Janus

The flower is knowable in a multitude of ways, or in other words, via a multitude of different kinds and instances of encounter. It is not exhaustivel...

Why is it important to be remembered?

When it comes to empirically observable events, like who was at fault in a traffic accident, or who started a fight by throwing the first punch, and s...

Regarding experience there may be an 'as it is', but as soon as it is spoken about interpretation enters. Ideas are always open to interpretation.

I had no thought of trying to "induce" any effect in you. I was telling my thoughts on what we have been discussing.

The flower is there to be perceived and it might be perceived differently by countless kinds of animals, it might feature in many instances of being p...

Both bees and we see the flowers at the same places, we know this because we see them pollinating flowers. What could justify saying that we both see ...

I relate to the way you've articulated that; that the now is not exclusively identified with the present dimension, and not even identified any more w...

That's it; we cannot pin down a now. I tend to think it's important to be aware of what we are doing in the kind of Buddhist sense of "mindfulness". T...

I would say it's right there in that looking forward or looking back or looking out or looking down or looking up. The moment is not fixed or dimensio...

It surprises me that you say I am arguing for eternalism when I am saying that only the now is. But then I can also see the sense in this because ther...

I am taking liberties in the sense that I don't claim what I am saying is what Heidegger would say. I don't say the past or future are illusions, but ...

If time is objectified it appears as a flow or movement from past through present to future. But this is an abstraction; for lived time there is only ...

Yep. like it or not, we all do it.

:ok: cheers

When it comes to ideas you wouldn't be thinking about "slapping sense into them" if you respected them.

I get that you don't respect Heidegger; it seems his work doesn't speak to you. That's alright, it's reasonable to expect that any philosopher will no...

I'd say you're thinking too much in terms of propositions if you think the point is about defending anything. When we ask 'what is being?' we are aski...

Except 'being' is not an adjective, but a verb. 'kind', 'calm', 'cold', 'fierce'. 'wild' are all adjectives. What about 'wilder'? Perhaps 'beinghood' ...

Those other questions have, at their heart, the question as to what kind of thing (being) they are. The "is" in the questions guarantees that.

Cheers, that's interesting.

Not sure what you mean, but I'm intrigued...

It seems that beingness should be though of as a noun. I can't remember if Heidegger uses that term or simply 'being'. The being (verb?) of a being (n...

I haven't read Grice, is his work worth exploring? Off the top of the head the general difference I see between signs and symbols is that signs are pr...

Did you mean "making use of"?

Sure, but intentionality or "aboutness" is not restricted to linguistic practices or contexts; to make it all about language would be, in phenomenolog...

Are you claiming that the phenomenological account of being cannot be said? Or are you only interested in what can be said in terms of predicate logic...

Interesting, thanks. As I read that, Husserl seems to be saying that there is a primordial act of consciousness wherein something is first seen as som...

Did you already say the idea came from Heidegger via Husserl? If so, my apologies I missed it. I'm not aware of that idea deriving from Husserl, but i...

An idea which comes directly from Heidegger, in his treatment of hermeneutics and developed by Gadamer. Davidson may or may not have encountered the i...

We cannot speak about things which are not identifiable as having an identity except in the minimal sense that to speak about them is already to posit...

That's exactly the distinction I'm pointing to; I think what Blake is speaking about is being "outside of time". That state is "in an hour" precisely ...

Exactly, hence "eternity in an hour".

That seems to be very much open to interpretation to me.

The two words are related and each has it constellation of associations. Fictive has a greater constellation. In any case you haven't addressed the po...

It is identifiable up until the time it crumbles. The idea that it "has" a fixed identity is an abstraction from its identifiability.

That's too cryptic for me; can you clarify?

I have no argument with that. Note that, except in the somewhat confused second stage, there is a field. Sure, 'field' is just one possible name for i...

Yes, as Peirce said: "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts".

Can you provide some quotes that are unequivocal about the Buddhist idea of eternity? Then we can see whether they might be open to interpretation.

But we can all agree, no matter what our interests might be, that it is a field. That commonality seems to be more than a mere account.

Do you care about anyone other than yourself? Even if not, do you allow that others may feel differently?

:up: It's about ten to fifteen years since I read it, I think, and I've too much on my reading list to consider reading it again right now, so I look ...

True, we don't literally see the potential uses or possibilities there. But I think it is fair to say that, even unreflectively, these possibilities c...

I agree. The three see the field as different kinds of "affordance" (Gibson). This has commonalities with with Heidegger's 'ready-to-hand' mode of bei...

The salient question is as to what is meant by "eternal joy". To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the pal...

The three guys are looking at a field, it's not that they are in the same spot and one sees a field, another a mountain and the third a river. "They'r...

Previously you used the term 'fictional', which means imagined, now you have changed to 'fictive' which has different, although related, connotations,...

LOL, I'm not being "huffy". And I'm not saying the terms cannot be synonymous, in fact I'm saying they can and should be. I'm advocating a distinction...

Nicely framed, James.