Guest guest Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 On Jul 11, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Lewis Burgess wrote: > --- Wim Borsboom <wim_borsboom wrote: > > > What wonderful a way you worked with this Lewis. > > When one understands the dynamics of a particular misunderstanding, > laying it out the way you did, a crystalline clarity results which > already includes forgiveness... already 'e x c h a n g e d'. > > Thanks Lewis and hugs. > > This was such a simple misunderstanding, most humans have to deal with > much more interwoven convolutions that are part of multiple, pretty > well always conflicting stories that have turned human living into the > drama of pseudo life and away from direct living. > Breaking drama(s) down into stories and turning the stories (my view > of what they are) into accounts (my view of what they are) that do not > carry the negative emotional charges that our stories usually while > carry intermixed with positive ones, is what returns us to the > miraculous wonder of life... which WONDER can indeed (!) not be spoken > of or about but can definitely be spoken from... probably the original > meaning of the word prophesy. > (Prophesy from the Greek pro " before " and phanai " to speak " from the > PIE root BHA " to speak, tell, say " . > Sanskrit bhanati " speaks; " Latin fari " to say " ; Greek. pheme " talk, " > phone " voice, sound, " phanai " to speak; " ) > > > Hi Wim, > > We can do what you speak of. Wonder and prophesy are in such way > intertwined and revelation and prophecy is what emerges. I have found > Eric Voegelin to be one mystical philosopher who has attemped to > articulate what we both have abiding interest in. And certainly the > articulation, and in this case we can use your meaning of account (it > is more efficient to strictly define it or qualify with some prefix, > suffix or additional adjective to indicate its precedence) which would > be none other than " revelation " and cannot be missed. As language > emerges whole and we are unable to " see " as object how that happens and > yet know that it does (known unknown; see below) there in lies that > " delicate apprehension " that can be distinctly experienced where there > is apprehension in " known unknown " as " no thing " and with a " slight > shift " there appears objects, images, discourse. This shifting > apprehension allows seeing of the emergences as revelation articulated > into an " account " versus a later elaboration of a story as you have it > and we shall go with it. Apprehension here is of a peculiar clarity as > that unknowing knowing of " no thing " reveals all things as made. The > making, the prophecy, the revelation emerging than can be seen and > discourse becomes not a separable manifestation but is essentially an > extension an elaboration, an explosion of emergences that are > eventually fashioned with and without apprehending clarity and employed > in all those ways that it can as conditions for further emergences > endlessly in a spatio-temporality. Voegelin says it well below in the > first quote and along with in a second by a commentator on Voegelin, > Glenn Hughes. > > > " The philosophical use of myth requires great circumspection. It > assumes that there exist levels of reality that resist articulation in > systematic discourse. It also assumes that the soul reaches beyond the > limits of consciousness: 'Beyond this area extends the reality of the > soul, vast and darkening in depth, whose movements reach into the small > area that is organized as the conscious subject.' [OH3:192] These > movements reverberate in consciousness without becoming objectifying > entities. These images are not objects, yet they appear to be because > 'what enters the consciousness has to assume the 'form of an object' > even if it is not an object.' [OH3:192] Thus, the symbols of the myth > that express the reverberations in the soul 'can be defined as the > refraction of the unconscious in the medium of objectifying > consciousness.' [OH3:192] > > Hughes > > " Voegelin's use of the term mystery harmonizes with that of Marcel. The > mysteries about which Voegelin writes are depths of meaning whose > hiddenness is apparent, and which could be known fully only if reality > as a whole were known, while the human knower remains a participant in > reality with a limited perspective, unable to fully penetrate the > meanings that constitute human existence. Therefore, the unknowns in > which we find our lives to be totally implicated are not problems to be > solved or not solved, but mysteries to be lived and, so that they may > be lived freely and graciously, constantly revealed... > > " Now, while mystery is emphatically an existential notion, it remains > also a cognitional notion. It refers to something human knowing is > aware of but cannot comprehend: a known unknown [cf. Lonergan]. > Therefore, the foundation for a convincing philosophical examination of > the basic human mysteries must include a general theory of human > knowledge or consciousness. " [Hughes 1993:1-3] > > Hughes, Glenn, Mystery and Myth in the Philosophy of Eric Voegelin, > University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, 1993. > > Voegelin, Eric, Order and History, vol. 3, Plato and Aristotle, LSU > Press, Baton Rouge, La., 1957 > > > Voegelin is superficially complex in that his audience was Western, > classical trained in Hellenic culture and the monotheistic traditions > of Judaism and Christianity and in that used terms and neologisms that > worked within those two traditions. He was unable to approach the > Eastern Traditions and did not seem to have an abiding interest in them > though he certainly touches upon all the issues. He seems to have > accepted certain assumptions that are not prior to all and to move from > there. He sees tension only in existence and nonexistence as the > primary antipodes s does Buddha, where there are distinctly others and > so his works becomes overly complex in accounting for them as emergent > in other ways. > > To move toward " accounts " and " accounting " consideration of that that > precedes the ability not to know fully anything, including the " known > unknown " needs facing together as an understanding borne of irreducible > existential sense. I am unable to fully and completely know any thing > and to place such anything into discourse with full and complete > apprehension. Are you so unabled in this as an irreducibile existential > experience? If you are we can go on together. If not, show me how you > have managed it. Is this no coming to " accounting. " > > > As Always, > > Lewis > > > > --- Wim Borsboom <wim_borsboom wrote: > >>>>> Lewis: Also, to be direct Wim, your current presentation of >>>>> the relationship between words and stories and living being >>>>> (what goes unsaid, the stories lived but never spoken and >>>>> taken for granted, until there is breaching) > >>> Wim: Ah there it is!!! The being taken for granted is all too >>> often already a 't a c i t' breaching... > >> Lewis: Read carefully Wim. It says " your current presentation.... " >> Your being is not taken for granted, how could it be? >> " Your current presentation " does not equal " being " or " your being " >> or does it? It has to do with the expression in words that are past >> and done. Is your being your these past done words? See it or not. >>> Now, Wim if you want to go around in circles with this sort of > stuff >> ok, it is par for the course on occasion. Be ready to go endlessly >> in it as that is the nature of this sort of making. > > Wim; Oh, Lewis, what is happening? I 'k n o w' that you don't take my > being for granted, how could you get from what I wrote that I could > mean > such a thing? I don't even think that it is possible for you to mean > such a thing. > > > Lewis: My imagining of some of your words not as intended and the > making of a misunderstanding from my imagining. > > >>> Ah there it is!!! The being taken for granted is all too often >>> already a 't a c i t' breaching... > > Your take on this was not at all what this 'sortof' " Aha " was about. > It was a general remark about " being taken for granted " in the sense > of " being underestimated, being so used to something that it is almost > forgotten about " and that " being taken for granted " maybe a prelude to > breaching or is already breaching itself but in a tacit way. > > Lewis: Yes. That is correct. I parsed and transposed the word " being " > and imagined you were saying that I was taken you -being- " all of you " > for granted. " With that imagining, I wrote a misunderstanding. Forgive > me. > > Wim: What is it that made you put me in the light that you are seeing > me > in? It was showing already before I noticed. It might prevent you from > getting the meaning of my words... > > ...personal stories distorting hearing other people's stories perhaps > ...? > > Lewis: Yes, and, here is an account of that. Here are the mechanics > first. I parsed " being " out from " being taken for granted " and then > made " being " into " you " and then put it back in front of " taken " so > that it became " taking being (Wim) for granted. " So we have, (1) what > you said and (2) what I imagined. > > 1. " being taken for granted " (Wim said) > > 2. " taken being (Wim) for granted " (my imagining what Wim said. > > With this imagining, the rest of what was said was made based on this > and was unavoidable. It became a cascade of misunderstanding. That is > my account of the mechanics. > > > Wim: Something may have happened that made you feel that I'm in some > sort of disagreement with what you have been bringing forward, far from > it. > > > Lewis: Now to the how did that lifting, " turning into Wim " and > transposition of " being " occur? > > I am never interested in agreement, Wim. So it is not that. Instead of > aggreement which is of no use except to make sides against other sides > , I seek understanding as others understand they understand. If someone > says 1+1=2 I do not wish to understand 1+1=3. I want to understand as > they do 1+1=2. I do not expect others to understand me. Such an > expectation as are all expectations, one ground of suffering. > > It seems to me to be exactly what you said: ....personal stories > distorting hearing other people's stories perhaps...?. > > When I got to the point of " Now, Wim if you want to go around in > circles " Tony and your conversations came directly to mind and flashed > distinctly and clearly several times. Very distinctly in the the form > of it, not the content, the round and round of it. So it is clear to me > that I have stored those exchanges, all of which I read very carefully > and did not make discriminations as to either one being in the right > and the other wrong. Both positions were seen. In this case, it seems > at least that something in those stored exchanges pushed the > interpretative-imagining faculty in the direction of Tony. His > understanding of Nirguna Brahman and mine are the same though we differ > in how it plays out here. Your positions were always seen as tying to > have Tony see how it plays out in an inseparable manner here and not in > the seemingly hard bifurcations Tony makes. So there was a tipping, a > coloring in this and I do not understand it fully and will now see how > this sort of implicit influence is carried on elsewhere. Maybe I was > being Tony to Wim!? That is the account so far. > > > Wim: It may be that I expand on stuff, one may say that I meander, but > what I want to find is (and wiggling is one way to get into something > deeper) some early pivotal moment - I want to find what it is that > made (makes) us " make stories " and - as we happen to experience it > here between the two of us - what it is to make us not hear stories as > they are told or meant. > > Lewis: Well we are making progress in that area with my making of a > misunderstanding. It seems to me at least that there is " material " > that is moving about dynamically and the faculties can make use of it > based on where we " stop " and begin to respond to whatever. There are > implicit influnences that shape and impute and then we are off and > running with it if not circumspect enough. That is to wait until all is > calm and quiet and pondered silently in that unknowing way. > > Wim: Sure I have said I see a difference between stories and accounts, > but that is not disagreement, that is looking from some diffrenet spot > at the some phenomenon that possibly precedes stories/accounts. > > Lewis: My point would be in that whatever point we come to preceding > stories/accounts it will be a story/account. These stories/account are > extremely useful and making them helps seeing. My great interest in it > is that stories allow seeing. If only one story there is only one > seeing. > > Wim: I will for now refrain from answering your previous post, as some > misunderstanding in it was already too clear... > > Lewis: My dear Wim, my misunderstanding is a condition for sadness and > for that forgive me. There is nothing hard here as you knw that is not > possible with us. Let us continue. > > > Ah, my dear Lewis this is so unfortunate... > But you know what, what does it matter eh, as we remain... > in love! > > Wim > > > Yes. that is so. We are helpless in it and in that some thing fortunate > may have come about with these realizations for both of us. > > > As Always, > > Lewis > > __ > Sell on Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items. > http://auctions./ > > > Words must be used like stepping stones: lightly and with nimbleness, > because if you step on them too heavily, you incur the danger of > falling > into the intellectual mire of logic and reason. - Balsekar > ********************************* > AdvaitaToZen > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.