tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post9054148761358487033..comments2023-07-28T17:07:19.202+01:00Comments on The Electric Philosopher : Once again...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17727093447434645722noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-85274157393736633792016-12-18T17:20:41.844+00:002016-12-18T17:20:41.844+00:00Once again, it comes up:
1-outta-1 croaks, brudda....Once again, it comes up:<br />1-outta-1 croaks, brudda...<br />yet, that aint TheEnd.<br />We shall be Divinely Judged<br />on how worthy our existence was;<br />then, we're sent to either side,<br />the L which is going down...<br />or the R which is going Up.<br />Where shall YOUR indelible soul reside?<br />This lifelong demise is but a test.<br /><br />God bless your eternal spirit.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09161116712679365281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-59588108205405528962016-12-18T17:15:11.745+00:002016-12-18T17:15:11.745+00:00Once again, it comes up:
1-outta-1 croaks, brudda....Once again, it comes up:<br />1-outta-1 croaks, brudda...<br />yet, that aint TheEnd.<br />We shall be Divinely Judged<br />on how worthy our existence was;<br />then, we're sent to either side,<br />the L which is going down...<br />or the R which is going Up.<br />Where shall YOUR indelible soul reside?<br />This lifelong demise is but a test.<br /><br />God bless your eternal spirit.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09161116712679365281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-42750873949258554132016-05-18T11:12:28.751+01:002016-05-18T11:12:28.751+01:00Sorry - couldn't resist it!Sorry - couldn't resist it!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925749687865339869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-37970088463264635182016-05-18T09:20:21.355+01:002016-05-18T09:20:21.355+01:00I think this is precisely what Heidegger means whe...I think this is precisely what Heidegger means when he talks about the interplay of concealing and unconcealing, that when the world shows itself (or is permitted to show itself) in a particular way, it necessarily covers over other ways it might be showing itself. Which is, of course, an oversimplification of the concept.<br /><br />With Gestell specifically, one might argue that the danger lies precisely in how obvious its success and power is, in how dramatically it has transformed the world and our relationship with it. Such extreme usefulness distracts us from the truth that Gestell is but one way of revealing, a very useful one of course, but not the only way of thinking about the world.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17727093447434645722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-28639379387622089592016-05-18T09:13:39.372+01:002016-05-18T09:13:39.372+01:00I see what you did there.I see what you did there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17727093447434645722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-90564292426410108372016-05-18T07:06:33.489+01:002016-05-18T07:06:33.489+01:00It's not so much that Wittgensteein said it be...It's not so much that Wittgensteein said it better, for what cannot be said must be passed over, but that he showed through the transcendentalism of his ladderianist mysticism an a priori almost Taoist pre-positionalism that situates the roar of a lion, to interpenetrate the notebooks osmotically with the Tractatus, that must forever avoid such uber-positioning of post Kantian hubritic grandeur as regards the possibility of the in itself as a communicable meta-narrative of speciest privilege. Obviously.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925749687865339869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452490985346102910.post-1495070289724442342016-05-18T01:42:03.230+01:002016-05-18T01:42:03.230+01:00Regarding the Heideggerian Gestell, would you agre...Regarding the Heideggerian Gestell, would you agree that what is fascinating to contemplate is how modern man got the idea that the universe is not-alive - and that there is a division between the living (biological) and non-living (chemical and physical) universe; and a further division between the conscious (human) and non-conscious (everything else) world. Reality is made into grossly simplified models that exclude the role of humans, including the role of human thinking.<br /><br />Then having creating this grossly simplified model - which we know for certain to be radically incomplete, hence untrue - we come to think of the model as necessarily true - despite that we know for certain it is not!<br /><br />The sum total of 'evidence' for the truth of our simple and false model is that it is apparently useful, as a rule of thumb, in some situations, when dealing with the world - predicting and manipulating things (but only approximately)!Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010574198254113925noreply@blogger.com