THE NEED TO KEEP JASPERS PIVOTAL |
||
email me. Notation: Here, again, Herbert attaches an editorial annotation to my Response. It can be read at the conclusion of this Response 3 below. The main reason he does this, so it appears, is to make responses or comments difficult due to some privileged-editor violation of protocol; i.e., the implication is that there is nothing worthy that can be said in response. [1] The problem restated Discussions should revolve around Karl Jaspers (KJ); and evolution talk is no exception though "academically protected (Phil Benjamin, TA 70, C49)." Below is further effort to discuss the place of evolutionary thinking as a fixed ontology by clearing the decks of inadequate rules for discussion, while not succumbing to the frequent use of a prevarication until accepted as verified (what KJ also seemed to have avoided but not because of any discomfort with natural science, as suggested by HM). The rules seem to admit an outer static/deterministic history when zero-derivation and constructionism (constructivism) are threatened. I approach history with no holds barred, seeing the indeterministic side and -- to my capabilities -- complex determinations. [2] A starting point in history KJ states that scientific constructionism can be traced to Nicholas of Cusa (See The Great Philosophers) whose faith in God rolled with life (above and within his Church experience) while the horizon of indeterministic reality expanded with increasing awareness. KJ says Vico's contribution has been that history is what we make it; it's determined by how we structure it. My position is that At Vico's time the Jesuit as a constituted group was systematically determining history by destroying books and persons. Historical determinateness was a sure science for the Jesuits and they applied it to every facet of life from economics to education. That was Vico's world, and that is the constructivist world, a totalitarian threat in the guise of fighting against established bias. [3] The starting point in the KJF Below is HM's comment to my seeing the need for Karl Jaspers being the pivotal point while the Forum bears his name. I had stated: "Keep it KJ not HM." My responses are in Brackets. Not much effort below has been made to remain tactful, and I'm keeping in mind that HM could be a theist in atheist clothing. I mean, HM may have determined a way to call attention to Karl Jaspers. [3.1] Individuality affirmed and agreed upon "I keep it HM because I am me, and do not pretend to be Jaspers." [That's fine, if it were a personal web site and not associated with a healthcare and educational institution. Both of us can say to the other "You are no Karl Jaspers." On the other hand, none is an "I", a now-here consciousness from no-where even if we verbalize (or enunciate) "0-D" and "as-if mind independent reality" -- especially when being less than renown another's name (KJ) might be extolled to attract attention. KJ is not "as if" but rather a real paradigm with a coattail. "0-D" is agnosticism objectified into atheism. Jaspers is philosophically and culturally theistic -- though not much in the ecclesiastical sense. We are each individuals, but apparently live in two different worlds.] [3.2] Formulated and formulable standards that prevent normal discussion "A question: since you suggest that religious concepts should not be discussed, please say why not, and what you would recommend doing instead?" [First, what is the standard for discussion if the formulated and formulable standards of measurement and principles are not the final ones? "0-D" and "as-if MIR" in a real world is not final, neither the world we are in nor the world that we are (to use two of Jaspers' concepts). That's why we need to pivot the discussion about Karl Jaspers' works. You could take a leap of faith, a leap "as-if" without props and soar alone on your own structures; or you could give due credit to prestructured influences and maybe call it the Buddha Forum. Buddhists would have grounds for objecting to the possible misuse of Buddha. That would amount to shifting the responsibility aware from my need to defend Jaspers. [3.3] Escape formulas Now, let's see that there's no discussion possible from a zero-derivation/as-if reality perspective. What is the result of discussion efforts? Well, verbalizations continue. Certain words are placed in quotes, or given formula status; references are made to previous HM and vonGlaaserfeld TAs as authority. Why? Because the frame of reference is too narrow for the more complex, and the life is squeezed out of reality to make it fit a size 0. But what remains is that experience includes religious concepts that involve philosophical faith and revelational faith. Philosophy and metaphysics too. "Experience is first and words come later" is an enunciation, a proclamation, and hertz-like experience in or out of the womb are dismissed with "as if" and replaced with a hypostatic matrix, a wolf-boy-like environment. [3.4] Trapped in a smidgen of Logos There's truth in vdMeijden's observation in TA67, C19: There's a "...twisting experience back into the verbal intellect..." It's done in your C20 by the use of "In the beginning was the word." Here there's an attempt to show the damage that can be done when words are thought to be prior to experience, and to do this John is interpreted narrowly and superficially. At least it's not made clear to me that you are referring to the reduction of faith to creeds of exclusivity in the centuries following John's statement. [3.41] Hebrew and Greek Logos The Greek meaningfulness of logos is said to be diminished to semantics and hypostatized. You suggest John takes a concept and twists it into a real existent -- extrapolations from mere verbalizations, and then revered as something real. You appear unaware that Logos is used in the Septuagint (translation of the OT from Hebrew to Greek), at least overlooking the cultural-emotional and intellectual significance of the language user. Here it seems zero-derivation thinking intervenes too soon and critical thinking is escaped leaving the heavier work to others. Verbalization is seen in "as-if" statements, as if Jewish concepts are insignificant beside Greek concepts. This effort to minimize religious concepts causes an unworthy one such as myself to have to go and stand beside Jesus who saved us from the torture of crucifixions, to whom John was drawing attention -- and within times when intelligentsia were “evolving” a scheme of depersonalization. John was recognizing the ground of individual personhood and stating in effect that personal characteristics, humane attributes, know neither beginning nor end -- unless personalization is crucified altogether. He pointed at Jesus as one who lived in the world, above board, in the open, unconditionally, a world where conditions were the survival of the most fit, and the most whole person could be judged unfit and tortured to death. [4] How "0-D" as an "as if" ontology can dysfunction "0-D" needs a home base. If it's not out of nowhere, it a verbalized "Now-here is where it is." One case in point is the pointing to the Neapolitan Vico. Here's how "as-if" works: Let's assume ("as-if") you are a student of history. You are aware of the political strategies used by a religious institution claiming to be most authentic and infallible. There's awareness--"as-if" if you like--that the institution authorizes an exclusive group to propagate the absolute acquiescence to that institution. Infiltration and harvesting of forces are fair game even to the point of Regicide. It's a historical fact, but "as if" because covert in many ways. It's disturbing if the public is reminded of such tactics (as Karl Jaspers did in his Philosophical Faith and Revelation). Zero-derivation elevated to formula status, a principle, can be used to distract from fact, "as-if" rather than as historical fact. If that can't easily be done then reference is made to another historical fact: Vico, the Neapolitan. [4.1] Paranoid side effects Playing the "as-if" hypothesis game does have some interesting results which points to ontological thinking and behavior that "0-D" pretends to avoid. It points to the Jesuit commitment to a rigid world-view. It points to covert and sidewinder behavior and the resultant dirty-bomb explosion of paranoia. It makes normal people, who prefer to be above board, appear paranoid. And then paranoia becomes as commonplace as suspicion becomes universal. [4.2] A road to historic Naples The ontological "as-if" points me to Naples. Vico was born into a world where the inquisition had destroyed books and persons -- and into Naples wherein reigned the counter-reformation forces, the Jesuits. Their tactics had become so public that within 23 years after Vico's death the Jesuits had been expelled from Naples, and on paper abolished by a Papal Bull. They were soon reconstituted to continue the fight against protesting. Looking back, "0-D" and RC see Vico as ripe for picking, for spin-off use, a miraculous product, a radical constructivism easily interpreted to have grown out of Catholicity rather than the consequence of freedom and protesting. Vico, as someone from somewhere where there was strong opposition to protesting, must be the source of anything as worthwhile as "0-D" and "RC." [4.3] Neapolitan movement by "as if" missionaries' unto highways and byways The efforts to recapture Naples from the protestors moved along with the reconstitution of the Jesuit society, but with renewed awareness of how important it is to avoid public images reflecting shamefully against "God's vicar on earth." The work goes on "as-if" a new title might be more socially correct, a title suggesting a non-violent peaceful missionary effort within freedom-of-expression boundaries -- but in reality as covert as legally possible. The Propagation of the Faith is dispersed throughout societies judged to need it most. For example, research uncovers the Society for the Propagation of the Faith located in Denver -- for work in the region of New Mexico (a religious swing state) -- and has a sponsorship connection in Naples. [4.4] Subtle infiltration continues and anxiety enhances "As-if" thinking makes one wonder if the propagation program has also zeroed in on Karl Jaspers because of statements made in Philosophical Faith and Revelation. Let's think as if this is true. He is a force that an exclusive catholicity must reckon with by either direct verbalizations or by misrepresentation. Perhaps Jaspers is a force reckoned with through infiltrating Karl Jaspers Societies, and Forums. (Philosophical and revelational faith can play that game too, but chooses to point to such tactics. When deeds done in secret are made public, the problem goes away to some degree, but amidst clamoring that "as-if" organizations can't really exist concisely and therefore cannot be discussed. They exist by virtue of process-metaphysics and as such harmless. The paranoia produced appears as cause rather than effect.) [5] How philosophical faith and revelational faith works Philosophical faith can say that HM might be a victim of manipulation. Perhaps once a normally dressed Propagandist (maybe disguised as a Karl Jaspers Society member) came to HM and said, "You would be good at editing a Karl Jaspers Forum" -- thinking HM to be an atheist and capable of minimizing KJ's influence. Revelational faith might express it differently: Well, maybe so, but God will judge, and intervene in ways that might cause an atheist to wonder "What happened here." Is it possible through the KJF a theistic thinker (KJ) could become more outstanding as one in the service of the independent church by showing what philosophical faith and revelational faith have in common? Philosophical faith and revelational faith must not be excluded by inference or formula from a KJ forum discussion.] ----------------------------------------- I keep it HM because I am me, and do not pretend to be Jaspers. - A question : since you suggest that religious concepts should not be discussed, please say why not, and what you would recommend doing instead. – HFJM |
||