Comments on: Wikiquotes of the day: Euler and his Kantianism, and The Son of God http://stevengharms.com/wikiquotes-of-the-day-eulers-and-his-kantianism-and-the-son-of-god My Blog Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:47:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Steven G. Harms http://stevengharms.com/wikiquotes-of-the-day-eulers-and-his-kantianism-and-the-son-of-god/comment-page-1#comment-317 Steven G. Harms Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:36:24 +0000 http://stevengharms.net/?p=627#comment-317 <p>You should be careful interpreting anything posted in a blog as serious philosophy, for I certainly don't consider this to be a forum for the formal laying out of tracts, but, let's take this and see where it goes.</p> <p>Be the defenition of <em>noumenal</em> we're talking about the realm of things -as-they-are not things-as-phenomena, as such it is impossible for data imparted via the noumenal world, which I call gnosis, to disagree. Hegel even asserted that the noumenal world was held in common to all minds, yours and mine included in his formulation of <em>Geist</em> that would likewise convininetly prevent the possibility of digareement.</p> You should be careful interpreting anything posted in a blog as serious philosophy, for I certainly don’t consider this to be a forum for the formal laying out of tracts, but, let’s take this and see where it goes.

Be the defenition of noumenal we’re talking about the realm of things -as-they-are not things-as-phenomena, as such it is impossible for data imparted via the noumenal world, which I call gnosis, to disagree. Hegel even asserted that the noumenal world was held in common to all minds, yours and mine included in his formulation of Geist that would likewise convininetly prevent the possibility of digareement.

]]> By: CJ http://stevengharms.com/wikiquotes-of-the-day-eulers-and-his-kantianism-and-the-son-of-god/comment-page-1#comment-316 CJ Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:30:07 +0000 http://stevengharms.net/?p=627#comment-316 <p>"The only solution is gnosis: radical imparting of the knowledge. A sacred teaching that, instead of writing to our phenomenally-oriented mind, imprint itself into our noumenal connection: our souls. Is it possible to “know” with the soul? To pass through reason and language unfiltered?"</p> <p>My <em>gnosis</em> says your <em>gnosis</em> is wrong. Fatal contradiction, or is your <em>gnosis</em> irrational?</p> “The only solution is gnosis: radical imparting of the knowledge. A sacred teaching that, instead of writing to our phenomenally-oriented mind, imprint itself into our noumenal connection: our souls. Is it possible to “know” with the soul? To pass through reason and language unfiltered?”

My gnosis says your gnosis is wrong. Fatal contradiction, or is your gnosis irrational?

]]>