Anybody or anything that changes me...will NEVER fade to black.
Do you "in-corporate" everything that touches you?
No. I don't.
I do believe I made that clear earlier.
Do you "in-corporate" everything that touches you? ---------Not everything... but some things.
Funny... that's very Nietzschean...
Ya think? :rolls eyes:;-)
Sorry. It's odd that sarcasm pisses me off and it's one of my worst habits. Can I have a do-over?---------Yep. :-)
from another blog I follow...Whitehead's theory of Concrescence amounts to agreement with Heidegger that lived experience is interpretive, for, it entails that any cognitive process consists in an adaptation of data to the subject. Hence, it likewise concurs that Insight is something that is 'gained'. On the other hand, to the extent that an Insight is gained, that it is gained 'into' its object is difficult to reconcile, since, in Interpretation, it is the object that enters into the subject. However, there is one kind cognitive process in which data is both internalized by the subject, and, yet, remains independent of the cognizing subject--learning how. For, the internalized data remains a formula that is meaningful only insofar as the subject externalizes itself by enacting it. In other words, to further confirm a previous thesis, the object of Insight is always an explanatory ground, e. g. a detective's who- and howdunnit, a scientific principle, etc. Since, Whitehead and Heidegger are both primarily interested in the teleology of experience, the executive interpretation of precepts seems to be outside the purview of their theories. Merleau-Ponty, as previously discussed, does appreciate that Consciousness is 'I can', but not to the extent that he relates it to 'I interpret'. In contrast, for Peirce, the object of an Insight is an hypothesis, and he is the pioneer of the theory that hypotheses are primarily operational, yet, he does not seem to further conclude that the object of an Insight is heuristic. I love philoso-Geek-speak. ;)
I do too! But sometimes I wonder if people talk just to hear themselves. I mean, could this have been said in half as many words?I was thinking about this the other day. I think it's something Nietzsche was good at: saying something in as few words as possible. I like it, but then sometimes I get lost. Well, I don't get lost, I just have to slow down and think harder. The more words, the more thorough the description of the concept (which is nice sometimes).I think I got off-topic there.But on this topic:However, there is one kind cognitive process in which data is both internalized by the subject, and, yet, remains independent of the cognizing subject--learning how. VERY INTERESTING!!!I can see how that kind of relationship would create tension in some people.
Brevity is indeed, "the soul of wit."