I recently started playing Dante's Inferno (again) and it made me think about the actual book it's based off of: the Divine Comedy.
I was curious as to people's thoughts on how Dante ranked sin and just his idea of hell in general.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Imagination and Opinion
I really enjoyed the section of this reading where he talks about imagination and imagery. I immediately was able to relate in the way that when I recall past memories, I think about actual imagery and things I remember seeing. With this recall of images I then remember the feeling I was experiencing when I was experiencing them.
My favorite part of this was the explanation surrounding error. What is error? Where is it derived? What is its outcome? Knowledge and understanding was repeatedly error's outcome. St. Thomas was saying that it's okay to be human. It's okay to make mistakes as long as a lesson is learned and understanding is gained.
Right now error is a huge part of my life. Everyday I'm learning something new. It's part of being eighteen. It's even relatable to the art I make. Trial and error is how I learn to create, nothing, not even ideas are correct the first time. I have to constantly refine and shift to accurately portray my ideas.
I do disagree however, that he categorizes imagination with error because it is not perceptually correct. Then again, many philosophers before him have as well. Then again, I can only apply this statement to artwork. I do not feel that artwork is "wrong" because some of it can not be sensed as something real.
Ok so reading for me is not so good, I have a hard time reading, so i watched the video and i must say that the five Quinquae Viae are very intresting and some of them in my opinion are just weird. For example Quinqae number 1 i think it's just contradicting itself because it's saying that something had to move in order for the object to move, and actually saying that on top of that God there is another and another and another ect... so maybe if that one was taken off it would sound just little better.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Eastern Views on the Self
In class we were talking about Avicenna's thought experiment and how it deals with the self (proving there's an independent thinker, etc). I was aware of the Buddhist persepctive, being a Buddhist myself. But trying to explain the idea of "no self" in class wouldn't have worked very well (since I haven't memorized its intricacies or anything). However, Alan Watts offers a very concise, easy to understand, version in his book "The Wisdom of Insecurity" which I have paraphrased below for anyone with an interest in the Eastern side of things:
The notion of security is based on the feeling that there is something within us which is permanent, something which endures through all the days and changes of life. We are struggling to make sure of the permanence, continuity and safety of this enduring core, this center and soul of our being which we call “I.” For this we think to be the real man-the thinker of our thoughts, the feeler of our feelings, and the knower of our knowledge. We do not actually understand that there is no security until we realize that this “I” does not exist.
You may ask, “Which experiences, which sensations and feelings, shall we look at?” I will answer, “Which ones can you look at?” The answer is that you must look at the ones you have now. That is surely rather obvious. But very obvious things are often overlooked. If a feeling is not present, you are not aware of it. There is no experience besides present experience. What you know, what you are actually aware of, is just what is happening at this moment, and no more.
But what about memories? Surely by remembering I can also know what is past? Very well, remember something. Remember the incident of seeing a friend walking down the street. What are you aware of? You are not actually watching the veritable event of your friend walking down the street. You can't go up and shake hands, or get an answer to a question you forgot to ask. In other words, you are not looking at the actual past at all. You are looking at a present trace of the past. You know the past only in the present and as part of the present.
While you are watching this present experience, are you aware of someone watching it? Can you find, in addition to the experience itself, an experiencer? Can you, at the same time, read this sentence and think about yourself reading it? You will find that, to think about yourself reading it, you must for a brief second stop reading. The first experience is reading. The second experience is the thought, “I am reading.” Can you find any thinker, who is thinking the thought “I am reading?” In other words, when present experience is the thought, “I am reading,” can you think about yourself thinking this thought?
Once again, you must stop thinking just, “I am reading.” You pass into a third experience, which is the thought, “I am thinking that I am reading.” Do not let the rapidity with which these thoughts change deceive you into the feeling you think all of this at once.
But what has happened? Never at any time were you able to separate yourself from your present thought, or your present experience. The first present experience was reading. When you tried to think about yourself reading, the experience changed, and the next present experience was the thought “I am reading.” You could not separate yourself from this experience without passing on to another. It was “ring around the rosy.” When you were thinking, “I am reading this sentence” you were not reading it. In other words, in each present experience you were only aware of the experience. You were never aware of being aware.
We might say that the “I” is the thinker in this physical body and brain. But this body is in no way separate from its thoughts and sensations. When you have a sensation, say, of touch, that sensation is part of your body. While that sensation is going on, you cannot move the body away from it more than you can walk away from a headache or from your feet. So long as it is present, that sensation is your body and is you. You can move the body from an uncomfortable chair, but you cannot move it from the sensation of a chair.
You reason, “ I know this present experience, and it is different from that past experience. If I can compare the two, and notice that experience has changed, I must be something constant and apart.
But, as a matter of fact, you cannot separate this present experience with a past experience. You can only compare it with a memory of the past, which is a part of the present experience. When you see clearly that memory is a form of present experience, it will be obvious that trying to separate yourself from this experience is as impossible as trying to make your teeth bite themselves. There is simply experience. There is not something or someone experiencing experience. You do not feel feelings, think thoughts or sense sensations any more than you hear hearing, see sight, or smell smelling.
The notion of security is based on the feeling that there is something within us which is permanent, something which endures through all the days and changes of life. We are struggling to make sure of the permanence, continuity and safety of this enduring core, this center and soul of our being which we call “I.” For this we think to be the real man-the thinker of our thoughts, the feeler of our feelings, and the knower of our knowledge. We do not actually understand that there is no security until we realize that this “I” does not exist.
You may ask, “Which experiences, which sensations and feelings, shall we look at?” I will answer, “Which ones can you look at?” The answer is that you must look at the ones you have now. That is surely rather obvious. But very obvious things are often overlooked. If a feeling is not present, you are not aware of it. There is no experience besides present experience. What you know, what you are actually aware of, is just what is happening at this moment, and no more.
But what about memories? Surely by remembering I can also know what is past? Very well, remember something. Remember the incident of seeing a friend walking down the street. What are you aware of? You are not actually watching the veritable event of your friend walking down the street. You can't go up and shake hands, or get an answer to a question you forgot to ask. In other words, you are not looking at the actual past at all. You are looking at a present trace of the past. You know the past only in the present and as part of the present.
While you are watching this present experience, are you aware of someone watching it? Can you find, in addition to the experience itself, an experiencer? Can you, at the same time, read this sentence and think about yourself reading it? You will find that, to think about yourself reading it, you must for a brief second stop reading. The first experience is reading. The second experience is the thought, “I am reading.” Can you find any thinker, who is thinking the thought “I am reading?” In other words, when present experience is the thought, “I am reading,” can you think about yourself thinking this thought?
Once again, you must stop thinking just, “I am reading.” You pass into a third experience, which is the thought, “I am thinking that I am reading.” Do not let the rapidity with which these thoughts change deceive you into the feeling you think all of this at once.
But what has happened? Never at any time were you able to separate yourself from your present thought, or your present experience. The first present experience was reading. When you tried to think about yourself reading, the experience changed, and the next present experience was the thought “I am reading.” You could not separate yourself from this experience without passing on to another. It was “ring around the rosy.” When you were thinking, “I am reading this sentence” you were not reading it. In other words, in each present experience you were only aware of the experience. You were never aware of being aware.
We might say that the “I” is the thinker in this physical body and brain. But this body is in no way separate from its thoughts and sensations. When you have a sensation, say, of touch, that sensation is part of your body. While that sensation is going on, you cannot move the body away from it more than you can walk away from a headache or from your feet. So long as it is present, that sensation is your body and is you. You can move the body from an uncomfortable chair, but you cannot move it from the sensation of a chair.
You reason, “ I know this present experience, and it is different from that past experience. If I can compare the two, and notice that experience has changed, I must be something constant and apart.
But, as a matter of fact, you cannot separate this present experience with a past experience. You can only compare it with a memory of the past, which is a part of the present experience. When you see clearly that memory is a form of present experience, it will be obvious that trying to separate yourself from this experience is as impossible as trying to make your teeth bite themselves. There is simply experience. There is not something or someone experiencing experience. You do not feel feelings, think thoughts or sense sensations any more than you hear hearing, see sight, or smell smelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)