But, in so doing, Kant discovers the modern way of saving transcendence: this is no longer the transcendence of a Something, or of a One higher than everything (contemplation), but that of a Subject to which the field of immanence is only attributed by belonging to a self that necessarily represents such a subject to itself (reflection). — StreetlightX
Yet one more step: when immanence becomes immanent "to" a transcendental subjectivity, it is at the heart of its own field that the hallmark or figure of a transcendence must appear as action now referring to another self, to an-other consciousness (communication). — StreetlightX
So how is this not transcendence?Immanence sets the logical meaning (what you call the "ideal") outside the question of time. It understood to be infinite
There is no prior field of constraint which enables the world to be and mean as it does.
Instead, there is no enabling constraint ("the compass just points"), with the world expressing the infinite of meanings on its own. The world is always free and creating, an emergent expression, rather than something following the order of a predetermining ideal. The rejection of the prior field is the insight of immanence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
the perverse effects that postmodernism has had on the humanities: tons of crappy theories, bad arguments, superficial historical recollections, paranoid political interpretations of major novels, untenable positions on basic biological facts, etc., all of which have been produced over the past 25 years or so in the name of a dubious ideological agenda of “debunking” the deeply concealed motivations of the ‘truth-producers’, whose shameful aim is to serve the interests of powerful groups. — Gloria Origgi
On a different tack, do you think that in this passage Capra is wanting to suggest that although there is no planning of precise details the overall schema of evolution is determined by an overarching necessity? The thought these days is very much that any overt large-scale miraculous divine intervention would disrupt the order of nature. And this is simply not considered possible, because then our whole tidy picture of evolution would be threatened. — John
Stick up for yourself! I stand by my criticisms, but you had something to say about other ways of looking at similar themes. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticism provided one is upfront about the degree to which one is familiar with what one's criticizing. That's the real bone of contention here, not that you don't like some of the guys that I like. How do you understand pomo and how do you understand it as antithetical to what you hold dear?I know I have completely de-railed this thread, I really ought to bail.
it seems like you're content to render pomo as self-interested, anything-goes secularism and leave it at that. — Salisbury
For me transcendence is a process of accessing an interdimensional reality, or eternity present in the here and now. — Punshhh
And there's also Michel Henry, who, in some sense holds to a thesis of immanence even more radical than Deleuze's, and who thoroughly understands it according to the Christian tradition. — StreetlightX
Science is a form of culture in which life denies itself and refuses itself any value. It is a practical negation of life, which develops into a theoretical negation in the form of ideologies that reduces all possible knowledge to that of science, such as the human sciences whose very objectivity deprives them of their object: what value do statistics have faced with suicide, what do they say about the anguish and the despair that produce it? These ideologies have invaded the university, and are precipitating it to its destruction by eliminating life from research and teaching. Television is the truth of technology; it is the practice par excellence of barbarism: it reduces every event to current affairs, to incoherent and insignificant facts.
This negation of life results from the "disease of life", from its secret dissatisfaction with the self which leads it to deny itself, to flee itself in order to escape its anguish and its own suffering. In the modern world, we are almost all condemned from childhood to flee our anguish and our proper life in the mediocrity of the media universe — an escape from self and a dissatisfaction which lead to violence — rather than resorting to the most highly developed traditional forms of culture which enable the overcoming of this suffering and its transformation into joy. Culture subsists, despite everything, but in a kind of incognito; in our materialist society, which is sinking into barbarism, it must necessarily operate in a clandestine way.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.