[MD] The Johnottations

Fri Nov 19 14:31:50 PST 2010

Well, the dishonesty that is projected here goes much further than the eye
of the observer will expirience on first sight, there is a viper hidden in
the fallen leaf's.
Probably you will remember that i was talking about graphical idealism,
towards
Andre, in a context about "currier and yves" mentioned in 'LILA'.

I another thread i was also talking about suggestion/autosuggestion.

Now i will make it complete.

Please read again the fragment of the Annotations, as originally contexted.
-

Where is this identity to be found? At this point Coleridge is at the same
door that Phaedrus was at, but he doesn’t have the key of Quality with him.
So he answers: 'Only in the selfconsciousness of a spirit is there the
required identity of object and of representation.' What in the world is
selfconsciousness of a spirit? But if the spirit is originally the identity
of subject and object, it must in some sense dissolve this identity in order
to become conscious of itself as object. Ridiculous. Self-consciousness,
therefore, cannot arise except through an act of will, How did will get in
here? and 'freedom How did freedom get in here? must be assumed as a *ground
*of philosophy, and can never be deduced from it'. The spirit becomes a
subject knowing itself as object only through 'the act of constructing
itself objectively to itself'.  This is the sort of nonsense that has
inspired logical positivism.

--------------------------
Adrie
Now make a still of the composition, frame it in your mind, and try to find
"ridiculous",....it will take you several seconds , mostly, to say the
least.

--------------------------

Now John Carl's version.

-

At this point Coleridge is at the same door that Phaedrus was at, but he
doesn’t have the key of Quality with him.  So he answers:
'Only in the selfconsciousness of a spirit is there the required identity of
object and of representation.'
What in the world is selfconsciousness of a spirit?
But if the spirit is originally the identity of subject and object, it must
in some sense dissolve this identity in order to become conscious of itself
as object.

Ridiculous.

Self-consciousness, therefore, cannot arise except through an act of will,

How did will get in here?

and 'freedom

How did freedom get in here?

must be assumed as a *ground *of philosophy, and can never be deduced from
it'. The spirit becomes a subject knowing itself as object only through 'the
act of constructing itself objectively to itself'.

---------------------------------
adrie
Now make again a still of the new composition, frame it again in your mind,
and again try to find "ridiculous",....it will take you zero seconds.
because it leaves the context, leaves the surroundings , embedded with
empty space, placed exactly in the line of action, THE GOLDEN CUT,

THE GOLDEN RATIO!!, he found the mach of the golden ratio.
It is known in art and design, that the eye and the mind need no more than
this
to mislead the observer,....No??
try to follow, try to find the golden ratio in his composition, but first
read the links provided, ...after that, review John's composition again.
Fucking golden ratio.
Nice to have artistic coaches.

http://www.physorg.com/news180531747.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
(pay attention to the golden rectangle, and try to see "ridiculous" in
place"

Graphikal idealism, burps.
greetzz, adrie

2010/11/17 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>

>
> Adrie said to John:
> Here you deliberately "forgot" a piece, John. The paragraph's end is Mr.
> Pirsig's concluding sentence, you left it out for obvious reasons
>
> This is it, the complete paragraph WITH PIRSIG'S CONCLUDING END SENTENCE
> recontextualised again.
>
> "Where is this identity to be found? At this point Coleridge is at the same
> door that Phaedrus was at, but he doesn’t have the key of Quality with him.
> So he answers: 'Only in the selfconsciousness of a spirit is there the
> required identity of object and of representation.' What in the world is
> selfconsciousness of a spirit? But if the spirit is originally the identity
> of subject and object, it must in some sense dissolve this identity in order
> to become conscious of itself as object. Ridiculous. Self-consciousness,
> therefore, cannot arise except through an act of will, How did will get in
> here? and 'freedom How did freedom get in here? must be assumed as a *ground
> *of philosophy, and can never be deduced from it'. The spirit becomes a
> subject knowing itself as object only through 'the act of constructing
> itself objectively to itself'.  This is the sort of nonsense that has
> inspired logical positivism."
>
>  "THIS IS THE SORT OF NONSENSE THAT HAS INSPIRED LOGICAL POSITIVISM"
> (Pirsig, Emphasis is Adrie's)
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yep. This is yet another example of dishonest, selective reading. John
> wants us to think that Pirsig would accept or endorse these idealistic
> notions despite the fact that he's right here on record saying these notions
> are ridiculous nonsense. This is what I complained about yesterday, where
> the reader's interpretive "skills" are such that clear, explicit statement
> are completely reversed to mean very the opposite thing.
>
> There's room for interpretation of course but to interpret "ridiculous" and
> "nonsense" to mean good or right or true is just plainly wrong.
>
> What really baffles me, is how anyone can do this sort of thing without
> feeling ashamed or embarrassed. How does John figure that nobody will notice
> his self-serving editing choices? How does he figure that anyone will read
> Pirsig to be saying the very opposite of what he is saying? And what kind of
> arrogance does it take for John to claim that his own thinking is deep
> compared to Pirsig's shallow thinking?
>
> It's really depressing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser