By longsword
In any case, I feel that TDAB has already served its purpose and that it's time for me to begin moving beyond its basic themes. This trend was becoming clear to me in the last few months as the blog, and myself, began delving into relatively new areas. Perhaps triggered by my discovery of Rumi's poetry, and the writings of A.H. Almaas
and Sri Aurobindo, I feel the need to spend some time integrating these relatively new discoveries into my ongoing work on Blake, Gebser, Nietzsche and the possible emergence of Seth's "Probable Man" (inclusive of "Probable Woman") as a being akin to, but also well beyond, what the writer Pico Iyer once called "the Global Soul".]
and Sri Aurobindo, I feel the need to spend some time integrating these relatively new discoveries into my ongoing work on Blake, Gebser, Nietzsche and the possible emergence of Seth's "Probable Man" (inclusive of "Probable Woman") as a being akin to, but also well beyond, what the writer Pico Iyer once called "the Global Soul".]The link between Rorty and non-dual mysticism – the Tao, Buddhist emptiness, Advaita Vedanta, negative theology - is that he’s continually trying to convince us that there is nothing to hold onto. There’s no It. No way in which It really is. No essence. That our words, vocabularies, concepts, or the assumption we have about them, keeps fooling us into thinking we can grasp how things are if we get our words to work, our understandings to cohere... Rorty is the only philosopher I’ve kept reading over the years and yet I he keeps doing the same thing just in different ways.
from philosophy autobiography] [I think it’s a terrible mistake to lump Whitehead and Latour
together with Bergson and Deleuze, as if they all belonged to some grand vitalist alliance of contemporary philosophy. They don’t. For there is a major philosophical difference between those who solve the deadlock in favor of the continuum, and those who solve it in favor of the discrete, and Whitehead and Latour (both heirs of occasionalism) resolve it in favor of the discrete. part 1 of 2 to Deontologistics
together with Bergson and Deleuze, as if they all belonged to some grand vitalist alliance of contemporary philosophy. They don’t. For there is a major philosophical difference between those who solve the deadlock in favor of the continuum, and those who solve it in favor of the discrete, and Whitehead and Latour (both heirs of occasionalism) resolve it in favor of the discrete. part 1 of 2 to Deontologisticsby Cosmic Piper
It would do your slimily evolved brains a great deal of good to read philosophers such as Plato, Plotinus, St. Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley, Hegel, Berdyaev, Sri Aurobindo and Alfred North Whitehead, all of whom explained G*d in ways ...]
Reducing the game of chasing ontology to a mere Manichean probability of wave-particle duality would be a violence to the complex nuances of sequence of moves by chess pieces. [TNM]
No comments:
Post a Comment