Dear Peter,

(I've put my questions after your points, so, please,
scroll down to see them)

--- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> There has been no acceptance of formal, or final
> causality (or material causality
> for that matter -- though Einstein has made a
> difference there).

Why do you think Einstein's theory is an exception in

> I am moved by fancies that are curled 
> Around these images, and cling: 
> The notion of some infinitely gentle 
> Infinitely suffering thing. 

I'm not sure I understood your point well, but do you
want to say that these lines represent an example of
finalistic causation? If so, why would "being moved
by"  be an example of the finalistic, instead of the
efficient causality?

> While the Cartesian influence is endemic to our
> culture, I prefer, rather than trying to sus it out
> or experience ontological shock, to see that one
> needs to reject the actual, experiential
> conditioning of one's early childhood
> and early education (some are, of course, spared
> that tragedy),  to reach one's natural perceptual
> modes
> which have been supprssed by personal, social and
> political influences.

What would be "natural perceptual modes"? (Is human a
"natural being" at all (taking into account the world
of morality)?) What you bring here is sometimes
referred to as "myth of the framework", which we can
easily jump out of. But if every seeing is "seeing
as", that is, if every perception is perception in
light of some "background theory", how do you imagine
getting rid of those influences without jumping in the
new ones? I absolutely support the idea of rational
questioning of every sort of tradition one might have
inherited (5 minutes of skepticism per day and this
world would look entirely different), but why do you
think this should be especially applied to Cartesian


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around