[MD] an apple

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

I did read Schopenhauer's (fourth edition) published essay of 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason', but of course it was published 1877 and was very much a response to the science and philosophy of the day; and because I am not a Schopenhauerian scholar I would miss all this and therefore I very much appreciate Bryan Magee's presentation.  Magee's 'The Philosophy of Schopenhauer' has the added benefit of presenting the material having had exposure to all Schopenhauer's written work including his letters.  But you are correct that Bryan Magee has formed his opinions with personal biases built in.  

The other book I am reading is 'On Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason' by F. C. White.  White is a materialist and is criticizing the work from that perspective.  He offers quite a different point-of-view, for instance he seems to conflate mention of both brain and mind to that physical mass in the head, and he seems quite comfortable equating consciousness with brain chemistry.   There are quite different criticisms being presented that Magee never even suggested.  It's quite an astounding difference.

I am not reading of Schopenhauer to adopt his philosophical system, but more to introduce some interesting questions into the inquiry and discussion of the Metaphysics of Quality and Buddhism, and to include more of a Western perspective.  Already I have a better understanding of Berkeley, Locke, Hume and Kant; Magee is an excellent writer and I am enjoying this little side adventure.  I hope to eventually to move on to Whitehead and Popper.  BUT, and it is a big but, for me it's still analogy and all the way down. :-) 


Marsha
 
 






On Jul 24, 2012, at 5:49 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> That is interesting.  I have been reading translations of
> Schopenhauer, and not analyses of what he wrote.  So my impressions
> come from my reading his essays.  I would have to check a book out
> again, from the library, to see exactly what it was that led me to
> that.  It was probably a mix of a variety of essays.
> 
> I will have to keep what you say in mind when I do read some more.
> Actually, a few weeks ago I downloaded some free books of S. from
> Kindle.  There are a lot of such free books, that I would actually pay
> for.  I guess one person's trash is another's treasure.
> 
> Often I do not like the way philosophologist encapsulate philosophers.
> Often I get something different from writings of philosphers than
> what is normally presented.  That is just me of course.  I don't like
> all these rules and regulations when it comes to describing ones own
> reality.  Others seem to find more comfort in knowing what they
> believe is correct because others believe the same.  There are some in
> this forum who think that they have got Quality figured out
> metaphysically.  But I would not be so sure.  That they would think
> that they perfectly understand reality through Quality is somewhat
> suspect.  Yet they continue to claim they have the right way to
> present Quality in metaphysical terms.  Or, on the other hand, they
> claim they are not talking about Quality at all.  Go figure....
> 
> You, as always, are a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark
> 
> On 7/24/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> According to Magee, Schopenhauer uses the word 'will' in three senses.  The
>> third meaning is his own invention to represent the Noumenon.  "'Will' in
>> Schopenhauer's third sense is not conative at all, unless by coincidence.
>> It has no necessary reference to anything to do with life, personality,
>> consciousness, inner sense or aim.".   So I don't know how you connect this
>> with the term 'Intention'.  It sounds more similar to Dynamic Quality, and
>> Schopenhauer's 'representatives' sound like a cross between Platos Ideas and
>> RMP's static patterns.  But again this is very early in my investigation.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 1:09 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> I was not asking you to defend yourself, I think we are on the same side.
>>> What S calls Will is what I term "Intention".  I have presented this many
>>> times in terms of a metaphysical representation of Quality.  It's all in
>>> the archives.  I find S to be compelling and instructive with regard to
>>> MoQ, and have said so in the past.  Much better than James in my opinion.
>>> 
>>> Happy reading,
>>> 
>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 8:15 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> I have no intentions of defending myself or this quote this morning other
>>>> than to say I am intrigued by Schopenhauer's philosophy.  At this time I
>>>> am concentrating on 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient
>>>> Reason'.  I've read Bryan Magee's presentation, Schopenhauer's fourth
>>>> edition, and now I am reading book containing a critical analysis of the
>>>> 'Fourfold' by a materialist.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason' is suppose
>>>> to lay the foundation for Schopenhauer's work.  I don't think he can
>>>> rightly be called a subject-object philosopher.  What Schopenhauer has
>>>> labeled 'Will' is something beyond the normal definitions and represents
>>>> a force that comes prior to subject and object, though it cannot be said
>>>> to be Value either.  I also find it curious that he is not taken more
>>>> seriously by modern philosophers.  Will I've just begun my investigation
>>>> so there is little more I can say.  Magee is such a wonderful writer he
>>>> has quite peaked my interest.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:01 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>> All good questions from a subject-object point of view.  We can also
>>>>> view it from another angle, one of continual creation.  If we are
>>>>> creating experience, the distinction between self and other changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2012, at 5:35 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So what does consciousness (mind?, intellect?, or-what?) do in the
>>>>>> process of seeing:  it sets the images on the retina the right way up;
>>>>>> it makes a single perception out of twin visual sensations; it adds a
>>>>>> dimension to what is presented as two-dimensional; it infers the
>>>>>> distance of objects.  It does all this somehow by relying on such data
>>>>>> as visual and optical angles, internal movements of the eyes, shade and
>>>>>> intensity of colors, and the size of intervening objects.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sooo, direct, or pure, experience of what?  Does the expression 'direct
>>>>>> experience' even make sense?  And can there be a separation between the
>>>>>> relationship between static patterns of value and consciousness (mind?,
>>>>>> intellect?, or-what?)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 6:08 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am interested in the relationship between consciousness and static
>>>>>>> quality.  I offer this not because I have settled on it as some sort
>>>>>>> of truth, but because it is interesting to consider.  It is, of
>>>>>>> course, not presented in the language of Quality, but I find it
>>>>>>> something worth thinking about, none the less.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Let us take, as an example, our apprehension of a small and simple
>>>>>> object in nature such as an apple...  
 
snip...