tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post8096858318947452126..comments2024-03-27T08:38:29.990+01:00Comments on artefactphil: Ontological and grammatical degenerationMichael Eldredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15312973352124078686noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post-74023003223340384362019-04-24T17:59:50.204+02:002019-04-24T17:59:50.204+02:00Only just saw this. Thanks, Jonathan. 'Intelli...Only just saw this. Thanks, Jonathan. 'Intelligence' is not in my usual philosophical vocabulary. I prefer to speak of 'understanding', which is what the mind does: understands, and also what it brings about: an understanding of what it understands, i.e. sees in the occurrences that occur to mind, which itself is the open temporally-3D-clearing in which occurrences are able to occur. Make sense to you?Michael Eldredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15312973352124078686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post-64695380511150759062019-04-24T17:56:03.169+02:002019-04-24T17:56:03.169+02:00Only just saw this. Thanks, Goetz. What do we see ...Only just saw this. Thanks, Goetz. What do we see in the place of the Cartesian duality of res extensa (extended thing) and res cogitans (cogitating thing)? The latter is what the ancients called psyche which, as far as we human beings are concerned, comprises both nous (understanding, Geist) and another openness to the world as a whole which I, adopting Heidegger's term, call moodedness (Gestimmtheit, Befindlichkeit). This openness is three-dimensionally temporal, so that the psyche itself can be regarded as an identity with, i.e. a belonging to, this 3D-temporal clearing itself to which each of us in exposed as long as we exist. Our whoness comes about through identifying with possibilities of existing that the world, especially others in the world, offers. My selfhood is constituted by adopting as my own certain possibilities of casting my existence that come about (especially) in an interplay with others in which we mutually estimate each other in our respective whoness, our respective selfhood. By virtue of this estimative interplay we are persons. That, much too briefly, is the pith of human being as whoness.Michael Eldredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15312973352124078686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post-81748878138053121322019-04-10T00:27:17.252+02:002019-04-10T00:27:17.252+02:00A succinct and clear reminder how Cartesian dualis...A succinct and clear reminder how Cartesian dualism has become so pervasive that it limits possibilities of language. Heidegger’s critical discussion of Descartes comes to mind. Thank you Michael. What do we see in its place? Certainly not an objectified identity? Man’s ultimate hybris to fashion itself (sic!) according to its own design? Hm, maybe a return to a unified notion of Geist? Or a sense for- and of Dasein? Or the sense of a Nietzschean free- spirit whose life and thought transcends past and future? Complex challenge ...thank you for making us think.Goetz Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06026764770824378849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1612867235894979409.post-17761116082730827032019-04-08T18:59:51.156+02:002019-04-08T18:59:51.156+02:00I wonder about how to imagine the difference betwe...I wonder about how to imagine the difference between 'mind' and' intelligence', or 'what' and 'who'. Perhaps that mind is still present when doing nothing, whereas intelligence only exists when in use. Mind is synchronic, intelligence sequential. Intelligence thinks, mind entertains a thought. Michael, how do you recognise the difference? How would you illustrate them?jonathan bragdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12998319814270095020noreply@blogger.com