Korelativnost subjekta i objekta

U procesu posmatranja prirode oko sebe covek nuzno dolazi do razlicitih vrsta saznanja. To saznanje razumevam kako neku vrstu "dijaloga" izmedju subjekta (na primer coveka) i objekta.Danas u eri tzv. analiticke filozofije koja dovodi u pitanje, tj. relativizuje sve oko sebe, pitanje korelativnosti sub. i obj. kao da nesvesno zanemaruje jednu po meni logicnu stvar.

Naime, i bez velikog umnog napora coveku postaje logicno da objekat posmatranja, ili saznanja, daje sadrzaj saznanju, a subjekat daje oblik tome saznanju. Sa objekta se preko culnih organa primaju "utisci" koje potom bice koje saznaje na neki nacin oblikuje i posprema. Kljucno sto mi pada na pamet je da subjekat sudeluje, aktivno dinamicki ucestvuje u procesu saznanja, veoma cesto se po meni naivno misli da je ono sto je spoznato, dato samo od strane objekta. Da jasnije malo kazem, zbog cinjenice da je ljudski mozak tacno ovakve konstitucije, morfoloskih karakteristika i nase saznanje je na neki nacin pod uticajem toga.

Veliki filozofi idealisticke orijentacije davno su dosli do saznanja da su prostor i vreme neki oblici covekove svesti koje on nuzno MORA da koristi u procesu saznavanja prirode. Prostor i vreme cesto opisuju kao forme saznanja i opazanja. Cini mi se da sam objekat nema ni prostornost ni vremensku dimenziju , vec su to osobine koje mi u procesu saznanja "dodajemo" objektu.

Sta se desava sa objektom kada nije posmatran od strane subjekta, kada mu ne mozemo pripisati dimenzije prostora i vremena, koje , cini mi se, mozda gresim, postoje samo u svesti saznavajuceg subjekta. Gde se, zapravo, nalazi taj objekat, ako kategorije prostornosti, prostiranja i kategorije vremena jesu samo nacin saznanja od strane subjekta.

Kad god govorimo o objektu,uvek govorimo o objektu prema nekom subjektu. Na primer , jabuka nije isto za mene, za vuka u sumi, za bakteriju u wc solji. Ali kakav je to objekat koji nije ispred nekog subjekta, kakav je kada mu njemu samome ne mozemo pripisati razlicite KVALITETE koji su samo forme opazanja subjekta. Da li ovakva vrsta saznanja zaista ima nekakvu vrednost u odnosu na pravu prirodu sveta oko nas, osim naravno one koja je cisto pozitivisticko-utilitaristicke vrednosti!?
 
4000 A frekvencija svetlosti je u našem umu crvena boja,treperenje molekula osećamo kao toplo-hladno,
zvuk od 50-2000 Herca treperenje medijuma itd...Fizički zaista to nije naš DOŽIVLJAJ koji je 'prilagođen potrebama
raspoznavanja hormonalnim dejstvima neurotransmitera na neurone...Poplava plave boje...Recimo...:mrgreen:
Kategorisanje dolazi kasnije-učenjem-formiranjem superega-socijalizacijom...
Platon i Aristotel su bili solidno socijalizovani filozofi...Kao i gornji post...
Stvar po sebi dolazi kasnije...:mrgreen:
Pozitivisti i utilatiristi samo ne obraćaju pažnju na to mistificiranje koje već skače na sledeći stepenik,a ni na prvi (odakle nam misao?!)
se nije popelo...
 
Sta se desava sa objektom kada nije posmatran od strane subjekta, kada mu ne mozemo pripisati dimenzije prostora i vremena, koje , cini mi se, mozda gresim, postoje samo u svesti saznavajuceg subjekta. Gde se, zapravo, nalazi taj objekat, ako kategorije prostornosti, prostiranja i kategorije vremena jesu samo nacin saznanja od strane subjekta.

zanimljivo je kako si doveo u pitanje prostornost i vremensku dimenziju a da se nisi setio da u pitanje dovodes i samu podelu na subjekat i objekat.
 
nadam se da ce ovo sto pisem imati veze sa temom, kako god. jos davno kad sam se prvi put susreo sa ajnstajnovom teorijom relativnosti i hokingovim objasnjenjima o mogucim oblicima univerzuma pa do danas bio sam opsednut ne-euklidsim prostorom, nedavno sam naisao na jedan blog u kojem je ponesto napisano o tome, koga zanima moze da procita ovdehttp://izmedju.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/priblizavanje-beskonacnosti-m-c-eschera/ .

da li su nasa cula ogranicena euklidskom geometrijom kao posledica evolucije koja ima za cilj da stvori navigatora iskljucivo za takav prostor( ja cak i emocije posmatram kao kljucni faktor te navigacije) pa stoga ona u neku ruku jesu nesavrsena za neku objektivniju percepciju...
 
@wihor
Vrlo interesantne teme,hvala Wihor!

@User Unfriendly
Prostornost i vreme su po mom misljenju osnovni uslovi saznavanja objektivnog sveta, oni nisu dovedeni u pitanje u smislu da li postoje ili ne, postoje u subjektu, ali nikako van njega, na tom sam mislio. A sto se tice dovodjenja u pitanje same podele na sub. i obj. smatram da je ta relacija praosnovni odnos koji se u procesu saznanja uspostavlja.
 
Da li će se iko drznuti na ovoj temi da POGLEDA SUBJEKTU U OČI?! ! !
Lepo sam pitao:šta vam je to MISAO?! ! !
Da bi mogli dalje izvoditi vaše burgije (ili ideje ili forme...) o SUBJEKTU i eventualnoj
korelaciji-morali bi utvrditi KO ili ŠTA nešto čini ili deluje...
Ovako zdravo za gotovo je trulo! Uzimate sebi za pravo da je vaša misao o vašem
postojanju alfa & omega svemira?
A nemate pojma šta vam je misao a tek svemir...:mrgreen:
Lupetanje za medalju!:hahaha:
 
Da li će se iko drznuti na ovoj temi da POGLEDA SUBJEKTU U OČI?! ! !
Lepo sam pitao:šta vam je to MISAO?! ! !
Da bi mogli dalje izvoditi vaše burgije (ili ideje ili forme...) o SUBJEKTU i eventualnoj
korelaciji-morali bi utvrditi KO ili ŠTA nešto čini ili deluje...
Ovako zdravo za gotovo je trulo! Uzimate sebi za pravo da je vaša misao o vašem
postojanju alfa & omega svemira?
A nemate pojma šta vam je misao a tek svemir...:mrgreen:
Lupetanje za medalju!:hahaha:

vaistinu lupetas za medalju :mrgreen:
 
Svakako je nesumnjivo da je filozofija shvacena u klasicnom smislu reci pocela odavno da gubi korak sa naucnim postignucima. Medjutim ljudsko znanje ima relativni karakter, ima karakteristiku da moze u naucnom postupku zakljucivanja da bude pobijeno, toga su valjda svi svesni. To sto je idealisticka fil. orijentacija danas u stagnaciji, to svakako da a priori ne govori o njenoj istinitosti, ispravnosti, jednostavno to logicki ne sleduje.

Koliko se nekima spocitava idolopoklonstvo i pozivanje na takozvane autoritete u filozofiji i to oznacava losim, , toliko mi se cini da neki koji tvrde da su otvorenog uma isto cine.
Zak Derida o kome se toliko ovde prica ima svakako svoje zasluge u domenu shvatanja da se komunikacija mora uciniti sto jasnijom i egzaktnijom, povezanijom sa realnim materijalnim svetom. Njegov naucni rad doziveo je svoj vrhunac 80ih godina od kada je njegov dalji rad na tom polju okarakterisan svacim, samo ne filozofijom.

Koliko je on ostao dosledan jednom od svojih primarnih zadataka i ubedjenja da se misao i izrazavanje misli jezikom mora shvatiti mnogo strozije nego li sto se to cini, toliko je i sam doprineo istoj stvari uvodeci razne pojmove potpuno apstraktnog i arbitrarnog karaktera (Différance). Svi naucni prilazi pa i dekonstrukcija jesu ogranicenog dometa i imaju samo relativni karakter u tom neprestanom priblizavanju visem nivou znanja, to je nesumnjivo i apodikticki :):). Jedno od mislim relevantnijih kritika na njegov rad:

"... Svako ko čita dekonstrukcijske tekstove otvorenog uma verovatno da će biti pogođen uvek istim fenomenom : niska razina filozofske argumentacije, kreiranje mracnog odnosa prema knjizevnosti, pisanoj reci uopste i to po svaku cenu, visestruko prenaglasene tvrdnje i stalno i mukotrpno nastojanje da se celom dekonstrukcijskom prilazu da prizvuk smislenosti, sistematicnosti i dubine."

- Dzon Searle u razgovoru sa Umbertom Ekom o problemu dekonstrukcije. isecak iz polemike.
 
Poslednja izmena:
Osho on Nothingness – To create nothingness in you is the goal of meditation
Question – Osho, Is there quality in Nothingness?
Osho – Anudeya, Nothingness can either be just emptiness or it can be a tremendous fullness. It can be negative, it can be positive. If it is negative it is like death, darkness. Religions have called it hell. It is hell because there is no joy in it, no song in it, there is no heartbeat, no dance. Nothing flowers, nothing opens. One is simply empty.

This empty nothingness has created great fear in people. That’s why in the West particularly, God has never been called nothingness except by a few mystics like Dionysius, Eckhart, Boehme; but they are not the main current of Western thinking. The West has always conceived nothingness in negative terms; hence it has created a tremendous fear about it. And they go on saying to people that the empty mind is the Devil’s workshop.
The East has known its positive aspect too; it is one of the greatest contributions to human consciousness. Buddha will laugh at this statement that emptiness is the Devil’s workshop. He will say: Only in emptiness, only in nothingness, does godliness happen. But he is talking about the positive phenomenon.
For Gautam Buddha, for Mahavira, for the long tradition of Zen Masters and the Taoists, nothingness simply means no-thingness. All things have disappeared, and because things have disappeared there is pure consciousness left behind. The mirror is empty of any reflection, but the MIRROR IS there. Consciousness is empty of content, but CONSCIOUSNESS IS there. And when it was full of content, so many things were inside you could not have known what it is. When the consciousness is full of contents, that’s what we call mind. When consciousness is empty of all contents, that’s what we call no-mind or meditation. To create nothingness in you is the goal of meditation, but this nothingness has nothing to do with the negative idea. It is full, abundantly full. It is so full that it starts overflowing. Buddha has defined this nothingness as overflowing compassion.

The word ”compassion” is beautiful. It is made out of the same word as ”passion.” When passion is transformed, when the desire to seek and search for the other is no more there, when you are enough unto yourself, when you don’t need anybody, when the very desire for the other has evaporated, when you are utterly happy, blissful, just being alone, then passion becomes compassion. Now you don’t seek the other because you are feeling empty and lonely; now you seek the other because you are too full and you would like to share.

The enlightened person also seeks the other just as the unenlightened person seeks, but there is a qualitative difference. The unenlightened person seeks the other because he feels a negative nothingness in him. Left alone he does not feel aloneness, he feels loneliness. Remember, loneliness and aloneness are not synonymous, notwithstanding what the dictionaries go on saying. It is not a question of language; it is something existential. Loneliness is negative – you are missing something; aloneness is positive – you have found something.
The unenlightened seeks the other because it is his need; he is needy and greedy. He grabs the other, he clings to the other. He is always afraid the other may leave. Husbands are afraid, wives are afraid, parents are afraid, children are afraid, everybody is afraid. Even your so-called religious teachers are afraid their disciples may leave them, so they have to concede and compromise with the disciples. Can you see the irony of it?
Jaina monks send messages to me saying, ”We want to see you, but we cannot because our followers don’t allow it. They become angry, they become antagonistic.” Now the teachers are afraid of the followers! What kind of teachers are these? They need the follower because without the follower they are nobody – and that is the power in the hands of the follower. The follower really dictates the rules. He says, ”Do this, say this, behave like this – only then am I going to respect you. Of course I will respect you if you follow all the rules prescribed by me.” It is a contract.
The so-called religious leaders go on following their own followers! And the followers, of course, in return pay great homage, respect. Both are satisfied. The follower needs somebody whom he can follow and the leader needs somebody to follow him. Both are fulfilling each other’s needs, but both are dependent; both are clinging, possessive.

Just the other day I was reading a statement… one Christian organization in England has asked Sheldon Press – because Sheldon Press belongs to that Christian association, it is one of the branches of the association – why they have published my books. Sheldon Press has published seven of my books; the director seems to have fallen in love with me. The director has replied, ”We have published the books because they are beautiful, and we have published the books because they come closest to the teachings of Jesus.” But the head of the association and the members who possess the association are very angry; they may even throw this director of Sheldon Press out of his job.

They have asked one of my sannyasins who is a chaplain in Cambridge University, ”Why do you, being a Christian priest, go on wearing orange?” And in the church Dynamic Meditation is being done! They have asked for an explanation; naturally they are afraid. But the sannyasin is not afraid. He has written a beautiful letter to them saying, ”I am doing the work of Christ – and I am doing the work of a living Christ! And I don’t see any difference.” But ordinarily… now he can be thrown out, is bound to be thrown out. No organized religion can tolerate such individuals, such rebels.
The followers want you to behave the way THEY decide, the way the tradition decides, and if you need their respect you are bound to follow them. They will follow you, you follow them. Hence I say, religious or political, it does not matter: leaders are the followers of their own followers. And that is the criterion of whether a man is really a Master or not. The Master is one who does not follow the followers, who does not compromise in any way, because he has no need. Whether there are people or not doesn’t matter; there is no question of greed.

The unenlightened seeks the other because he feels lonely. It may be the teacher-disciple thing, it may be the husband-wife trip, it may be friendship… it may be any kind of relationship. You seek the other out of your loneliness, and the other is also seeking you out of her or his loneliness. And two lonelinesses are bound to create hell, great hell, because both are negative. And when two negatives meet it is not a simple addition, it is a multiplication. The same is true about two positives: when they meet it is not simple addition, it is multiplication.
The enlightened also seeks the other. Jesus moved from one village to another – for what? Mahavira traveled thousands of miles on foot – for what? For forty-two years Buddha was going… he was always on the go. Even when he was very old, eighty-two, he was still moving from village to village, for the simple reason that somebody had to be found with whom he could share. But now it was not a need, hence he will not compromise. It is not a need, hence he will not possess. It is not a need, in fact it is just the opposite of it: it is abundance.

He is like a raincloud full of rainwater: it wants to shower somewhere. If it can find a garden, good; if it cannot find a garden, then too it has to shower. It may shower even on the rocks; it does not matter, but it has to shower. When the flower opens up, the fragrance has to be released. Whether anybody comes to know of it or not is immaterial. It is not a need, it is overflowing joy. When there is overflowing love it is compassion. Passion arises out of negative nothingness and compassion arises out of positive nothingness.
Buddha says that the real man of wisdom can be judged only by one thing: his compassion, his love. He will be radiating compassion. He wi!l be always ready to help people on the path. The people will be insulting him, the people will be in every possible way against him, the people will be angry at him, because the people are fast asleep and to put them on the path he has to wake them up. And nobody likes to be awakened because people are dreaming beautiful dreams. And you shake them and you wake them and you destroy their dreams, and that’s all that they have got. Otherwise they are lonely, otherwise they are empty. So they are somehow filling their inner spaces with dreams, projections, imaginations.

And the function of the Master is to destroy all your dreams, to make you empty of all content. But when you drop all content consciously, deliberately, you are not lonely: you become alone. And aloneness is beautiful, loneliness is ugly. Loneliness is like a wound, aloneness is like a flower. Loneliness is sick – Soren Kierkegaard has called it ”sickness unto death” – and aloneness is life, abundant life. It is health.

The Sanskrit word for health is very beautiful; the English word also has its own beauty. ”Health” means the wound is healed; it comes from healing. The person is no longer sick; the wound of negative nothingness is no more there it has healed It is beautiful, but nothing compared to the Sanskrit word for health. The Sanskrit word for health is SWASTHIA; it means becoming centered. It means coming to one’s own self, realizing one’s own self. SVA means self; SWASTHIA means
getting rooted in the self. People are not rooted in their own selves, hence they are clinging to others. All clinging is an indication that you are afraid that if you are left alone you will not be alone, you will be simply lonely, miserable.
 
The West has yet to recognize this tremendously significant fact. The Western religions have remained confined to prayer. They have not touched even the periphery of meditation, for the simple reason that meditation means nothingness, and to them nothingness has only one connotation: that of loneliness, emptiness. And they start feeling that if you are nothing then you will start falling into an abyss, you will be lost.

But we have tasted a totally different quality of nothingness. We have tasted the hidden godliness in it, we have known the uttermost of bliss in it, we have known its benediction. It is my own experience that there is no greater joy than to be alone; the joy of love is secondary. And the joy of love is possible only if you have known the joy of being alone, because then only do you have something to share. Otherwise, two beggars meeting each other, clinging to each other, cannot be blissful. They will create misery for each other because each will be hoping, and hoping in vain, that ”The other is going to fulfill me.” The other is hoping the same. They cannot fulfill each other. They are both blind; they cannot help each other.

I have heard about a hunter who got lost in the jungle. For three days he could not find anybody to ask for the way out, and he was becoming more and more panicky – three days of no food and three days of constant fear of wild animals. For three days he was not able to sleep; he was sitting awake on some tree, afraid he may be attacked. There were snakes, there were lions, there were wild animals.

After the third day, the fourth day early in the morning, he saw a man sitting under.a tree. You can imagine his joy. He rushed, he hugged the man, and he said, ”What joy!” And the other man hugged him, and both were immensely happy. Then they asked each other, ”Why are you so ecstatic?” The first said, ”I was lost and I was waiting to meet somebody.” And the other said, ”I am also lost and I am waiting to meet somebody. But if we are both lost then the ecstasy is just foolish. So now we will be lost together!”

That’s what happens: you are lonely, the other is lonely – now you meet. First the honeymoon: that ecstasy that you have met the other, now you will not be lonely any more. But within three days, or if you are intelligent enough, then within three hours… it depends on how intelligent you are. If you are stupid, then it will take a longer time because one does not learn; otherwise the intelligent person can immediately see after three minutes…”What are we trying to do? It is not going to happen. The other is as lonely as I am. Now we will be living together – two lonelinesses together. Two wounds together cannot help each other to be healed. Two blind people leading each other…” Kabir says, both are bound to fall in a well sooner or later, and more possibly sooner than later.

But, Anudeya, nothingness, meditativeness, no-mindness is a totally different phenomenon. Loneliness is natural. You are born lonely, and immediately the child starts searching and seeking for the other; for the mother he starts searching, he starts groping. He clings to the mother; he does not want to be left alone even for a few moments. He starts crying, he starts screaming; he makes much fuss so the mother comes back. He learns the language of how the mother can be manipulated. It is a very strange world! Even small babies become politicians. They know how to manipulate. They will start crying. they will start weeping.

- - - - - - - - - -

Once it happened: I went to see a friend with one of my friends driving me. His small son had come with him – not more than three years old. The friend went into some other person’s house to enquire whether he was there or not. I was sitting in the back of the car and the child was sitting in front. The child somehow fell over and hit his head against the wheel. I closed my eyes, as if I had not seen. He looked at me, remained silent. After ten minutes when his father came back he started crying.

I said, ”This is not right! This is not fair! Why are you crying now?”
He said, ”And then what to do? What was the point of crying? You were not even looking at me!”
I said, ”Now it cannot be hurting. At that time it must have hurt, I know.”
But he knows the politics because he understood immediately: ”This man will not take any note of it. Even if I cry or weep it is useless. When my father is back, then!”

The child behaves differently when his mother is there. When the mother is not there he is far more grown-up, far more mature, because he has to be alert and cautious – he is alone, the mother is not there. When the mother is there he can do anything; he can take risks. From the very childhood we know the negative aspect, but the positive aspect has to be discovered. It is a lifelong discovery; one has to go on discovering it.

Meditation is nothing but the method of discovering the positive aspect of nothingness, the positive quality of it. Meditation means dropping the content of the mind very consciously, knowing that you are dropping it. And when you have dropped everything, suddenly you realize that everything has disappeared but you ARE and you are more full than ever because all those things, all that junk that you have been carrying all along was simply taking your space. Now the whole space, the whole sky is available, and your heart can open its petals. We call it in the East ”the one-thousand-petaled lotus.” Now there is space. With all the junk that you carry in your mind, where is the space for the one-thousand-petaled lotus to open? You are not spacious enough. You are so full of junk, rubbish, that only weeds can grow in you, not roses. It is impossible for the roses to grow; they need a little spaciousness.

Nothingness is spaciousness, and to be spacious mean to be vast. The moment you feel nothingness in its positive quality you feel vastness, you feel infinity. You don’t see any limit anywhere; you are unlimited. Even the sky is not the limit! That experience makes you enlightened. That experience makes you full of light, life, love, so full That you start overflowing, that sharing is now possible.

Only a meditator can be a lover. In the past, people have tried to be lovers or to be meditators; both have failed. The whole history of humanity is a history of failures, and th greatest failure has been this: lovers have failed because they were not meditators, and without meditation you don’t have anything to share; before you can share something you HAVE TO HAVE IT. And the meditators have failed because instead of being nothing, instead of being nobodies, instead of being the experience of utter emptiness, SHUNYATA, they were full of mantras, chanting, praying, repeating any word constantly.

But they were not nothing, they were not in a state of nothingness. Maybe they were not thinking of the market, not thinking of money, not thinking of politics – but they were thinking of God. It does not matter what you are thinking: thinking as such keeps you away, far away from experiencing the beauty of nothingness. Whether mantras fill you or film songs fill you, it is all the same – you are too full of rubbish. Whether that rubbish has been collected through scriptures or
through magazines like PLAYBOY, it does not matter; it is the same rubbish.

One has to be utterly empty of all PLAYBOYS, all Bibles, all Gitas. One has to be completely empty of all Korans, all Vedas. When you are in that beautiful space you will know what God is, what truth is, what freedom is. In fact knowing this, love is bound to happen as a shadow of it, as a consequence of it.

Meditators have failed because they were not real meditators; they were doing something else in the name of meditation. Concentration they were doing, contemplation they were doing, prayer they were doing, chanting they were doing, and a thousand other things they were doing, but not meditation. In fact they were avoiding meditation – in a religious way. Ordinarily people avoid meditation in worldly ways, and your so-called saints avoid meditation through other-worldly ways,
but it is the same: avoiding.

One has to discover the positive quality of nothingness. One has to be courageous enough to go into it. Once you have known it you have known everything that is worth knowing. Then you can share. Not only then can you share, but only then will you be able to understand the Koran, the Bible, the Gita, because those are expressions of people who had known the same positive emptiness, the same beautiful nothingness. You cannot understand Christ unless you are a Christ, you cannot understand Buddha unless you are a Buddha. Before being a Buddha you will be simply a parrot repeating the Dhammapada.

Before being a Mohammed you cannot understand a single word of the Koran. That is impossible, because unless you have the same consciousness and the same connection with the ultimate source of things, how can you understand Mohammed? No Mohammedan understands Mohammed, no Christian understands Christ, no Buddhist understands Buddha, no Jaina understands Mahavira. They are simply imitators, repeaters, just going on parrotlike, mechanically. And their whole effort is how to fill the negative nothingness. The negative nothingness has not to be filled; you have to be consciously aware of it, that ”yes, it exists there.”

The moment negative emptiness is joined with awareness, it becomes positive, the miracle happens. That very moment the alchemy transforms you. Let me repeat: negative nothingnesss plus awareness is equal to positive nothingness.
 
Meditativna nirvana dovodi do različitih iskustava...
Umesto podnožja boga ja sam prepoznao prisustvo praforme predaka ,šta li...
Mislim da su to arhetipska sećanja duboko zapretena...
Nisam sklon da ih mistifikujem...Jednostavno,shvatam da su sastavni deo mene i da je
nirvana u kojoj ima tih arhetipskih obrisa,moja nirvana a ne ukupnog postojanja...
Neurološki problem koji će se uskoro rešiti...:lol:
 
Svakako je nesumnjivo da je filozofija shvacena u klasicnom smislu reci pocela odavno da gubi korak sa naucnim postignucima. Medjutim ljudsko znanje ima relativni karakter, ima karakteristiku da moze u naucnom postupku zakljucivanja da bude pobijeno, toga su valjda svi svesni. To sto je idealisticka fil. orijentacija danas u stagnaciji, to svakako da a priori ne govori o njenoj istinitosti, ispravnosti, jednostavno to logicki ne sleduje.
ја бих баш рекла супротно.
да је наука тек сада почела да се приближава ономе што је идеалистичка филозофија већ одавно открила.
тек скоро је наука дошла до открића о двојној природи материје, као и корелативности посматрача и објекта, затим концепт нелокалности, односно способоности субатомске честице да буде на два места у исто време, затим квантни скок - како се из тачке А може "доћи" до тачке Б без линеарног прелажења сваке тачке између А и Б будући да је то немогуће (Зенонов парадокс), што јасно доказује да је кретање интуиција.

филозофија нема шта даље да се "развија" осим ако филозофију не сводиш на историју филозофије.
истина је једна и коначна, и филозофија ју је давно изнела, нема никакве истине која зависи од развитка филозофије.
кога открића квантне физике дубоко не потресу и натерају да преиспита своја схватања реалности, тај није разумео квантну физику. исто са идеалистичком филозофијом.

 
Poslednja izmena:
Slazem se sto si iznela u vezi kvantne fizike.
Mislim da ljudi "imaju problema" sa subatomskom fizikom jer dovodi u pitanje takozvani zdrav razum, neko unutrasnje apriorno osecanje da nesto nije u redu.
Medjutim ,svedoci smo da u kv. fizici i pravila klasicne logike se ruse i uspostavlja se jedan nov prisup logickog nacina razmisljanja, svojstven mikrosvetu.
 
Evo za Драгољуба, Љубу и сличне

Ово не могу они појмити ни овако нацртано али бар када се овако презентује то њихов психолошки склоп не може тако лако да игнорише и потисне како би очувао утувљени им поглед на живот и свет иако је вероватно немогуће да они то икада појме.

Велики је заправо корак у животу за оног ко дође до тог непосредног увида. То је нешто као клик. Нешто што је Шопенхауер назвао "рођење филозофског разбора".
Нешто слично откровењу.

То није као вест у дневним новинама. Није закључак из премиса него непосредан увид о основном односу ја и спољашњи свет око мене.

Али није сваком дато.

Дакле да поновим ово и овде:

Када кажем да су појава ове слике око мене које ме окружују и које се мењају обликом и величином како се померим мислим на овако нешто.

arms_fp02.jpg


Ово је илустрација ситуације у којој сте ето управо сада. Имате дакле субјекат кога не можете сазнати и имате ИСПРЕД њега скуп слика уоквирен једном сфером која чини ваше видно поље.
Слике у тој сфери се мењају обликом и величином кад год се померите.

То показује да се ту ради о сликама у вашој свести. И да се НЕШТО као те слике у тој вашој свести на тај начин појављује.

Надам се да сте ово до сада схватили о чему говорим.

Ако јесте. Схватићете и да су те слике у овој сфери ,ЈЕДИНА ПОЈАВА. Да се једино то појављује у нашем сазнању.
А да оно што се као те слике на тај начин појављује, само по себи се не појављује. Самим тим то појава није.

А шта је то по себи и шта је тај субјекат испред кога је ова сфера са овим сликама. Питање је којим се можете бавити тек када сконтате ово што вам објасних.

Tek кад непосредно дођете до разумевања чињенице да слике око тебе које те окружују и које се мењају обликом и величином како се помериш, да су то слике у твојој свести, а да оно што се тако као те слике појављује, да то само по себи није слика, није објекат. Тек када то схватиш можеш ићи даље и бавити се питањем шта је субјекат испред кога су те слике и шта би оно што се као те слике појављује по себи могло бити.

А док год мислиш да је оно што се појављјује као скуп слика око тебе и само по себи слика, еонима си далеко од истине а све то што си на том темељу изградио и назвао "знање" то није.

"Realizam, koji se namece sirovom razumu time što se ukazuje kao da je cinjenican, u stvari polazi od jedne proizvoljne hipoteze, pa je zato samo vetropirasta kula u vazduhu buduci da previdja ili porice najprvu cinjenicu, onu da sve ono što mi poznajemo leži unutar svesti. Jer to da je objektivno postojanje stvari uslovljeno jednim predstavljajucim subjektom, i da, prema tome, objektivni svet postoji samo kao predstava, nije nikakva hipoteza, a još manje odluka bez opoziva, ili cak nekakav paradokson uzet radi diskusije, vec je to najsigurnija i najednostavnija istina, cije je saznanje otezano samo time što je ona cak i suvise jednostavna, a svi ljudi nisu dovoljno razboriti da bi posli od prvih elemenata svoje svesti o stvarima. Nikada ne može .postojati nekakva apsolutna i po sebi samoj objektivna egzitencija; zapravo, to je ono sto je upravo nezamislivo, jer objektivno kao takvo ima uvek i suštinski svoju egzistenciju u svesti jednog subjekta, pa je, dakle, njegova predstava, i shodno tome, njime uslovljena, a uz to i njegovim oblicima predstavljanja, koji kao takvi pripadaju subjektu a ne objektu."

Шопенхауер
 
Poslednja izmena:
Ako predmeti ne poсtoje kao objеkti kada nisu zapazeni kako onda može slika nekog predmeta, koji je slikan kamerom, biti identična slici istog tog predmeta kada ga opazamo?

Овo питање можда може неком пасти на памет када размишља о корелативности субјекта и објeкта.
Међутим, то питање ничим не додирује поделу на појаву и ствар по себи. А то ћу и појаснити:

Када кажем да су појава ове слике око мене које ме окружују и које се мењају обликом и величином како се померим мислим на овако нешто.

arms_fp02.jpg


Ово је илустрација ситуације у којој сте ето управо сада. Имате дакле субјекат кога не можете сазнати и имате ИСПРЕД њега скуп слика уоквирен једном сфером која чини ваше видно поље.
Слике у тој сфери се мењају обликом и величином кад год се померите.

То показује да се ту ради о сликама у вашој свести. И да се НЕШТО као те слике у тој вашој свести на тај начин појављује.

Сада:
Једна од тих слика испред вас је рецимо неки човек.

Од њега ви у свести дакле имате његову слику а шта је тај човек по себи када није опажен не знамо. То је питање трансендентно. Једино знамо да сам по себи тај човек не може бити слика, не може бити објекат.

Сада, ако тај човек узме гипс и направи отисак себе. Имаћемо поред његове слике и слику његовог отиска.
Овако нешто:
212784_djokovic-vostana-figura01-beta_f.jpg


Имаћемо дакле две слике испред нас. Које су у нечему сличне али далеко од идентичног.
А шта је тај човек по себи и шта је тај гипсани отисак по себи. Упоређујући ове две слике у нашој свести то не можемо знати.

Исто је и са фотографијом.

Ту имамо две слике испред нас. Слику човека који је испред нас и слику његовог отиска, његове фотографије.
Из посматрања те две слике не можемо знати шта је ствар по себи.Нити шта је тај човек нити шта је та фотографија поред њега по себи, када није опажена.
 
Poslednja izmena:
Ali...Ko priređuje te predstave u našoj svesti? I jesu li to sve premijere ili reprize?
I taj koji je priređivač,kako zna kad ću ja da pogledam na koju stranu? Ili i to on
određuje?
Da...I šta je zapravo ta predstava,od čega je sazdana,osim od naših reči "pojave"-nije
valjda sazdana od samo te jedne reči?
Kakve su to misli i šta su zapravo misli? KO IH MISLI I KAKO FORMIRA POJAVE U MISLIMA TE
PREDSTAVE OD NJIH?
 
Ali...Ko priređuje te predstave u našoj svesti? I jesu li to sve premijere ili reprize?
I taj koji je priređivač,kako zna kad ću ja da pogledam na koju stranu? Ili i to on
određuje?
Da...I šta je zapravo ta predstava,od čega je sazdana,osim od naših reči "pojave"-nije
valjda sazdana od samo te jedne reči?
Kakve su to misli i šta su zapravo misli? KO IH MISLI I KAKO FORMIRA POJAVE U MISLIMA TE
PREDSTAVE OD NJIH?

crna rupa...nalazimo se u crnoj rupi.
 

Back
Top