Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - nous

1 ... 23 [24]
346
Interzone / Re: Transcendental Christianity texts
« on: November 04, 2008, 11:45:03 AM »
About "this esoteric Christianity" there are many sources, for example:

http://www.corrupt.org/data/files/meister_eckhart/

I agree with Goluf, in that the ST should be the foundation for studies in Christian esoterism. An online version which links important terms to the Catholic Encyclopedia exists at www.newadvent.org/summa

You should clarify for yourself why the distinction of esoterism / exoterism in religion is being made. The corrupt.org link above mentions some authors who have written authoritatively on these matters.

347
Interzone / It's un-metal to only criticize.
« on: October 02, 2008, 04:25:22 PM »
Standard moron:

I don't need religion.
God? Can't prove it. Only what can be proven is real.
Kafka's so good, I read him over and over again.
Democracy is stupid, but it works somehow, you know?

Standard metalhead:
The above +
The world around me is ugly, so Iet's drink lots of beer and bang our heads to loud, ugly music.

I'm tired of it. Everybody, even the lowest low-life, can criticize. Every asshole has an opinion. Do we need to consider them all? No.
Most people are better off working with their mouths shut. Most metalheads too.

Moron: "Did you hear of this new philosopher? Haven't read a better criticism of our media."
Non-moron: "I've read that the world we live in degenerates according to cyclic laws, and that at the start of the new cycle the world will be restored, albeit maybe without mankind."
Moron: "Huh? What's this crazy shit? Didn't you know technology freed man? With it, we're gonna reach the stars!"
Etc.

This is my opinion, of course, and you're free to correct me, but mind the above when you do.

348
Metal / Re: New ENSLAVED album free stream
« on: October 02, 2008, 03:58:54 PM »
grandeur
Is that a joke I'm not getting? Vikingligr Veldi and Frost are pretty good, but the others?

349
Interzone / Re: Creationists
« on: October 02, 2008, 03:41:14 PM »
Science doesn't deny that principles aren't demonstrable. By definition, it is impossible to demonstrate an abstraction. What is demonstrated is the actual from which we make abstractions and form principles using faculties of reason (i.e., the intellect -- Aristotle's nous). In science, this is the formation and testing of hypotheses.

How is this not scientific?

First, we should differentiate science in the sense Aristotle uses it and "modern science".
Second, you have described the process "upside down": principles aren't formed; they "are" already there. Reason is logos, nous is the intellect (indian manas). I think 'mind' once had a similar denotation.

But let me quote some of Aristotle, also (NE):
VI, 3:
Quote
Again, every science is thought to be capable of being taught, and its object of being learned. And all teaching starts from what is already known, as we maintain in the Analytics also; for it proceeds sometimes through induction and sometimes by syllogism. Now induction is the starting-point which knowledge even of the universal presupposes, while syllogism proceeds from universals. There are therefore starting-points from which syllogism proceeds, which are not reached by syllogism; it is therefore by induction that they are acquired. Scientific knowledge is, then, a state of capacity to demonstrate, and has the other limiting characteristics which we specify in the Analytics, for it is when a man believes in a certain way and the starting-points are known to him that he has scientific knowledge, since if they are not better known to him than the conclusion, he will have his knowledge only incidentally.
VI, 6:
Quote
This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom ... the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason (=nous) that grasps the first principles.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.6.vi.html (I'm not very content with that translation, but it gets the idea across.)

350
Interzone / Re: Creationists
« on: October 01, 2008, 01:54:59 PM »
Interestingly, when one reads Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics or Analytica Posteriora, althout the latter one is kind of a beast), it becomes clear that he defines science (episteme) as demonstration derived from principle (arche), and that the principle is itself not demonstrable, but can be known only through the nous; the latter being an ability that "modern science" denies!

351
Interzone / Karl Böhm
« on: October 01, 2008, 01:32:04 PM »
The more I listen to classical music, the plainer the following forms in my opinion:

Herbert von Karajan was a pop star of classical music conductors; he was big on image, but the image was better than what was behind. He was a showman, and that influenced his work. He did not have an inherent desire for quality. The result are some average recordings, and lots of crap that was made chiefly for money or because it suited his egomania.

Karl Böhm was the inverse of the above: less image, more quality music. He realized that his real image would depend on his work, and not on other aspects of his life. Thus, whenever a choice is possible, I prefer the conductor Karl Böhm to the conductor Herbert von Karajan.

1 ... 23 [24]