Recognition, Intentionality, and…

twirls pigtails

So, like…

Does stuff like Hegelian recognition and Husserlian intentionality imply that in order for there to be one mind there must be at least two minds?

So, like, which mind comes first???

recognized recognizer, you may be wondering about Husserl… well… similar to what I did with Heidegger** in another thread… I did this around the same time without sharing it…

Husserl’s “I’m intentional (I’m a conscious, knowing subject), therefore [AND] I’m something intended toward (I’m a known object) [AND VICE VERSA]”.
Does this work forwards and backwards?

Does “intentional” and “intended” stand and fall together in a mutually productive way?

  1. “I’m intentional (I’m a conscious, knowing subject), therefore I’m something intended toward (I’m a known object).” Can others know me better than I know myself? How do we know we ever really know anybody or anything, self included? How does being a known object/substance help me know, or help me trust what my mind is receiving through my body from the world?

  2. “I’m something intended toward (I’m a known object), therefore I’m intentional (I’m a conscious, knowing subject).” Not every object is conscious…or…unless sustained by a consciousness, it is at least in contact with or composed of consciousness? Also see #1.

  3. You cannot have “intentional” without “intended”. Yeah, but introspection does not require anything outside the self, so… I can think about thinking without a physical world. (Kant’s thing-in-itself stripped of appearance? …maybe I can only see it/him in action!)

  4. You cannot have “intended” without “intentional”. Before humans, who intended/knew the world… if it even really exists (it does…but…in God)?

Disclaimer: Revised above this morning.

** … =Heidegger

The Hegelian ladder does lead to identifiable recognition of finer attunements to the ideal , the good and that approaching the love of all not merely for those nearest around ! a widening circle made up of asymptotes curved around the ring of that almost identical stretch of infinite duration.

Where It was always intended and an intentionally constructed and stored what EC calls sympathy.

The love of all, as Christ has expressed it is similar and there is no contradiction

Just spent all night thinking through this and really forming. reforming by a lenghfy analysis. Only to loose it when my alarm clock came on and prevented the loss of all of it . Essentially, though, the recovery of memory is at its heart. Will try again today
Basically it turns on the question of the simultaneous recovery of The Word and the process by which quantum metaphysics come to fade into prophecy and biblical references through quasi ore- Vatican II
Magic through language, as if magic was more identifiable as a modus operant than trying to tie an original phenomenal object to the omnipresent objectively intrinsic in the transcending eternity of Gods love through Christ

Actually, looking back , there was a guy named Stuart that was the first person here to whom I confessed to my very first exposure to the underground , literally, Dostoevsky, and tried to get to him but then I began to feel that was an undue imposition, but could not get my head out of it, for it’s really someplace You neither can or wish to get out easy, like they sing of Hotel California. Caught those lyrics way way back did not think much of them then and not until the Eagles’ reunion here to present their reunion concert ‘hell freezes over’

Remember the days standing by jukebox in dimly lit bar playing the single ‘new kid in town’

After that was beat , up , until now suppose. Scared? No account on me beg of You, maybe better sleep tonight.

You’ve been doing this long enough, hearing the same repeatedly, you anticipate it in your sleep.

You are in the business of preparing for the underground.

I see it.

Too scary. I’ll get over it. Maybe.

Thank you for … hm. A little.

I barely slept, which is a somewhat frequent thing these nights.

Meno_, what class do I take where the professor draws connections between Plato, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Brentano, Husserl, & Nietzsche & WHO KNOWS who else… everybody…??? …demonstrating the Bush by the fact everyone is beating around the same bush, sometimes without even acknowledging each other, sometimes acting like they are correcting each other? Tri-Capstone or wut? Fricken hilarious!

Oh and will you please show me Heidegger’s ladder?

Better not be under the bleachers, js.

Do Spinoza & Wittgenstein have the ladder, too?

If you don’t know, I bet nobody knows.

It’s everywhere. I only dropped a few names. Is there a book that catalogues it?

I meant Hegel evolves the spirit into the ideal. as per an analogy in the Platonic tradition, as it is separable from empirical evolution of the body

But if it pleases . I erase that

It’s a strange turnaround though…not for me cause I erase a lot

ichthus that’s why my name ; meno

Mark 12-13

Matthew 15-21-28

How could I forget to name drop Kierkegaard.

(Super)Nature is both like that, too. That’s why it’s even possible for anything to “change”.

Agreed to that as Nature will not agree to be cut from it’s progeny. As silly as it sounds the trunk of the tree can survive through many a winter without it’s branches but the branches wither without the trunk

Sadly allegory

and if em bare assment could talk as easements do what wonders it could express….

Yes he had no knowledge of good and evil, because his problem of eating or not from the tree of knowledge was unprecedented.

Read Works of Love, honey chil’. Only way ya nullify.

And of course we must include the cautionary tale of Marx’ poisonous tit the greedy tyrants latched on … demonstrating the truth of all the rest. Sooner or later.