Dgarr. Thank you for your response. This is, of course, the problem when we try to bound ourselves in literary terms; as in, the linguistic, academic regression that has occurred over the few last decades.
On this literary bug up our brain: Using the thinking mind to dissect metaphor/symbol/sign, etc. can certainly yield interesting sights and can point in some directions, as it has. But considering the moribund state of philosophy as a discipline, much less a search path, I think what we might actually might have been learning lately, collectively, is that this deconstruction is attempting to tell us to have the courage and creativity to move on to the next little road.
Of course, it does make for lots of nice, little published journal articles... ;0)
Lewn, nice post. But, you know, you can know. Your "mysterious" is not as far away from your waking world as you might, well, think.
Atmasph: I glanced at your post again, really like it. The intent thing is interesting. Heidegger looked at a painting of some old shoes by Van Gogh and was sure it was a proletariat-tinged in meaning, but Vincent's letters (to his brother Theo, I can't quit remember) show that it his intent was something else.
When I look at a painting, I first see its composition, the brushstrokes. This is when my cognitive processes are most engaged and I see its meaning in more objective terms. This is the same that we do with our stereos; we look for detail and value the objective when we first sit down (and which is the level that produces our audio language). As we sit and listen and our thinking mind calms its waters - as our waking day, prey-predator oscillating attachment to cognitive control fades - we experience the musical meaning from a deeper, but not separate, symmetry. And still, deeper, as the thought currents become relatively still, from another.
Atmasph, a submission for your consideration: perhaps Heidegger got it objectively wrong on the meaning at the shallower levels of perception, but, perhaps, the meaning at the deeper levels was wholly translated to him? When you create a preamp-tool-art, perhaps the objective intents that you envision are never quite translated in just the way you saw them, but perhaps the ineffable that you embue in that matter/energy contrivance does become more wholly translated. Perhaps, the deeper you go in perception, the more of meaning is translated? Of course, the thinking mind doesn't like this idea. I mean, the sum structure of your ideas about the world, the egoic structure, wants to be everything, right?
Atmasph, I would submit that the experience that makes your preamps like the Van Gogh painting is the meaning that is more wholly translated by it (not to consciousness, but in an event with it) at the deeper symmetries. Maybe this is why people want it but can't say exactly why.
Goldenguy: yes, you have a point...but its a big sandbox.
M-
On this literary bug up our brain: Using the thinking mind to dissect metaphor/symbol/sign, etc. can certainly yield interesting sights and can point in some directions, as it has. But considering the moribund state of philosophy as a discipline, much less a search path, I think what we might actually might have been learning lately, collectively, is that this deconstruction is attempting to tell us to have the courage and creativity to move on to the next little road.
Of course, it does make for lots of nice, little published journal articles... ;0)
Lewn, nice post. But, you know, you can know. Your "mysterious" is not as far away from your waking world as you might, well, think.
Atmasph: I glanced at your post again, really like it. The intent thing is interesting. Heidegger looked at a painting of some old shoes by Van Gogh and was sure it was a proletariat-tinged in meaning, but Vincent's letters (to his brother Theo, I can't quit remember) show that it his intent was something else.
When I look at a painting, I first see its composition, the brushstrokes. This is when my cognitive processes are most engaged and I see its meaning in more objective terms. This is the same that we do with our stereos; we look for detail and value the objective when we first sit down (and which is the level that produces our audio language). As we sit and listen and our thinking mind calms its waters - as our waking day, prey-predator oscillating attachment to cognitive control fades - we experience the musical meaning from a deeper, but not separate, symmetry. And still, deeper, as the thought currents become relatively still, from another.
Atmasph, a submission for your consideration: perhaps Heidegger got it objectively wrong on the meaning at the shallower levels of perception, but, perhaps, the meaning at the deeper levels was wholly translated to him? When you create a preamp-tool-art, perhaps the objective intents that you envision are never quite translated in just the way you saw them, but perhaps the ineffable that you embue in that matter/energy contrivance does become more wholly translated. Perhaps, the deeper you go in perception, the more of meaning is translated? Of course, the thinking mind doesn't like this idea. I mean, the sum structure of your ideas about the world, the egoic structure, wants to be everything, right?
Atmasph, I would submit that the experience that makes your preamps like the Van Gogh painting is the meaning that is more wholly translated by it (not to consciousness, but in an event with it) at the deeper symmetries. Maybe this is why people want it but can't say exactly why.
Goldenguy: yes, you have a point...but its a big sandbox.
M-