3
   

What ought we to understand at all

 
 
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 12:31 pm
In recognizing what we have in front of us this moment someone here and I am there. While I see myself to be here and you there what can reconcile the fact I understand A to be B there and Remain A Here While all else would lead me to conclude that B is both here and there leaving us with nothing but here at all. It seems as if the understanding can realize a whole bundle of hay but grasp only at a straw. It is impossible to say what it is at all to be here or there for what is the difference from this and being absolutely nowhere at all. It is self evident to me that as we continue to understand and as we begin to do so we end up understanding nothing at all. What is it that understand can possess for it is Knowledge, Reason, or Thought. All of this it falls away from and does not succeed in capturing simply because understand exist here as nothing that relates itself to this location nor to the one directly opposite of it other then the fact that it is something but belongs to nothing at all.

We may wish our understand can grasp and exploit the content of thought or Reason and Knowledge when it stands simply all that these contain in themselves something that relates itself to it but being in nothing existentially pure in which it can empty itself out and fill itself up as the rolling of the tide. For a second seemingly making its way forward to take over the beachhead but gradually swallowed by the very abyss of the Sea which distant is beyond that of the Horizon. How can we articulate this to ourselves but not stand in constant awe and wonder in which Being makes itself known as a projection of that Horizon vertically and horiontally. Have we already understood something here have we finally grasped at a straw and found the haystack and in finding those things which seem like nothing to be there but not here, then and not now to all be here and now as something that understands all. Has understand come to understanding of itself being everywhere knowing there and here thinking about everything in relation to its content. And yet again as we see the Sun rising here in front of us it falls out of sight and sinks again into the West that is there never seemingly to return here

For it is here in this single moment where life makes itself known to us when life seems fresh and new where the horizon brings to us the Joys and Pains of life that all sinks back into that which arises from. All sinks back into the misty aracana of beings those things which individuals know there but obscured to me here all because I have come to understand too much about what is there. There is nothing here and likewise everything is there. So life swings on the pendulum continually fleeing the moment we see here as soon as it comes here it vanishes there in the form of something else. And that there vanishes here as soon as it gets there so as we have not understand anything nor the opposite thing has understood to be so that are mutually opposed and unified.

Unified Here that is Nowhere and opposed in every facet of our understand as we try to locate the content on the horizon we either find it all to be there or not at all. For as the Sun rises in the East and sets in the East we can only understand at this moment in a relative form as either setting or rising for us when instead Ontologically it is necessary for us to know the opposite to be happening not as it appears but necessary for the appearance that appears to I.

What continues here also continues there and both are opposed but to be opposed they can not maintain themselves vertically opposed so as not to have the tide roll back as it moves forward cutting the very understand from underneath itself and cutting itself from reality and from the direction it is taking and head in another direction it not in that is the direction in which all horizons sink and rise. Indecisive in what it wants to comprehend understand stand opposed to that which it is that is what it can comprehend right now and tries to comprehend it as something that belongs to itself as the moment allows it to.

All is lost to understanding and all is lost within it. Now what subsides underneath it but that which it is not now fleeing from itself directly opposed to what it is. It contradicts itself but where can we point out a contradiction if we can't point out the location of that which it contradicts. Possibly in so far as we can understand we can't understand anything at all and this is some sort of understanding we can gather from contradiction. There is nothing here to understand and all understand contradicts itself oh what direction do we head towards but towards contradiction when contradiction in its being lays the groundworks for opposition and understanding to exist as relative beings at all is directly opposed and is an opposition on the premise it determines a contradiction to exist outside those boundaries it determines that is the grounds of its being the horizon.

If water is not composed of universal substance not just that distinguishes itself from its characteristics how are we to identify something as "water at all" much less to be able to communicate what water appears to be or the form it takes itself in that is in clarity and its transparency and its wetness all become rather obscure to us and so it appears that all these subsisting forms just as the arm is part of the body and the head would have to cease to exist to understand the Human Being as an Objective I that which lays its groundworks and appears almost spontaneously as a thing as an arm or a leg when it does not at all for these understandings and all that which science offers us ignores and negates the intuitive form which dictates and which the subsistence of the body exist in its heavenly form bent into the Body as an image of its eternity and rising up as the Body vanishes there. All Being all Dasein is an integral unity with the Divine although it has not come to understand as anything at all and the question Heidegger brought into question why is there nothing instead of all these being as beings. The question is not to be answered here or there but simply nowhere at all is the answer to be found. If this answer can't be found has it already been comprehended that which replaces the incomprehensible seemingly that which gives power to itself seemingly this is understanding. I say nay it is direct contradiction with that it says it opposes and it stand nowhere sublating constantly under the forms of being this or that then and now. Would it then simply be that Beings as Beings would be phenomenal force in which this is comprehended or is it the fact their only a focal point that is of being nowhere at all or coming out of nothing that Beings as Being become comprehended and the groundworks are given by an a priori which exist outside itself but determines all to be here.

Now understanding seemingly has come from nothing and returns to it so that it may understand itself to be here and that being here mediates and allows the being nothing at all and being here to negate itself there as an intuitive force which divides and schematics itself into a form which seems to lofty to be understand but is all to comprehensible to our reason. Is the term that mediates the negative force or does it negate all our senses to a particular thing interlocked and entangled to it until we can comprehend it. What have we comprehended has it not already been comprehended before we have done so though in what context and has it been comprehended by us before by our comprehension and must we once again sublate the terms meaning to be that which directly relates itself to here and a particular thing sensed here so that we sense is nothing at all and since nothing is to be sensed it is sensed in its being simply as it is.

Though must we replace the sublating force with a phenomenal object is this not blasphemy that the representation become the Force behind the representation. Where is the sublating force it has disappeared in the senses and the sense intuition is negated by the senses not by comprehending the things which it senses but instead by the very intuiting force which projects the comprehension to be here as a thing to be understood simply as an expression of all that is that all that is there.

Is the risk then to understand nothing so we can come to grasp something about itself that represents all that our senses understand it to be or will this just cause our very senses to negate themselves towards motion itself that is the Phenomenonal gathering upon a single focal point that exist outside all phenomenonal representations. Is it necessary to point this focal point in our senses or is best to keep at a point undefined to our senses negating our senses as such but letting retain their positive force preserving it on the grounds of its negating which lays bare all phenomenonal forces and yet conceals it in itself.

This gathering point which has been defined is the root of all beings as beings but these beings are undefined in so far as they are not defined by us this is the individual beings the subjective being who is here at the present moment directing itself and knowing and intuiting the all encompassing force which represents the phenomenonal force which surrounds it senses to be there and thus nowhere to appear in its only surroundings other then in the fact that it does not appear now but appeared then as something that was there. This is where it is necessary the Ontological Da Sein was replaced by itself so it may relate itself to the world of phenomenonal being and senses while maintains the force it represented to beings as beings and preserving the intuitive force in the sensual forces of nature and thus the intuitive forces that is the Spirit arising out of nature that is the body. Thus the body represents all the Spirit has gathered to itself and thrust forth as a positive movement or that which has come to know itself as that which has been replaced in a new form.

A form though which is antiquated and preceding itself and all too mystical to itself all to little to comprehend itself. This primordial being we call Da Sein is nothing at all it is because it is nothing at all that we have come to sense it here as something which our senses surrounding us can understand and intuit itself as this moment to be there as that which returns back to the mystery from which it comes that is from the nature of Da Sein as we understand it to be perceived.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 853 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 01:52 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Quote:
In recognizing what we have in front of us this moment someone here and I am there.


This is not a sentence . . . not in English, at any event. The rest of your post is equally opaque. Try saying what it is that you mean in simple language, and you might be able to communicate with the people here. As it stands right now, this is just so much wasted band width.
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 02:19 pm
@Setanta,
I am just saying simply put that the world from an individual standpoint is as equally opaque and lacking clarity then a point of view taken outside of another person's worldview that is the Sun is rising now in the East while another person may see it setting in the West they are equally important moments and equally true.

The importance is try to sublate either comprehensions being present in this single moment but in simply accepting the facts that stand before us in order to common understand that is equally different from each other but substantially true. It is impossible to say why but the very nature that both have a truth means. The meaning can't be reduced to a simply utility of a given situation to prove something to be true or untrue given a certain circumstance but we can learn that the language we speak does have a relation with those realities that exist outside us that is there. And it is necessary to try reconcile these view to be one on excluding principles but these principles do not contradict each other and necessary exclude either one as being at all. That is to say there is No Sun and it does not rise here but there simply on the premise that here does not exist at all but is merely an representation of the imagination.

Language can't explain away an answer or a question it can only bring into Being that which transitions itself from the World of ideas which translate themselves into real object which are sensual objects. It is is necessary to let Language Be but that we must utilize it to give it a measure of understanding thus the paradox arises upon which we can ground a to that being we sensual understand to be. Language brings into being all it can't explain and utilize thus it must utilize those things it understands and senses to direct itself to mysteries of the world and it contains a certain sense a means which is directly proportional to Language as a substrate but that things exist simply as they are and the utility is another way of expressing things simply as they are that is separated from the Substrate by speaking it as well.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 02:24 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
You're reply is about as opaque and meaningless as your original screed. Try using short sentences. In English, we don't commonly have single sentences which would fill a small notebook. Try breaking your idea into its constituent parts, and expressing those ideas separately and briefly. Then you can combine them for the synthesis of your idea. You might even produce something which is coherent in the English language.

Alternatively, you could just write it in German, and we could get Calamity Jane, or Walter, or Hamburg Boy or Thomas in here to read it, and then tell us if you are as goofy in German as you appear to be in English.
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 04:11 pm
@Setanta,
German is a goofy language only to those who speak English which is as absurd a language as you think of it. Ha the Common Language some idiot has called it. By the way alot of my long sentence structures and opaque logic is partially to deal with the fact that I usually use the German language as my first language. I have read Hegel alot and he as Opaque as you can think. In reality the world is opaque to itself and its only reality so what is their to make transparent but ego. And even that is opaque. Everything is opaque disappearing and vanishing and coming into vision only to be lost to our sense once again. Being Opaque is the very integral unit which helps us define reality, coordinate it and be able to synthesize problems with rational intuition. Opaqueness of something gives its Being and Form and it is necessary in order for any language to express itself to be determined by idioms that represented the complete grammar and word structure of any language.

Personally I would not mind a language that was completely centered on idioms and such make language inexpressible and incommunicable is the only way to make something communicable at all. Second off all communication is reduced to being incommunicable.

And the State of Being of that is the Activity of communicating at all is simply to be opaque or incommunicable in a sense so that we can translate things into verbs or future tenses to make them communicable or reference to the nouns and past and present references.

Communicability participates as a family tree of symbols, expressions, words, and various other mental and physical activities represented by the content of the real world. In reality its main and primary part in relating these things is as Wittengstein likes to put it is to leave these things to silence or non interpretation

I know its all nice to stick to an English way of putting it that is a vulgate way of breaking language down to compositions and stating that the utility such is a representation of the idea itself. This is where the English goes wrong it is to simplistic too dumb downed. Only the English no how to speak it properly and even they can't match the simply eloquence of the German language.

Sorry if I seem to be taking things out of context but that is also a method of expression things and it is necessary to maintain a positive referencing it to a specific point and the fact contained within that your point has contradicted itself and made itself null and void no longer communicable but by those lower stock of men we call English. All other languages merely speak of Being German speaks Being-Heidegger.

By the way another quote to make Philosophy communicable is suicide-Heidegger. I believe that all philosophy should be spoken for the common man but not by him and this sometimes leads to misunderstandings such as been the case with you and me. The German language and mind has a very intuitive process for interpretating other languages and making them void without participating in their higher stock that is the German stock of languages.

It represents simplicity in its finest laying bare all references that English language ceases to explain and can not explain is explained by German in it poetical and purely active subset of compositions of grammar which compose a language that lies it silence and opens itself at the beginning of time as the great bang in which all language take their form. At any second the German language could undermine all other languages because it holds the keys for breaking things down to simple compositions because it is itself a simple composition.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 04:27 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
I have to agree with Setanta, your posts are nothing but extreme talkativness that doesn't really make sense.

What you should understand is the laconic ways, express youself short and accurately.
You should understand rationallity, the point of avoiding irrational bloat.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 04:40 pm
@Setanta,
setanta wrote :

Quote:
Alternatively, you could just write it in German, and we could get Calamity Jane, or Walter, or Hamburg Boy or Thomas in here to read it, and then tell us if you are as goofy in German as you appear to be in English.


you are really trying to spoil my day , aren't you ? Laughing

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Monkey-typing.jpg/250px-Monkey-typing.jpg

sure hope this transfer works - it's the (in)famous monkey with typewriter cartoon .
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 06:47 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
My German genes side (since I am also Portuguese) dread this kind of vulgar approach...linear, linear, linear and ubiquitous comment.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 10:39 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Quote:
At any second the German language could undermine all other languages because it holds the keys for breaking things down to simple compositions because it is itself a simple composition.


Totaler Bloedsinn - in Englisch und in Deutsch!
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2010 11:30 pm
At any second the German language could undermine all other languages because it holds the keys for breaking things down to simple compositions because it is itself a simple composition.

Schei........
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2010 12:37 am
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
From a linguistics perspective, your comments about German are facile.
And according to Goudsmit's analysis of "languaging", you will find you are merely attempting a form of "social dancing" (which in your case looks like the Goosestep !).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What ought we to understand at all
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 03:53:38