I propose: a wrench, a blow-torch, a diving duck, a little red wagon, 15 corroded coat-hangers and a Colt .45 with one bullet. I am SURE I can produce some honig with this combo. Just give me time, just give me time.Diebert wrote:It's one thing to assert a "disconnect", it's another thing to know why this happened as a process. Why is this disconnection taking place and did anything happen with those "basic understandable common" meanings or did something happen with "us" and are the good old meanings still there to return to? This is an area to explore but using which tools?
Seriously though, in the end, shouldn't we really hope for the annihilation Bob always talks of, hopes for, and then, when those delirious morons have been thinned out, perhaps we should all get a piece of land---not too far south and not too far north---and we'll start a planters commune. True, we'll have to make an inroad into an all-women forum somewhere out there for access to young, like-minded, fire-legged, philo-sophical females who can cook and scrub and mind the protoplasm while we meet like an old Mennonite assembly, dragging our various texts on sleds, preaching what needs be preached, establishing a foundation for the super-sensitive Nietzschen future that must surely come and praying to that Great Star! shining for us in whose eyes its starry light is reflected!
Even more seriously, after everything has settled down, toppled down, been leveled & razed, I have a feeling that, like the seeds from flowers that return to the ground we'll all have to start all over again down in the same dirt. I am not sure what that ULTIMATELY means or when it will ULTIMATELY come, but I just don't see a way around it, do you? How far away from the natural world (I mean this quite literally) can we go? (Cascades, forests, mountain tops, wind, soil, etc.)
_________________________________________________________
Yes, that is good: from the scenic to the obscenic! From the ephemeral to the blasphemeral (and back).
You don't think it is obvious? To me it seems totally obvious. And I do see your point about 'realm of appearance' except that 'the natural world' is (isn't it?) the one, true, original Author, so that all our 'ephemera' in the tippy-top of the material pyramid is just a fantastical re-representation. If there were no substantial world to base it in, what form could any of it have ever taken? Aren't we in fact stuck inside this world with no place (else) to go?Diebert wrote:The lack of clarity lies mostly in your use of the phrase "the material stuff, the biological stuff of it". Never mind what "it" is. Perhaps it's obvious to you but it really isn't. Did you mean perhaps chemistry? Would that be like invoking hard materialism (at the "base") as a "given". But the materials, its science do not supply meaning and interpretations at all! They do not carry in themselves signs which disqualifies it "as base" from any spectacle or realm of appearances. As such there is no "base" at all where any "material stuff" could lie. It's this lumping together of two quite different ontologies which might block any further fruitful philosophical inquiry here.
I think you mean lumping together material with biological, right? And you assert these are the two different ontologies?It's this lumping together of two quite different ontologies which might block any further fruitful philosophical inquiry here.