Print

Print


Dear Jonathan,
 
Thanks so much for posting the link to James' essay! I printed and underscored a lot of it. I have his Principles but this is what I need right now.
 
I wish you would expand on "knowing what" and "knowing that."
 
Have you noticed how many writers, past and present, seem to speak for God? That sanctifies their statements and renders them unquestionable.
 
Diana
 

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:45:24 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message
To: [log in to unmask]

Was it William James?

 

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/consciousness.htm

 

It seems to me there is ‘knowing how’ which like the turtles goes all the way down so even atoms ‘know how’ to make molecules. 

 

There is then ‘knowing what’ and ‘knowing that’.  Consciousness is knowing that you are knowing what:

 

Intelligible relations in ourselves are infinitely multiplied, because a man understands a stone by one act [knowing what], and by another act understands that he understands the stone [knowing that], and again by another, understands that he understands this; thus the acts of understanding are infinitely multiplied, and consequently also the relations understood. This does not apply to God, inasmuch as He understands all things by one act alone. ST Ia q28 art4 ad2  

 

The dialectic of knowing what and that is reason which leads either to enhanced knowing how as in learning to play a musical instrument or to knowing why or knowing the secret cause of things which is intellect’s stasis or rest .

 

Modernity’s mistake was to replace knowing why by a pseudo intellectual ‘knowing how’ in the sense of knowing how things work which masquerades as Science.  In Blake this is when Urizen travels north. 

 

Jonathan

 

 

From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Montgomery
Sent: 12 January 2010 21:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot's poetry: the medium & the message

 

I think Bertrand Russell or one of his predecessors got there first.

P.

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Diana Manister

To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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.



Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.