1. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    30 Nov '07 15:37
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]No, I think there are experiences that precede reason,


    agreed, but

    and to which it is not necessary to apply reason or come to some belief.

    Disagreed, I think all beliefs are raised upon a pre-existing conceptual framework, either directly or by stages of reason and belief.

    I use the word ...[text shortened]... ons/beliefs one wants to lay on that experience are (or ought to be) subject to reason.[/b]
    Disagreed, I think all beliefs are raised upon a pre-existing conceptual framework, either directly or by stages of reason and belief.

    Can you say what you mean by “pre-existing conceptual framework”? Do you mean something like the synthetic a priori? (That would be very un-Quinian of you! 😉 ) Or do you mean the architecture of our consciousness? Or...?

    Just listening doesn't, but having any thoughts upon their nature does.

    Agreed.

    Finding pleasure in them requires some pre-existing concepts, experiences, beliefs; what is pleasure, what Beethoven's music sounds like etc.

    Not. (Depending on, again, what you mean by pre-existing conceptual framework. )

    Does it make more sense as regards my post above?

    Yes; but you still seem to be conflating the aesthetic experience with subsequent judgments about it. Or, that without some a priori judgments, one cannot have the experience? Enjoy it, just as it is?

    Note: Some, such as Krishnamurti, also find the word “experience” problematic—I think because they do tie it in with interpreting mind. But I don’t yet know what other word to use.
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    01 Dec '07 00:12
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]Disagreed, I think all beliefs are raised upon a pre-existing conceptual framework, either directly or by stages of reason and belief.

    Can you say what you mean by “pre-existing conceptual framework”? Do you mean something like the synthetic a priori? (That would be very un-Quinian of you! 😉 ) Or do you mean the architecture of our consciousn ...[text shortened]... ecause they do tie it in with interpreting mind. But I don’t yet know what other word to use.[/b]
    Too drunk to work out a clear reply, tempting as it is, I'll try and get back to you tomorrow. Be well.
  3. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    01 Dec '07 05:12
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Too drunk to work out a clear reply, tempting as it is, I'll try and get back to you tomorrow. Be well.
    Heal well. 🙂

    I’m wondering though: I tend to distinguish between percept (or perceptual impression) and concept. Whenever I speak of thinking-mind or making-mind, I mean strictly the latter. One can, I think, have an emotional response to either. (There’s a question in there somewhere, but I’m too tired to flesh it out.)
  4. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    04 Dec '07 00:271 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So can we say that you and reason have parted ways?
    Or that your religion is unreasonable?

    And why 'must' you climb the tree in the first place? Because others are up the tree?
    test 1 2 3
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree