| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"tooly" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2007 09:01:52 PM |
| Object: |
On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
While at one of my more mundane duties at work, I sat and observed a small
green cricket that had attached itself just on the outside window of my
office. It was a curious creature I thought, with streamlined wings that
swung back in a kind of elogance. It seemed to be looking at me through the
window, but then, I wondered if such a tiny thing could even have a
consciousness [as is often discussed on alt.p].
An insect. It dawned on me that it's form evoked a pleasing sense in me, as
if there was something 'friendly' behind the bug eyes and exoskeleton of
it's green body. This 'Bug' did not disturb me as so many other 'bugs'
might, but only evoked curiosity, ha, almost a friendliness.
I then wondered why "I" might react in this way toward this bug, but have an
entirely different response if it were, say a spider or scorpion? Or maybe
one of these really nasty 'spit devil' beetles we see in this area.
My thoughts turned to Kant and the phonenemal essence of objects, and I
could make sense of perhaps what he may have been saying. I know many would
argue that what I was experiencing had more to do with my subjective
background than the bug's form, but I don't really buy that. There seemed
something just 'naturally' evoking about that little green cricket and was,
well, simply natural.
Just as it seems natural that I am repulsed by the forms of certain spiders,
snakes, scorpions...or any reaction even evoked to such things like snails
and slugs, birds, bells, and airplanes and people.
Behind the form exists the phenonemal essence...just like a smile, frown, or
scowl might betray the living force's disposition behind a human face. More
than a mood however, but something of an 'identity'.
You know, I think we could 'reason' ourselves to make spiders our
bedfellows, but from a phenominal point of view, very 'unnatural'.
.
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
11 Aug 2007 04:54:51 PM |
|
|
"tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HVpvi.9606$2v5.2988@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
While at one of my more mundane duties at work, I sat and observed a small
green cricket that had attached itself just on the outside window of my
office. It was a curious creature I thought, with streamlined wings that
swung back in a kind of elogance. It seemed to be looking at me through
the window, but then, I wondered if such a tiny thing could even have a
consciousness [as is often discussed on alt.p].
An insect. It dawned on me that it's form evoked a pleasing sense in me,
as if there was something 'friendly' behind the bug eyes and exoskeleton
of it's green body. This 'Bug' did not disturb me as so many other 'bugs'
might, but only evoked curiosity, ha, almost a friendliness.
I then wondered why "I" might react in this way toward this bug, but have
an entirely different response if it were, say a spider or scorpion? Or
maybe one of these really nasty 'spit devil' beetles we see in this area.
My thoughts turned to Kant and the phonenemal essence of objects, and I
could make sense of perhaps what he may have been saying. I know many
would argue that what I was experiencing had more to do with my subjective
background than the bug's form, but I don't really buy that. There seemed
something just 'naturally' evoking about that little green cricket and
was, well, simply natural.
Just as it seems natural that I am repulsed by the forms of certain
spiders, snakes, scorpions...or any reaction even evoked to such things
like snails and slugs, birds, bells, and airplanes and people.
Behind the form exists the phenonemal essence...just like a smile, frown,
or scowl might betray the living force's disposition behind a human face.
More than a mood however, but something of an 'identity'.
You know, I think we could 'reason' ourselves to make spiders our
bedfellows, but from a phenominal point of view, very 'unnatural'.
It is interesting to try and understand the nature of animals and creatures.
Some things are repulsive - THE BORG say that due to the nature of the
human - this is bound to be.
That if humans were nice - kind - decent - honest - and the world was filled
with love - then beauty would occur.
It is like a Collective hallucination of the eyes of humans - combined with
feelings - sound and this kind of thing - that does effect the environment.
Rather like in the days of love and peace and all this - where the skies
changed to such beautiful clouds - bugs and insects completely disappeared -
roses bloomed in perfection and even potatoes had no eyes!
Regards
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
11 Aug 2007 05:29:45 PM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 11:01 am, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I then wondered why "I" might react in this way toward this bug, but have an
entirely different response if it were, say a spider or scorpion?
Because you had not learnt, you had no knowledge that the little gween
bug's bite or even its body was covered with poison much deadlier than
the dealiest scorpion.
Nothing Kant said had anything to do with how you felt, but your
knowledge of reality did, knowledge which Kant says permanently
remains hidden from even your eyes ears nose feel and touch.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
11 Aug 2007 06:01:16 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186871385.346792.21800@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 11:01 am, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I then wondered why "I" might react in this way toward this bug, but have
an
entirely different response if it were, say a spider or scorpion?
Because you had not learnt, you had no knowledge that the little gween
bug's bite or even its body was covered with poison much deadlier than
the dealiest scorpion.
Nothing Kant said had anything to do with how you felt, but your
knowledge of reality did, knowledge which Kant says permanently
remains hidden from even your eyes ears nose feel and touch.
MG
Ha, yea I figured you'd have something to say about a Kant post. Agreed, my
rational self would think as you do. But I often wonder if our rational
selves do not mislead us...as mentioned, to do things like lay down with
very foreign and alien things that we otherwise would never do. There would
be many applications, but of course the one that disturbs me most these days
is the genetic integration of races. That would never have happened if not
for our 'rational' and intellectual side 'rationalizing' to us to 'overlook
and countermand' our 'natural' sense to things.
To understand the underlying nature of a thing may require an internal
vision, a sense if you will, that we are shutting down with our intellect.
I dunno. I am beginning to give Kant more credit than the modern world
suggests.
Here's one. These idiots swimming with sharks. This is how our intellect
betrays us, to make us think we've done something simply to defy our nature.
I cannot imagine anything more stupid...like that effeminate guy that camped
out with the grizzlies in the north [and finally got eaten]. Yet, we seem
to want to celebrate this stupidity with great textual diversion as to how
so great and wonderful and now 'cuddly' predators are in our midst. Oh, I
can appreciate having to protect our ecology...but to swim with white sharks
and bull sharks?
What I get as the phenominal essence behind a shark is 'mindlessness'...a
voided glare...just a machine that eats. I for one do not admire or respect
these risk takers that do such things [as swimming with the sharks] but just
look at them as bravado gone mad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
11 Aug 2007 06:48:36 PM |
|
|
On Aug 12, 8:01 am, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Agreed, my
rational self would think as you do. But I often wonder if our rational
selves do not mislead us...as mentioned, to do things like lay down with
very foreign and alien things that we otherwise would never do.
Being rational is not possible unless being irrational is also
possible, just as good is not possble unless evil is also possible.
There can be no such thing as all good and there can be no such thing
as all rational, both imply no choice, so of course you will act
irrationally now and then indeed, that is how you learn. You can not
contradict reality, e.g. your nature without consequences, the purpose
of reason is to help you identify the rational from the irrational,
the good from the evil, which is not possible without a standard to
measure ideas and actions from.
There would
be many applications, but of course the one that disturbs me most these days
is the genetic integration of races.
If you are meaning humans, then there is only one race, its called the
human race, your disturbance is a self-inflicted head bashing.
I am beginning to give Kant more credit than the modern world
suggests.
All fool you, he's the dopiest biggest fucking idiot any man ever took
and could ever take any notice of.
Who but a fucking idiot would claim reality permanently remains hidden
from you?
Who but a total *****-head would deny you your eyes to see, your nose
to smell, your ears to hear, your hands to touch and your skin to feel
things which do exist in sensory reality?
Who but a fucking idiot would, in principle, try and tell you, that
your eyes have not seen until your mind says they have? that your ears
haven't heard until your mind says they have?
Kant in effect tells you, that even though your eyes and ears send a
mesage to your brain, your brain then ignores that message and
instructs your eyes and ears aint seen or heard anything until your
brain gives them the ok.
FFS tooly. Get a life YOUR OWN.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D H" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
12 Aug 2007 09:03:52 AM |
|
|
tooly wrote:
While at one of my more mundane duties at work, I sat and observed a small
green cricket that had attached itself just on the outside window of my
office. It was a curious creature I thought, with streamlined wings that
swung back in a kind of elogance. It seemed to be looking at me through the
window, but then, I wondered if such a tiny thing could even have a
consciousness [as is often discussed on alt.p].
An insect. It dawned on me that it's form evoked a pleasing sense in me, as
if there was something 'friendly' behind the bug eyes and exoskeleton of
it's green body. This 'Bug' did not disturb me as so many other 'bugs'
might, but only evoked curiosity, ha, almost a friendliness.
I then wondered why "I" might react in this way toward this bug, but have an
entirely different response if it were, say a spider or scorpion? Or maybe
one of these really nasty 'spit devil' beetles we see in this area.
My thoughts turned to Kant and the phonenemal essence of objects, and I
could make sense of perhaps what he may have been saying. I know many would
argue that what I was experiencing had more to do with my subjective
background than the bug's form, but I don't really buy that. There seemed
something just 'naturally' evoking about that little green cricket and was,
well, simply natural.
Just as it seems natural that I am repulsed by the forms of certain spiders,
snakes, scorpions...or any reaction even evoked to such things like snails
and slugs, birds, bells, and airplanes and people.
Behind the form exists the phenonemal essence...just like a smile, frown, or
scowl might betray the living force's disposition behind a human face. More
than a mood however, but something of an 'identity'.
You know, I think we could 'reason' ourselves to make spiders our
bedfellows, but from a phenominal point of view, very 'unnatural'.
I'm not sure what you mean by "phenomenal". That is, you seemed to
refer to it at times as if it concerns metaphysical things-in-
themselves when it actually concerns "things-for-us". Phenomenal
refers to the nature or content of the empirical world that humans can
share because they employ the same cognitive templates for
representing an ontological reality (crudely, external world).
Phenomena are appearances or what scientists today can openly refer to
as the subjective experience caused by the brain (even if a handful of
philosophers might still be residing in skepticism about the brain
producing it; I won't stray into a side-topic of how they might have a
trivial point).
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
12 Aug 2007 06:23:38 PM |
|
|
"D H" <wings4us@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:1186927432.616132.140980@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
tooly wrote:
While at one of my more mundane duties at work, I sat and observed a
small
green cricket that had attached itself just on the outside window of my
office. It was a curious creature I thought, with streamlined wings that
swung back in a kind of elogance. It seemed to be looking at me through
the
window, but then, I wondered if such a tiny thing could even have a
consciousness [as is often discussed on alt.p].
An insect. It dawned on me that it's form evoked a pleasing sense in me,
as
if there was something 'friendly' behind the bug eyes and exoskeleton of
it's green body. This 'Bug' did not disturb me as so many other 'bugs'
might, but only evoked curiosity, ha, almost a friendliness.
I then wondered why "I" might react in this way toward this bug, but have
an
entirely different response if it were, say a spider or scorpion? Or
maybe
one of these really nasty 'spit devil' beetles we see in this area.
My thoughts turned to Kant and the phonenemal essence of objects, and I
could make sense of perhaps what he may have been saying. I know many
would
argue that what I was experiencing had more to do with my subjective
background than the bug's form, but I don't really buy that. There
seemed
something just 'naturally' evoking about that little green cricket and
was,
well, simply natural.
Just as it seems natural that I am repulsed by the forms of certain
spiders,
snakes, scorpions...or any reaction even evoked to such things like
snails
and slugs, birds, bells, and airplanes and people.
Behind the form exists the phenonemal essence...just like a smile, frown,
or
scowl might betray the living force's disposition behind a human face.
More
than a mood however, but something of an 'identity'.
You know, I think we could 'reason' ourselves to make spiders our
bedfellows, but from a phenominal point of view, very 'unnatural'.
I'm not sure what you mean by "phenomenal". That is, you seemed to
refer to it at times as if it concerns metaphysical things-in-
themselves when it actually concerns "things-for-us". Phenomenal
refers to the nature or content of the empirical world that humans can
share because they employ the same cognitive templates for
representing an ontological reality (crudely, external world).
Phenomena are appearances or what scientists today can openly refer to
as the subjective experience caused by the brain (even if a handful of
philosophers might still be residing in skepticism about the brain
producing it; I won't stray into a side-topic of how they might have a
trivial point).
I don't see the conflict. The reaction humans have to spiders, snakes, and
slugs are pretty universal, whatever exceptions can be argued. That seems
pretty experiential to me. Of course, we then 'reason' our way to see past
these reactions and then go swimming with great white sharks, ha. I was
trying to differentiate our 'experience' from our 'reason' here and focusing
upon the phenonema without bias [which our reason might arguably lead us].
It is sort of a reverse way of looking at things than we are normally
taught, that our reason overcomes 'bias'. Actually, as I have thought,
reason can conjure an 'unnatural' bias...something forced...like the
swimming with great white sharks or making bedfellows with spiders.
It could be, everything about the new global world in all it's multicultural
glory is a forced 'unnatural' bias on the scale the world has never seen
before. It overrides our instinctive sense, where our subjective phenominal
experience would communicate to us about the world as we 'experience' it,
not how we think about it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pico pico.net" |
|
| Title: Re: On the phenominal essence of green crickets |
12 Aug 2007 09:37:05 AM |
|
|
tooly wrote:
While at one of my more mundane duties at work, I sat and observed a small
green cricket
The twist your reasoning took is typical of looking at green crickets.
An insect. It dawned on me that it's form evoked a pleasing sense in me, as
if there was something 'friendly' behind the bug eyes and exoskeleton of
it's green body. This 'Bug' did not disturb me as so many other 'bugs'
might, but only evoked curiosity, ha, almost a friendliness.
For all we know, your dawn of enlightenment might be from part of our
primitive brain which is unavailable to language that recalls that
certain green crickets are tasty little things. Or you like green.
My thoughts turned to Kant and the phonenemal essence of objects, and I
could make sense of perhaps what he may have been saying. I know many would
argue that what I was experiencing had more to do with my subjective
background than the bug's form
The bug's form is your impression. Phenomena is unconcerned for what
might be 'behind' the bug. A consensus might exist regarding
impressions, but that doesn't affirm what may or not be 'behind' the
scene/bug.
Behind the form exists the phenonemal essence...just like a smile, frown, or
scowl might betray the living force's disposition behind a human face.
You had a pleasing, poetic moment with the little green thing; the kind
of thing that might compel one to make art. That's good, but I'd not put
Kant in the picture the way you did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
