Asking myself, what does Otto Weininger mean here?

[Kelly Jones]

Being able to distinguish elements and characters, is the core of this chapter of Sex and Character, Elizabeth. The rest of the chapter, and I would even go so far as to say, the theme of the book, will not really make sense without getting a good grip on the matter.

You'll probably be getting an idea now why I haven't addressed "specific points" in your post.

It's not easy to get one's head around, because it's very much dependent on how much one has developed conscience (soul, or relationship with Truth). It's not something one can pick up without having "tasted", so to speak. This is difficult stuff, so I think it's better to focus on simpler things first.

Also, there are other reasons for postponing discussion of it. Not least, I'm interested to see what relationship you have to your own consciousness. So, focussing on the thread discussing consciousness makes more sense at this point in time.

See you there.

Kelly

[Nordicvs]

Kelly, I'll give it a read and a think and reply in a couple days or such.

[Kelly Jones]

Sorry for not replying to the earlier discussion. I might be able to pick up the thread and slip it into a simpler dress....

[Nordicvs]

Sorry for not replying to the earlier discussion. I might be able to pick up the thread and slip it into a simpler dress....

That other thread about 'women are irrational?' If so, I can't recall many pressing disagreements we were having there---bascially we were working through definitions until we reached some common ground of understanding, which I think we did (I know we agreed more than we disagreed), but if I did miss something, then by all means.

As for this one, I just spent an hour looking for this in the main forum and forgot it was in Worldly Matters (haven't slept for 36 hours). Oh well, know where it is now.

Back tomorrow.

[Dan Rowden]

Modern science claims to have demonstrated that we are all irrational and only think we are other than that, even though it takes rational thought to make that distinction.

Modern science and logical, philosophical thought are a bad mix, so it seems...

Either that or modern scientists are determined to be seen to be relevant outside their discipline.

[Nordicvs]

Here is a series of three images, and a second single image, to illustrate the difference between "element" and "character".

I think it is very important to be able to tell the difference. I am thinking of the experience of the difference, even more than the intellectualising part. In my opinion, it is vital, because it sheds light on the true self, as well as casting more light on how the ego generally functions.

Click here for the images.

That's a decent visual aid. The 'henid' one is pretty much as I conceive it.

Following is my explanation of the four images, posted above, that illustrate the difference between elements and characters.

Firstly, definitions:

Elements are ideas, content, things, perceptions, facts, sensations. For instance, "active", "yellow", "falling", "solid", "icy", "impression".

Characters are psychological, and coloured by emotion. They occur when things are classified in relation to the false self (the ego) [*see below].

For instance, "surprising", "contemplative", "certain", "unhelpful", "rightful", "reckless", "dreaded", "distinct", "vague".


[*I now see that characters are not things classified in relation to the ego, but actually in relation to the true "I", because psychological aspects of one's unique human self are not necessarily egotistical. The true self is a logical agent, and characters applies to it just as they do to the false self. However, the egotistical mind will not be able to distinguish characters are purely as the truly-oriented mind.]

Okay. But what about "my hand." ("My" as in it's mine, not anyone's.) Element or character? (Both?--> For you, as something you've never seen or can know, it's nothing more than a thing; Element. For me, being a part of me for nearly 40 years: Character. Perspective/context seems important here, or no?)

Image 1 shows two identical grey cars, but with different captions. The first caption is an element, the second is a character.

Images 2-4 show "monadic" consciousness and "henidic" consciousness.

Some more definitions:

Monadic consciousness thinks in monads. Monads are distinct and fully clarified ideas. Monad means a basic unit of reality: a defined thing. Males that tend to be logical, have monadic consciousness. It is more often characteristic of the male human than the female, yet it is still very rare. It can distinguish between "elements" and "characters", whereas the female of the species generally cannot.

Monads are more likely to be elements than characters, because monads are fully clarified ideas, but I am still clarifying this concept.

The overwhelming majority of females have "henidic consciousness". Henids are pre-thoughts, where there is little or no clarification of thoughts, but just a whiff of the skeleton of characters. That is, women are generally not conscious enough to detect the false self.

Only a monadic consciousness can discern which of his thoughts are characters and which are elements, since he has clarified the characters into monads. Prior to this, consciousness remains dependent on other people to clarify things.

Image 2 and 3 refer to a "system". I hasten to assert that monads are not fully clarified by using a kind of knowing relation to all the specific branches of this system. That would be unnecessary and impossible. Only one branch of this system is enough for a monad to exist (namely, the root and the furthest branch that is clarified). A monad is not, absolutely, like a part of a scientific taxonomic system. If it were, the "system" would be a theory of the universe, and monads would be empirical things, but that is not what I mean by a system. I simply mean, a system by which things are contrasted against all other things. A monad about an empirical object is definite and complete, in contrast with the absolute logical truth of the Infinite. In this sense, do I mean "system".

These last three images should be self-explanatory.

Also, I think the translation in the opening post was satisfactory. However, I'll post the other two later, just in case anyone wishes to examine them.

All that seems clear except for your use of "system"---still kinda foggy here...can you elaborate a bit more?

[DHodges]

Modern science claims to have demonstrated that we are all irrational and only think we are other than that, even though it takes rational thought to make that distinction.

Not sure where you got that from, but a more reasonable claim might be that most of what passes for rational thought is actually rationalization.