New Year Recommendation
RaaN
these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
considered inherently beyond conception.
"Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
appearances
in themselves, with no origin or foundation ‘behind’ them.
Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
Plato, but his general project of becoming and the ‘simulacra’ can be
seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
appearances,
and not in terms of fixed concepts or logic. Deleuze’s genius lay in
taking this notion of appearances (images or ‘simulacra’) well beyond
its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
really
want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
presupposition
then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
world; there will be nothing other than a ‘swarm’ of appearances –
with
no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
appearances or images without ground or foundation."
-- Claire Colebrook
Happy New Year all!
--
RaaN
zenworm
seeing through the illusion of the appearances of form?
^worm
RaaN
The term appearance seems to imply "substance" of which it is an
appearance and a "self" to whom the appearance appears The idea that
there is something underlying appearance is merely a synthetic
conceptual construct - an assumption. Just as nothing behind
appearance can even be conceivable as possible to apprehend, it is
just as incorrect to cling to the notion that there is actually
nothing behind appearance. The most honest appraisal is that what is
known in experience is simulacra. And just as in Buddhism the self is
considered an illusion, so too may be substance - no substance, no
self, nor even appearance as such, but simply simulacra. Rather with
true integrity one must accept all ideas about self or mind or
substance or matter as simply conceptual synthetic constructs -
effective descriptions - working assumptions - simulacra. So must
science be understood and so also any mysticism/spirituality. Both
are simply alternate descriptions echoing in simulacra the experience
of common simulacra, both with differing but not mutually exclusive
utility. The apprehension of the meaning of simulacra undercuts any
subjectively or objectively exclusive or dichotomous view. No seer,
nor seen, but only the seeing. One does not appraise literature with
the same criteria as mathematics, nor does one correctly appraise
physical phenomena with the same criteria as the psychical, but all
may be construed under an enlightened view of what is directly
experienced as experience itself - beyond any assumption or concept of
the apprehended and/or the apprehendor to which one might cling.
Simulacra transcend subjectivity and objectivity alike. Thus there is
no seeing through any illusion of the appearance of form as there can
be no experience of any seer to see through and no experience of
anything to be seen through this illusion. The illusion is that of a
seer self and a substance seen. Simulacra is simply the seeing in and
of itself.
--
RaaN
zenworm
How do you avoid the anarchy of nihilism
if you do not acknowledge the conflagration
of attention that is apparently
experiencing this appearances of form?
^worm
RaaN
Creative natural growth and play.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Creative natural growth.
--
RaaN
zenworm
ah so
very nice
play IS 'creative natural growth'
good instincts
gratitude
^worm
Déjà Flu
> On Jan 4, 12:02 pm, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN <raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
>>> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
>>> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
>>> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
>>> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
>>> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
>>> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
>>> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
>>> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
>>> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
>>> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
>>> considered inherently beyond conception.
>>> "Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
>>> appearances
>>> Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
>>> seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
>>> insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
>>> appearances,
>>> taking this notion of appearances (images or �simulacra�) well beyond
>>> its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
>>> really
>>> want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
>>> presupposition
>>> then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
Excruciating indeed.
Is there a Philosopher position open at Guantanamo or something?
bonfils
@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
> considered inherently beyond conception.
A very interesting guy. I'll certainly check out his writings.
Thanks a lot!
--
bonfils
http://kim.bonfils.com
To send me a massage, please remove your.underwear
Charles E Hardwidge
news:f5debbd2-905d-4594...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
> considered inherently beyond conception.
Kinda figured out "this" versus "that" ding-dong dick waving was useless
years ago. The brain? Console fanboism. Psychology? Quick buck marketers.
Don't get me started on political campaigns, think-tanks, lobbyists, vested
interests, billionaire tax dodging donors, or hairshirt whiners. Yes, the
Great British general election is coming. It makes the cross-posting, spam,
and whiney posturing in here look like drinking a martini in the shade by a
blue lagoon in the South Pacific.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
possum
Happy New Year to you too Raan.
i had to look Deleuze up on wiki, as i hadn't heard of him before. it
was tempting, especially as i have to scrape paint off the bathroom
wall...but realistically...my time is limited...
nothing against Deleuze's philospophy or your recommendation, but
possums needs all the short cuts they can get (one reason i'm in
favour of cross-posts, and appreciate tang, for ignoring the
continuous brickbats he gets for his valuable service.) DT(the other
one) posted an interesting post the other day, which explained a lot,
from my point of view, in the voluntary sector and beyond, but i
gather the empirical experiments are in a few difficulties, and the
woo-woo/scientism contretemps is unresolved...
and as Charles points out, we has an election coming up...
all in all, while i appreciate your attempt to help move the debate or
whatever you want to call it on, by finding common ground, i agree
this is what has to happen/ be done anyway, do you have time to chuck
a few short cuts here? why do you think that learning the language
and vocabulary of another philosopher, and the difference between his
'simulcra' and other 'simulcra' will help us get beyond the current
stage and solve practical problems. ( i really have got to scrape
paint off the bathroom wall tomorrow. it's nothing whatsoever to do
with black mouldy. )
are you certain these 'addings' are 'droppings'... ?
are you zenworm?
possum
RaaN
> RaaN wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 12:02 pm, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN <raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
> >>> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
> >>> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
> >>> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
> >>> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
> >>> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
> >>> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
> >>> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
> >>> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
> >>> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
> >>> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
> >>> considered inherently beyond conception.
> >>> "Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
> >>> appearances
> >>> Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
> >>> seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
> >>> insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
> >>> appearances,
> >>> taking this notion of appearances (images or ‘simulacra’) well beyond
> >>> its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
> >>> really
> >>> want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
> >>> presupposition
> >>> then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
What yer bored?
*Nyock*
--
RaaN
Déjà Flu
>>> The illusion is that of a seer self and a substance seen. Simulacra is simply the seeing in and
>>> of itself.
>> Excruciating indeed.
>>
>> Is there a Philosopher position open at Guantanamo or something?
>
> What yer bored?
> *Nyock*
I'm a similacrumb.
Where have you been, lo, these many seasons, y'old horsefly?
Did reading Deleuze put you into hibernation mode?
RaaN
Hardly that... Mostly anticipating his thought as I generate my own.
Good to know my philosophy has reached the 20th century though.
But in my version it's: How to make out: A buddy without orgasms.
Truthfully I've been applying too much astringent to my brain cells.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Wow..
Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
simulacra)
Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
silence?
--
RaaN
Hollywood Lee
> On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
>> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
>> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
>> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
>> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
>> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
>> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
>> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
>> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
>> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
>> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
>> considered inherently beyond conception.
>>
>> "Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
>> appearances
>> Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
>> seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
>> insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
>> appearances,
>> taking this notion of appearances (images or �simulacra�) well beyond
>> its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
>> really
>> want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
>> presupposition
>> then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
>> no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
>> appearances or images without ground or foundation."
>> -- Claire Colebrook
>> Happy New Year all!
>> --
>> RaaN
>
> Wow..
> Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
> ...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
> simulacra)
> Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
> silence?
> --
> RaaN
With each new year, I fully expect everyone on Buddhist usenet to
disappear, with the resolution to stop wasting time in our little circle
of coots, loons, cockoftherocks, and red faced boobies (all of which, by
the way, are also birds).
So count your blessings if a few Northern Screamers and one or two
Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers remain, even if we are too lazy or dense to
read Deleuze.
Déjà Flu
> On 1/8/2010 3:44 AM, RaaN wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>>> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
>>> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
>>> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
>>> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
>>> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
>>> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
>>> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
>>> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
>>> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
>>> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
>>> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
>>> considered inherently beyond conception.
>>>
>>> "Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
>>> appearances
>>> Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
>>> seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
>>> insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
>>> appearances,
>>> taking this notion of appearances (images or ?simulacra?) well beyond
>>> its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
>>> really
>>> want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
>>> presupposition
>>> then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
>>> with
>>> no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
>>> appearances or images without ground or foundation."
>>> -- Claire Colebrook
>>> Happy New Year all!
>>> --
>>> RaaN
>>
>> Wow..
>> Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
>> ...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
>> simulacra)
>> Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
>> silence?
>> --
>> RaaN
>
>
> With each new year, I fully expect everyone on Buddhist usenet to
> disappear, with the resolution to stop wasting time in our little circle
> of coots, loons, cockoftherocks, and red faced boobies (all of which, by
> the way, are also birds).
>
> So count your blessings if a few Northern Screamers and one or two
> Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers remain, even if we are too lazy or dense to
> read Deleuze.
Deleuze has the honor of being the only bullshit artist
outside of Heidegger to bend the needle around the peg
of my MIGOmeter (Naggie just bounces against it).
DharmaTroll
> On 1/8/2010 3:44 AM, RaaN wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
> >> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
> >> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
> >> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
> >> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
> >> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
> >> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
> >> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
> >> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
> >> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
> >> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
> >> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
> >> considered inherently beyond conception.
>
> >> "Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
> >> appearances
> >> Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
> >> seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
> >> insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
> >> appearances,
> >> taking this notion of appearances (images or ‘simulacra’) well beyond
> >> its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
> >> really
> >> want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
> >> presupposition
> >> then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
> >> with
> >> no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
> >> appearances or images without ground or foundation."
> >> -- Claire Colebrook
> >> Happy New Year all!
> >> --
> >> RaaN
>
> > Wow..
> > Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
> > ...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
> > simulacra)
> > Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
> > silence?
> > --
> > RaaN
>
> With each new year, I fully expect everyone on Buddhist usenet to
> disappear, with the resolution to stop wasting time in our little circle
> of coots, loons, cockoftherocks, and red faced boobies (all of which, by
> the way, are also birds).
>
> So count your blessings if a few Northern Screamers and one or two
> Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers remain, even if we are too lazy or dense to
> read Deleuze.
I haven't read this thread until now, and I've been posting a lot
already, but I'll take a look.
--DharmaTroll
Hollywood Lee
MIGO?? mindful inside, giggling outside?
Déjà Flu
Sorry - MEGO - "My Eyes Glaze Over",
but that's pretty good too. ;)
Déjà Flu
> On Jan 8, 2:00 pm, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/8/2010 3:44 AM, RaaN wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
>>>> these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
>>>> you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
>>>> Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
>>>> matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
>>>> of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
>>>> before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
>>>> nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
>>>> highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
>>>> prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
>>>> development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
>>>> considered inherently beyond conception.
>>>> "Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
>>>> appearances
>>>> Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
>>>> seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
>>>> insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
>>>> appearances,
>>>> taking this notion of appearances (images or �simulacra�) well beyond
>>>> its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
>>>> really
>>>> want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
>>>> presupposition
>>>> then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
>>>> no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
>>>> appearances or images without ground or foundation."
>>>> -- Claire Colebrook
>>>> Happy New Year all!
>>>> --
>>>> RaaN
>>> Wow..
>>> Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
>>> ...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
>>> simulacra)
>>> Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
>>> silence?
>>> --
>>> RaaN
>> With each new year, I fully expect everyone on Buddhist usenet to
>> disappear, with the resolution to stop wasting time in our little circle
>> of coots, loons, cockoftherocks, and red faced boobies (all of which, by
>> the way, are also birds).
>>
>> So count your blessings if a few Northern Screamers and one or two
>> Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers remain, even if we are too lazy or dense to
>> read Deleuze.
>
> I haven't read this thread until now, and I've been posting a lot
> already, but I'll take a look.
I once started a campaign for mirrored toilets - before
Sandy invented the Potty-Cam and during the era of Peeflectors
(those plastic things in the urinals that ensured that men
would not return to executive meetings). But I have a new product.
It links to Sandy's and steals from Twitter - it's called
"Shitter" (as you may have guessed). Lee R. is writing the
script in Adventure-Speak, the one true language.
Lee Rudolph
>Deleuze has the honor of being the only bullshit artist
>outside of Heidegger to bend the needle around the peg
>of my MIGOmeter (Naggie just bounces against it).
Well, as Marx said, "Outside of Heidegger, Deleuze is a
man's best friend, and inside of Heidegger it's too dark
to read."
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
Hollywood Lee
It is a Friday.
Déjà Flu
Think I'll keep that one.
DharmaTroll
Heh. I've never even heard of him.
Raan will have to give me an article to read; what he posted sounds
like a bunch of buzz words, and I'd have to read something substantial
to form an opinion on it one way or the other.
--DharmaTroll
RaaN
RaaN
I wasn't aware that the use of the word "simulacra" had achieved the
status of a buzz word.
http://www.google.com
Happy hunting ;)
--
RaaN
RaaN
Perhaps his most significant work can be downloaded free here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18425276/Difference-and-Repetition
--
RaaN
Déjà Flu
Oh, sure. Seething... <seeths for the camera>
RaaN
Incidentally another translation of the term "simulacra" is
"phantasma" which I personally tend to prefer.
--
RaaN
Déjà Flu
That's two "translations" too many, toots, so to speak...
DharmaTroll
> Happy hunting ;)
> --
> RaaN
I mean, "Deleuze insisted that if we really want to accept the
appearance of the world without judgement or presupposition then we
will not refer to appearances as appearances of some world; there will
be nothing other than a ‘swarm’ of appearances – with no foundation of
an experiencing mind or subject."
That sounds like bullshit, that's all. Or he could say something
interesting, but this description might simply be oversimplistic.
That's what I meant.
--DharmaTroll
Hollywood Lee
> an experiencing mind or subject."
>
> That sounds like bullshit, that's all. Or he could say something
> interesting, but this description might simply be oversimplistic.
> That's what I meant.
Actually, I think it is quite interesting in its simplicity. It captures
the idea that thingies/events seem to appear to us with some general
regularity, but more (or less) than that, who really knows? We can
speculate, but what does it really matter whether we establish some sort
of foundational ontology from which appearances arise?
Don't get me wrong - I think physicalism is a pretty coherent, logical
description of how we experience the world. Whether it is more than
that, I don't know.
DharmaTroll
> On 1/8/2010 5:18 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 5:53 pm, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 5:05 pm, DharmaTroll<dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > an experiencing mind or subject."
>
> > That sounds like bullshit, that's all. Or he could say something
> > interesting, but this description might simply be oversimplistic.
> > That's what I meant.
>
> Actually, I think it is quite interesting in its simplicity. It captures
> the idea that thingies/events seem to appear to us with some general
> regularity, but more (or less) than that, who really knows? We can
> speculate, but what does it really matter whether we establish some sort
> of foundational ontology from which appearances arise?
>
> Don't get me wrong - I think physicalism is a pretty coherent, logical
> description of how we experience the world. Whether it is more than
> that, I don't know.
Fair enough.
--DharmaTroll
Hollywood Lee
> On Jan 8, 11:36 pm, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/8/2010 5:18 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 5:53 pm, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 8, 5:05 pm, DharmaTroll<dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>> an experiencing mind or subject."
>>
>>> That sounds like bullshit, that's all. Or he could say something
>>> interesting, but this description might simply be oversimplistic.
>>> That's what I meant.
>>
>> Actually, I think it is quite interesting in its simplicity. It captures
>> the idea that thingies/events seem to appear to us with some general
>> regularity, but more (or less) than that, who really knows? We can
>> speculate, but what does it really matter whether we establish some sort
>> of foundational ontology from which appearances arise?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong - I think physicalism is a pretty coherent, logical
>> description of how we experience the world. Whether it is more than
>> that, I don't know.
>
> Fair enough.
Dang it. Stop being so agreeable. Now I'm gonna have to go annoy the
neighbor.
DharmaTroll
> On 1/8/2010 10:10 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:36 pm, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/8/2010 5:18 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 8, 5:53 pm, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 8, 5:05 pm, DharmaTroll<dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>> an experiencing mind or subject."
>
> >>> That sounds like bullshit, that's all. Or he could say something
> >>> interesting, but this description might simply be oversimplistic.
> >>> That's what I meant.
>
> >> Actually, I think it is quite interesting in its simplicity. It captures
> >> the idea that thingies/events seem to appear to us with some general
> >> regularity, but more (or less) than that, who really knows? We can
> >> speculate, but what does it really matter whether we establish some sort
> >> of foundational ontology from which appearances arise?
>
> >> Don't get me wrong - I think physicalism is a pretty coherent, logical
> >> description of how we experience the world. Whether it is more than
> >> that, I don't know.
>
> > Fair enough.
>
> Dang it. Stop being so agreeable. Now I'm gonna have to go annoy the
> neighbor.
Actually, I'd like to insult you and kick your butt, but you don't
diagnose me with any neurosis or crime, and you don't make any
privileged claims and just describe your experience and say, "Don't
get me wrong - I think physicalism is a pretty coherent, logical
description of how we experience the world. Whether it is more than
that, I don't know."
That sounds just like what my philosophy professors said in college.
Nothing I can shove back in your face. And right when I'm trying to
take on every babbling mountebank at the same time. You suck,
Hollywood!
--DharmaTroll
"Give me back my hands! Limb thief!" -Sleep Talkin' Man
halfawake
> On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN <raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
>>these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
>>you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
>>Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
>>matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
>>of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
>>before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
>>nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
>>highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
>>prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
>>development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
>>considered inherently beyond conception.
>>
>>"Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
>>appearances
>>Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
>>seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
>>insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
>>appearances,
>>taking this notion of appearances (images or �simulacra�) well beyond
>>its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
>>really
>>want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
>>presupposition
>>then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
>>with
>>no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
>>appearances or images without ground or foundation."
>>-- Claire Colebrook
>>Happy New Year all!
>>--
>>RaaN
>
>
> Wow..
> Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
> ...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
> simulacra)
> Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
> silence?
> --
> RaaN
to I guess paraphrase, or draw a conclusion that may already be drawn,
no appearances have foundation. that is not to say they are substantial
or insubstantial in their own relation of perceptual-flux suchness,
since such terms are inadequate to distinguish the quality of experience
when the usual markers have been removed or rendered transparent.
Is that any better?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - - - -
halfawake
yes, strange flock of birds, and such colorful names....
Robert
halfawake
for some reason that gives me the image of a sideways megaphone.
robert
zenworm
>
> >>On 1/8/2010 2:26 PM, Déjà Flu wrote:
>
> >>>Deleuze has the honor of being the only bullshit artist
> >>>outside of Heidegger to bend the needle around the peg
> >>>of my MIGOmeter (Naggie just bounces against it).
>
> >>MIGO?? mindful inside, giggling outside?
>
> > Mind In, Garbage Out.
>
> > Lee Rudolph
>
> for some reason that gives me the image of a sideways megaphone.
>
> robert
coneworm?
^~
Hollywood Lee
> On Jan 9, 12:11 am, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/8/2010 10:10 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 8, 11:36 pm, Hollywood Lee<hollywood...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2010 5:18 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 8, 5:53 pm, RaaN<raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 8, 5:05 pm, DharmaTroll<dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
Phew. Now I feel better.
RaaN
Necessarily so since it is just one small nugget of his thought and he
was after all a very prolific author. In case this is your issue,
none of it precludes the ability to do science. There is no need to
believe there is substance "behind" phenomena. One needs only develop
predictive descriptions and verify their efficacy by experience. Nor
in ethics need one believe that one is the cause of one's own actions
to remain accountable for them. In the area of metaphysics one would
be mistaken to believe one has a soul or that there is some higher
realm, both transcending phenomena as though it were phenomena that is
illusory. For Deleuze, rather than accept the Platonic view of a
transcendental higher realm of eternal idea or identity, it is novelty
or difference that is the primary aspect of what is immanent
phenomena. The idea of some concrete substance underlying phenomena
or some causative agent behind action is just that - an idea. The
practice of science does not necessitate any belief in transcendent
substance, nor indeed even causation, nor energy, nor any other such
nebulously vague superfluities. The antipode of the Zen no-self is
the Deleuzian no-substance. Both would tend to agree with immanent
phenomena as simulacra. Hope this helps.
--
RaaN
RaaN
> RaaN wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN <raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
> >>these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
> >>you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
> >>Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
> >>matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
> >>of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
> >>before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
> >>nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
> >>highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
> >>prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
> >>development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
> >>considered inherently beyond conception.
>
> >>"Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
> >>appearances
> >>Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
> >>seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
> >>insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
> >>appearances,
> >>taking this notion of appearances (images or ‘simulacra’) well beyond
> >>its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
> >>really
> >>want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
> >>presupposition
> >>then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
> >>with
> >>no foundation of an experiencing mind or subject. Simulacra are
> >>appearances or images without ground or foundation."
> >>-- Claire Colebrook
> >>Happy New Year all!
> >>--
> >>RaaN
>
> > Wow..
> > Where are all the comments from Tang, Robert, Anders. Dharmatroll....
> > ...or any of the other usual verbose characters? (not to say
> > simulacra)
> > Did I actually manage to stifle them into ignorant dumbfounded
> > silence?
> > --
> > RaaN
>
> to I guess paraphrase, or draw a conclusion that may already be drawn,
> no appearances have foundation. that is not to say they are substantial
> or insubstantial in their own relation of perceptual-flux suchness,
> since such terms are inadequate to distinguish the quality of experience
> when the usual markers have been removed or rendered transparent.
>
> Is that any better?
>
> Robert
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sounds about right. Self and substance are synthetic constructs
having no experiential verity. It's a radical phenomenology which I
myself have been writing about for quite a while now prior to reading
any of his work. I say this to make it clear that I am not idolizing
this thinker but merely agreeing with him as hi ideas have concurred
with my own. Prior to that in response to so much subjectivist
nonsense being touted as Zen, I espoused a radical objectivism. I
found it led me to these same conclusions. You may recall some of my
posts on the subject. At least be thankful I am not posting my and
his ideas about temporality... yet.
--
RaaN
RaaN
> RaaN wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 5:53 pm, RaaN <raan2...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 8, 5:05 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
Hell, I usually just call them phenomena.
--
RaaN
zenworm
are you sure about them?
^~
halfawake
> On Jan 9, 3:35 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>RaaN wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 4, 10:17 am, RaaN <raan2...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Having over the years read and participated in numerous threads on
>>>>these boards, I come to the considered recommendation that the lot of
>>>>you could vastly benefit by reading the writings of Gilles Deleuze.
>>>>Most notably his concept of "Simulacra" which transcends the mind/
>>>>matter and science/spirituality issues completely. In fact it is one
>>>>of the conclusions to which I came independently quite some time ago
>>>>before I even knew the word. All this "woo woo" versus "scientism"
>>>>nonsense is rendered obsolete by his philosophy. So in the New Year I
>>>>highly recommend you all read or reread some of Gilles Deleuze. It may
>>>>prove to be a source for a common ground for mutual agreement and the
>>>>development of more comprehensive understanding even for those topics
>>>>considered inherently beyond conception.
>>
>>>>"Phenomena are appearances of some world, but simulacra are
>>>>appearances
>>>>in themselves, with no origin or foundation �behind� them.
>>>>Deleuze used the work of a vast range of philosophers, going back to
>>>>Plato, but his general project of becoming and the �simulacra� can be
>>>>seen as a radical critique of phenomenology. Phenomenology had
>>>>insisted that we need to look at the world in its fluctuating
>>>>appearances,
>>>>and not in terms of fixed concepts or logic. Deleuze�s genius lay in
>>>>taking this notion of appearances (images or �simulacra�) well beyond
>>>>its conventional philosophical home. Deleuze insisted that if we
>>>>really
>>>>want to accept the appearance of the world without judgement or
>>>>presupposition
>>>>then we will not refer to appearances as appearances of some
>>>>world; there will be nothing other than a �swarm� of appearances �
we may only pray, Raan. and yet you have the freedom to do so if you so
choose. I have grown.....I think......
Robert
= = = = = = =