Nandric, thank you for your response. Yes, I saw you out there. That's why I threw the "regression" in there, on the water. I didn't know it would be you, but you are the smartest at the academic lingusitic stuff, so I figured it wouldn't be long. :0)
Yes, I agree, science and mathematics are their own languages too. And, yes, writing and mathematical languages have different referent rules, etc., but that does not mean that they are not still both bounded by the dualistic operation of thought construction.
Deconstruction is an interest in dicing up things. As far as it goes, such dicing up interests is a good thing, as I think I said, but there has been a prolonged over-reliance/attachment that has led to a stagnation. Maybe a little reintegration is needed in our stew. Or maybe, just maybe, a search for the ground of these cognitive constructions (I mean, we've looked everywhere else, right?).
And here's the new flash: Change does not evolutionarily favor no-change mind!
Yes, Nandric, there is a relative language issue between us, but, you know, we are on the same "planet" because we are both HERE NOW. Do you *see* this/me?
On Heidegger: I did not put him in with the regression stuff, purposely; he's in a lower paragraph on the art stuff that was meant primarily for Atmasph. Although, since we are there, did he ever really see what was below the signs and symbols? The cognitively attached mind defines the absence of things - matter-things, thought-things, sign-things, symbol-things, etc. - as a No-thing-ness.
Nandric, again, the same question, no textbooks: what/who are you when you are not thinking? Does it feel like a No-thing-ness place to you?
The same question: what existed before the Big Bang?
A trick question: the "what" that existed before the Big Bang, where is it now? Is it still HERE, NOW?
On the progression on literary deconstruction - sure, the Bloomberg group is as fine as a place to start as any - but, didn't Wittgenstein change his mind later? Isn't there early Wittgenstein and later Wittgenstein?
Here's the koan: can you answer the Big Bang/Mind-beneath-thought questions above without reaching for more Wittgenstein...or Russell, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Freyerabend, or....whoever who is not-you.
When you saw the Early/Later Wittgenstein, did you inflexibly reach?
You said, "Litarature [sic] as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. "
Are you saying that the perception of beauty is not a perception of Truth?
Is that because you can not cognitively locate (or dice up) a Beauty-thing?
The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images?
M-
Yes, I agree, science and mathematics are their own languages too. And, yes, writing and mathematical languages have different referent rules, etc., but that does not mean that they are not still both bounded by the dualistic operation of thought construction.
Deconstruction is an interest in dicing up things. As far as it goes, such dicing up interests is a good thing, as I think I said, but there has been a prolonged over-reliance/attachment that has led to a stagnation. Maybe a little reintegration is needed in our stew. Or maybe, just maybe, a search for the ground of these cognitive constructions (I mean, we've looked everywhere else, right?).
And here's the new flash: Change does not evolutionarily favor no-change mind!
Yes, Nandric, there is a relative language issue between us, but, you know, we are on the same "planet" because we are both HERE NOW. Do you *see* this/me?
On Heidegger: I did not put him in with the regression stuff, purposely; he's in a lower paragraph on the art stuff that was meant primarily for Atmasph. Although, since we are there, did he ever really see what was below the signs and symbols? The cognitively attached mind defines the absence of things - matter-things, thought-things, sign-things, symbol-things, etc. - as a No-thing-ness.
Nandric, again, the same question, no textbooks: what/who are you when you are not thinking? Does it feel like a No-thing-ness place to you?
The same question: what existed before the Big Bang?
A trick question: the "what" that existed before the Big Bang, where is it now? Is it still HERE, NOW?
On the progression on literary deconstruction - sure, the Bloomberg group is as fine as a place to start as any - but, didn't Wittgenstein change his mind later? Isn't there early Wittgenstein and later Wittgenstein?
Here's the koan: can you answer the Big Bang/Mind-beneath-thought questions above without reaching for more Wittgenstein...or Russell, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Freyerabend, or....whoever who is not-you.
When you saw the Early/Later Wittgenstein, did you inflexibly reach?
You said, "Litarature [sic] as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. "
Are you saying that the perception of beauty is not a perception of Truth?
Is that because you can not cognitively locate (or dice up) a Beauty-thing?
The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images?
M-