Schroder sq and the new talea

I see many insightful comments on the Romans, many true at their symmetries of perspective, and equally true there, but I did especially appreciate Derto's mention of assimilation.

In my mind, one of the most evolutionary innovative actions of the Roman collective was the integration of other collective minds' ideas, or thought constructs - a more difficult turn at the time than now, relatively speaking, I suppose (remember, that from the progression of kin to clan to village to polis to state to nation-state, the evolutionary movement is from greater exclusion of other minds towards greater inclusion; which can also be seen as a collective movement from greater recoil to the Other mind to less recoil; from less empathic identification to more). This will towards inclusion of others' ideas by the Romans seems to be a lessening of recoil towards the Other, albeit a limited one from our perspective. Maybe that was a current below the eddies...? (before you feel that recoil, ask: is the eddy separate from the current; is one more "true" water than the other?)

I see here much learning, dazzling actually - about linguistic deconstruction, Aristotelian stuff, murmurings of radical subjectivism, searching for Unicorns, etc. - but I have one question:

What is trans-cognitive knowledge? And if there is a perception beyond formal operational cognition, then what would it see?

Would it see deeper symmetries of "quality" or "truth" or "beauty"?

And would those that are not yet ready to go there still say that "that" does not exist, could not exist? Arguing for their own limitations, don't the minds holding on to the past against change, seeing it as always a chaos, necessarily have to say to each other, to themselves, that such see-ing is indeed where dragons be, as the illusion of the Nothing-ness yawns (Was that enough bread on the water, or did I go too far?!).

If you "will", please, tell-me "what" "this" "means:"

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images.

M-

"What is trans-cognitive knowledge? And if there is a perception beyond formal operational cognition, then what would it see?"

This question is addressed by the crack in the bowl--a complex metaphor suggestive of the failure of knowledge and the symmetries, elsewhere in James a mutation of liminal inter-connectedness into spiritual vampirism. Gladius and scotum as mark of quality or as glandular pustule of the Roman venerium?

Asa,'what would IT see?' Ie what a perception beyond,etc
would see? Metaphors are, I thought, meant to explain or 'enlight' something in a lucid way. You obviously
constructed one but whay should we explain your metaphor?
A metaphor is supposed to do this by itself, so to speak.
To my mind our eye can see, our ear can hear, etc. But what
our brain does we can only 'quess' with the help of produced sentences by the brain in casu.Ie I have no idea
what your 'message' is.
Regards,

Dgarr, I say "bread on the water" and you bite, saying, a progression towards Spiritual vampirism. You make an assumption; that trans-cognitive knowledge is a product of a failure of knowledge. That is a bias to categorize all perception beyond one's own as a negative, as a No-thing-ness, as the place of dragons. It will keep you from going places...

As for Latin, I do not speak it, so you will have to tell me if I missed anything. Here is a story. Many years ago, I looked into a PhD in philosophy at the Univ of Chi & they said fine, but wanted me to learn a dead dialect of Greek. Studying primary souces is good, as those things go, but it takes a lot of time away from actually be-ing a philosopher. I then looked at their syllubus and the last thing they had on psychology was Freud! No Jung even. My, my, how the logical positivists have plied their way...

Everyone, here is my request: stop telling me what other philosophers told you about what they saw. That is looking into a mirror. Tell me your philosophy/meta-narrative, or better, just what you *see.*

Nandric: thank you for asking me back, and not in semiotics, etc., which makes my old head hurt these days!

You also make an assumption, again, one symptomatic of an attachment/bias (I do not mean disrespect in saying this, its just the most concise way of saying it...). You assume that a metaphor/symbol, in order to convey knowledge to the "brain," must do so in thought-constructs, which we then use to talk to each other in sentences. Yes, that is knowledge too. But I have a question: when you are not think-ing, who/what are you? Do you disappear when you are not-thinking? If not, then the silence between thought-constructs, like the silence between notes, must be prior to that construct. And, if prior, then actually its ground.

When you are deeply listening to the music, and the attachment to cognitive/objective grasping and control has faded into an open silent ground, do you cease perceiving meaning in the music-constructs greeting you from your stereo?

I would love to take credit for the Geese metaphor, but it was written many centuries ago by someone who knew more than me and is, in fact, not a metaphor - that is another assumption. That is part of its trap, for the mind that grasps to see its knowledge in terms of only thought-constructs (and even though, illogically, that same mind experiences musical meaning from a symmetry of consciousness that is absent of thought). It is actually a koan, meant to produce silence in the mind. How? Because the harder your thinking mind tries to wring its meaning through cognicizing, the more cognitive turmoil it catalyzes. It is a letting-go exercise, or a putting-down exercise, however you want to shake that rattle.

When you stop shaking the cognitive-attached rattle, what can you *see*? If you can logically concede that a knowledge may exist that integrates all cognitive knowledge while at once transcending it, are you not, as minds on a knowledge search, at least obligated to be open to that possibility?

But to the cognicizing mind, attached to the mirror, this feels like a death, with concurrent recoil.

The recoil is from the possibility of a deeper symmetry of perceptive consciousness, one that is equally all of our potential.

As I said, argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours (another stolen quote).

Now, I have to go clean out the gutters. Wish me luck...

Good Luck.

If you are not thinking, then you are present. This is not possible with thought; your thoughts are trying to convince you that they *are* you, and seek to place you in the past or the future; neither is a place where anything happened or will happen. Happening is only in the present.

So life is, as the Gladius is, as these tone arms are. We as humans attach the 'value' to such things, and the 'meaning' thereof. As a designer, one likes to think that the value and meaning is built into the design, but when that design makes its way into the world, like any fine art the values and meanings attached are rarely that of the origin.