>
> On Nov 21, 2008
>
>> Chris Doss wrote:
>>
>>> I think a problem here may be in people's differing definitions of
>>> religion. I take it to mean something like the unity of the following three:
>>> 1. belief that something exists outside of experience and outside of
>>> possible conceptualization (this is very bad phraseology on my part, but I
>>> hope you get the general idea);
>>> 2. belief that relating to this something is important in some way for
>>> human existence;
>>> 3. a conceptual system, whether simple or complex, whether formally
>>> organized or not, for relating human existence to that something.
>>>
>>
>> I wrote:
>
>>
>> The absurdity is to believe that what is "outside of experience and
>> outside of possible conceptualization" can possibly be "related" to human
>> (or any other form of) existence.
>>
>
>
> Chris Doss wrote:
>
> What Shane doesn't realize is that what he thinks is keen reason is
>> actually epistemological solipsism, i.e., something only exists and concerns
>> me if I can understand it. It equates the way the world is experienced by a
>> certain kind of hominid with the world, which is quite funny.
>>
>
> What Chris doesn't realize is that HE wrote "outside of experience"--not
> outside the experience of human beings but outside experience as such--and
> that HE wrote "outside of possible conceptualization"--not outside the
> conceptual possibilities of human beings but impossible of conceptualization
> as such. Yet he goes on chattering about "a conceptual system... for
> relating human existence to that something" as though it were not absurd in
> the highest degree to imagine conceptualizing a "relationship" between than
> which cannot be conceptualized and that which can. He should take
> philosophical advice about "that something"--*darum muss man schweigen*
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Yeah, sorry I missed that... However, there have been interesting cases made for an "unconceptualisable" being built into the structure of human language and which supposedly sets it into motion. I'm thinking specifically of Lacan. Perhaps, and I say perhaps without thinking this through properly, the same could be said from a metaphysical perspective of Sartre's "Nothingness" which he claims is neccesary for the "opening" of human experience.