Print

Print


I think Bertrand Russell or one of his predecessors got there first.
P.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:20 AM
  Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message


  Dear Peter:
   
  It's so outré to talk about consciousness. Neuroscience can't find it, philosophy can't describe it, or psychology either.
   
  David Chalmers calls finding consciousness "the hard problem." "Impossible" is a more fitting adjective.
   
  Postmodern criticial theory deconstructs consciousness as a function of language. I and You are discursive only, linguistic implications.
   
  Experiences occur, thoughts occur. That doesn't mean anyone is having them.
   
  Diana
   
   
   
  > RE: Aristotle -- the old mantra was time = the measure of motion
  > but it only makes sense that he understood motion as
  > change.
  > 
  > The thing is, it doesn't matter how good the measurement is,
  > or how independent of the observer it is, if some kind of
  > result, however accurate or misperceived, doesn't get through
  > to some consciousness connected to the measuring, then of
  > what use or abuse is it?
  > 
  > Today, given current technology, it takes about a year to get to Mars.
  > Given a new Canadian invention which has a way of heating the
  > rocket plasma [layman's terms] to unheard of degrees, it will take only
  > three months.
  > 
  > Where is consciousness in relation to the result, not to mention the
  > development of those technologies?
  > 
  > "To be conscious is not to be in time"
  > 
  > Cheers,
  > Peter
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: "Jonathan Crowther" <[log in to unmask]>
  > To: <[log in to unmask]>
  > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:59 AM
  > Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
  > 
  > 
  > > Peter
  > >
  > > For Aristotle doesn't motion = change rather than only mechanical
  > > locomotion?
  > >
  > > I understand that the quantum effects of measurement / observation work
  > with
  > > a measuring device which is only conscious in the sense of having been
  > made
  > > by a consciousness? So separate in one sense (physically) but not in
  > > another (causally): an unseen eyebeam?
  > >
  > > Jonathan
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
  > > Of Peter Montgomery
  > > Sent: 06 January 2010 22:43
  > > To: [log in to unmask]
  > > Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
  > >
  > > I think Aristotle said time is the measure of motion.
  > > For me, time is the measure of change.
  > >
  > > Does measurement exist separate from the consciousness that does it?
  > >
  > > P.
  > > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > > From: "Chokh Raj" <[log in to unmask]>
  > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
  > > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 7:07 AM
  > > Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
  > >
  > >
  > > For
  > >
  > > "only in time can the moment in the rose-garden,
  > > The moment in the arbour where the rain beat,
  > > The moment in the draughty church at smokefall
  > > Be remembered; involved with past and future.
  > > Only through time time is conquered."
  > >
  > > CR
  > >
  > >
  > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  > >
  > >
  > > > I for one never cease to enjoy Eliot's "world
  > > > of eye and ear",
  > > > both for "what they half create, / And what
  > > > perceive" --
  > > > well pleased to recognise in his "language of the
  > > > sense",
  > > > the "anchor of my purest thoughts".



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.