SPIRIT AND EXPERIENCE
NOTES FOR READERS Survived the Decline of the West (CONTINUED)
VI
Objections the theory of knowledge are clearly admissible once accepted the need to know. But do we ever? See Emerson, Maeterlinck, Novalis - who I might add Nietzsche and, to quote a contemporary, Rudolf Kassner - gives the mind a very strong pulse, but we can not speak of knowledge, missing is the convergence to unanimity, the feeling does not leave condense precipitate we are faced with intellectual transcripts of something that man can indeed be acquired, but can only express by other transcripts of the same type.
The reason is that the representations in this field, have no constant meaning that all are more or less experiences, individual, that can not understand it only if recall similar. They demand to be relived every time, never are only partially understood and never permanently. This is true of all representations based not on the solid foundations of pure sensory and rational, but on feelings and impressions easily renewable. Of course, all manifestations of life skills related: any dialogue, any business of persuasion, decision, every relationship between two beings are, as they say, on the unknowns. Group does one of these representations and content sets of such (as do the test, the "opinion", the conviction "personal"), you get complex organisms, no less fragile, of course, that complex combinations of atoms.
Just entered this field, we see the logical dethroned. More thought is located, the higher the share of experience outweighs that of the intellect. That is why I once called the area "not ratioïde" (in Volume 4 of the magazine Summa which contain a few other occasional remarks about it) but it is valid, it goes without saying , in the sense mentioned above. In rigid concept replaces the representation breathable, the analogy to the equation, indeed the probability: the basic structure is more systematic, but creative. This area includes a range of shades: from quasi own scientific attitude to a test Taine or a Macaulay, as indeed, to most historians, to the foreboding, the arbitrary or the simple pulse generators that become some writings today. Thus, the contents of such works now offers a convergence going almost to unanimity, sometimes bordering on differences and not absolute disparate raising more than tendencies of thought waves and vibrations of the mind.
Anyone familiar with these books knows what order, analysis, comparison, in a word: thought is able to obtain, although the essence is lost as well, also knows everything hiding them in rationality, not to mention the obvious, without which no expression is possible. (I am excluding cases where the understanding alone occupies almost suddenly areas where previously only existed as an idea, or even literature, like psychoanalysis.) If it was, given the misunderstanding between current achievements in the field to those ratioïde not purely rational, science, a bit presumptuous, I would say that the intellect, where it is private, so to speak, of his ease, must show more flexibility and where everything is fluid, especially in its strict distinctions and definitions. This misunderstanding between mind and mind is sad, all these stories of rationalism and anti-rationalism may confuse the basic human problems, the only dream that we can do and where losses do not delete earnings, is the over-rationalism.
It does little to clarify these fundamental problems. The philosophers are not willing to methodically explore an area where the facts are actual events, most of them do not know enough diversity. So is he, to my knowledge, no attempt to analyze logical analogy and the irrational. "There is a scientific experiment and a living experience, Spengler wrote, there is something between life and see a difference too often underestimated. "Comparisons could be the happiness of historical thought [...]. The technique should be studied under the influence of an overall picture, therefore the need to exclude any idea of choice, until the control logic. "I admire this exciting project to require all new molds universal history of thought. If it fails, it's not just the fault of Spengler, that is also devoid of any preparatory work.
The reason is that the representations in this field, have no constant meaning that all are more or less experiences, individual, that can not understand it only if recall similar. They demand to be relived every time, never are only partially understood and never permanently. This is true of all representations based not on the solid foundations of pure sensory and rational, but on feelings and impressions easily renewable. Of course, all manifestations of life skills related: any dialogue, any business of persuasion, decision, every relationship between two beings are, as they say, on the unknowns. Group does one of these representations and content sets of such (as do the test, the "opinion", the conviction "personal"), you get complex organisms, no less fragile, of course, that complex combinations of atoms.
Just entered this field, we see the logical dethroned. More thought is located, the higher the share of experience outweighs that of the intellect. That is why I once called the area "not ratioïde" (in Volume 4 of the magazine Summa which contain a few other occasional remarks about it) but it is valid, it goes without saying , in the sense mentioned above. In rigid concept replaces the representation breathable, the analogy to the equation, indeed the probability: the basic structure is more systematic, but creative. This area includes a range of shades: from quasi own scientific attitude to a test Taine or a Macaulay, as indeed, to most historians, to the foreboding, the arbitrary or the simple pulse generators that become some writings today. Thus, the contents of such works now offers a convergence going almost to unanimity, sometimes bordering on differences and not absolute disparate raising more than tendencies of thought waves and vibrations of the mind.
Anyone familiar with these books knows what order, analysis, comparison, in a word: thought is able to obtain, although the essence is lost as well, also knows everything hiding them in rationality, not to mention the obvious, without which no expression is possible. (I am excluding cases where the understanding alone occupies almost suddenly areas where previously only existed as an idea, or even literature, like psychoanalysis.) If it was, given the misunderstanding between current achievements in the field to those ratioïde not purely rational, science, a bit presumptuous, I would say that the intellect, where it is private, so to speak, of his ease, must show more flexibility and where everything is fluid, especially in its strict distinctions and definitions. This misunderstanding between mind and mind is sad, all these stories of rationalism and anti-rationalism may confuse the basic human problems, the only dream that we can do and where losses do not delete earnings, is the over-rationalism.
It does little to clarify these fundamental problems. The philosophers are not willing to methodically explore an area where the facts are actual events, most of them do not know enough diversity. So is he, to my knowledge, no attempt to analyze logical analogy and the irrational. "There is a scientific experiment and a living experience, Spengler wrote, there is something between life and see a difference too often underestimated. "Comparisons could be the happiness of historical thought [...]. The technique should be studied under the influence of an overall picture, therefore the need to exclude any idea of choice, until the control logic. "I admire this exciting project to require all new molds universal history of thought. If it fails, it's not just the fault of Spengler, that is also devoid of any preparatory work.
VII
Anyone who has realized that most of the thought may be, depending on the object or its conceptual apparatus, is the fluctuating nature of the experience , will understand the distinction that Spengler is not alone in understanding between living and dead knowledge, without any mystique. What we can learn about how school knowledge, rational order, objects and relations definable conceptually, it can be assimilated or not, forget or not, store or in our brains out as a cube squared containing dust with care: but such thoughts, in a sense, are dead, their validity outside of us is the reverse of the sentiment. The accuracy, precision kill and this which is defined, which is concept, is dead fossil, skeleton. As part of its concerns, a nothing-that-rationalist will probably never get to do the test. But in the realms of the mind where the principle: Knowledge = remembering - or, as I said once, Trinity Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis, which is just not valid in the field where he ratioïde applied it - is an experience we are doing at any time. Here, the word does not designate anything fixed. It is a living word, rich with meanings and intellectual relations as it is impregnated will and feeling, an hour later, it tells you nothing, even though he says all that one can say concept. This kind of thinking deserves to be called alive.
VIII
Spengler wrote: "Analyze, define, arrange, divide by cause or effect, you can do it whenever you want. It's a job, the other thing is a creation. The shape and the law, and the concept of analogy, symbol and formula have very different bodies. It is the relation between life and death, and cause destruction, which appears here. The understanding, the concept kills "recognizing". He's recognized a fixed object, which allows to measure and divide. Perception drives. It incorporates the unique feel of a living unit. Poetry and historical research are related, such as computing and knowledge ... The artist, the historian sees how authentic it gets. He saw the future in the shape of the object in question. "
These remarks lead to a further distinction closely related to the living knowledge and understanding between dead or, as Spengler says, between perception and knowledge: that one day I called the distinction between causality and motivation. Causation rule seeks through regularity, and finds a chain; motivation is to understand the ground by releasing the impulse that drives him to act, feel, think along these lines. Can be based on that the above distinction between scientific expertise and experience living. I would note in passing, however, that the confusion so common between scientific psychology and psychology literature is often in these parts there. By 1900, all the writers wanted to be a "deep psychological sciences in 1920," psychologist "became an insult. That fight with chimeras. Because the causal psychology has never been widely used in art as to what is usually called psychology is simply the knowledge of men and the ability to motivate, not the knowledge of men's jockey, based a typology, but of the man to whom nothing has been hidden or spared.
These remarks lead to a further distinction closely related to the living knowledge and understanding between dead or, as Spengler says, between perception and knowledge: that one day I called the distinction between causality and motivation. Causation rule seeks through regularity, and finds a chain; motivation is to understand the ground by releasing the impulse that drives him to act, feel, think along these lines. Can be based on that the above distinction between scientific expertise and experience living. I would note in passing, however, that the confusion so common between scientific psychology and psychology literature is often in these parts there. By 1900, all the writers wanted to be a "deep psychological sciences in 1920," psychologist "became an insult. That fight with chimeras. Because the causal psychology has never been widely used in art as to what is usually called psychology is simply the knowledge of men and the ability to motivate, not the knowledge of men's jockey, based a typology, but of the man to whom nothing has been hidden or spared.
0 comments:
Post a Comment