Ghost".
I'm reminded here, again, of the Bible and our Creation Story-as-such.
We're told that, in the beginning, God created mankind in his image - meaning creation corresponds to individual consciousness of the World-as-Such, and even our own Being-In-The-World in terms of Spirit (Geist).
So does that mean, in some sense or another, that our consciousness of our own consciousness is a byproduct of Creation? Could it mean that our consciousness "Corresponds-in-Itself" with the World-as-Spirit?
Maybe I'll leave the tired Germanic phraseology here for arguments sake-
If we can only be conscious of our consciousness of the world and not the "World- In-Itself", ergo ipso we see an easy leap of judgement from our consciousness of consciousness to say that this type of conscious cognition - in all facticity and Universal Absolute truth-as-such - this type of cognition (consciousness-as-such conscious of its own consciousness of the world) corresponds with the Totality of the Universe, through a single qualia or quanta - if you will - of Geist (Spirit, Mind or Ghost).
So we can know that we don't know the Absolute world, and by virtue of this quasi-Socratic effort know via Faith that our sense perception refers to the creations of God-as-such, and Absolute Truth.
Apologies if this all seems a bit loopy...
But those are my basic tractates for today.
"We know ourselves as Spirit, when we become conscious of the world as the Absolute and the Universal Individual as ourselves, ontical beings suffering the experiences of God's Creation - I.E. Absolute Being-In-The-World as the "I". When we raise our own being to be likened to the form of Creation, then we can truly in an Hegelian sense of ourselves as the world and the world as ourselves understand the world as Absolute Spirit."
-RT Stillwell
So what does all this blather really amount to?
A Paleo-Hegelian apology for or justification of Evangelical Theology & Hermeneutics,
proven through the phenomenological method and existential verstehen as the Will to Truth.
Domestic Democracy United 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment