# ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich



## Löwenfrau

Again, Mauthner is quoting Eckhart:

"... die Lehre von den spezifischen Sinnesenergien (»Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich. Gott hat alle Dinge verborgenlich in ihm selber, aber nicht dies noch das nach Unterscheid, sondern Eins nach der Einigkeit. Das Auge hat auch Farbe in sich, das Auge empfängt die Farbe und das Ohr nicht. Das Ohr empfängt das Gedoehne, die Zunge den Geschmack. Dies hat es alles, mit dem es Eins ist«"

I'm not quite following the relation between the first and second parts of the sentences in blue.

Ich kann kein Ding ersehen (I can't perceive anything), es wäre mir denn gleich (?) - "es" refers to "Ding"?
ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen (I can't recognize anything either), es wäre mir denn gleich (?)


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_I cannot see anything unless it's like me; neither can I perceive anything unless it's like me._


----------



## Löwenfrau

Is this a sophisticated way to say? I miss a 'nicht': Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, das mir nicht gleich ist/wäre 

What is indicating 'nicht' here, the use of conjunctive?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_es wäre denn = außer es ist_

If you find _unless _too weak, you can say _except if. _The German construction is called _​exceptive clause._


----------



## Löwenfrau

Ok. 
And what about "mir gleich"? Isn't that stronger than "like me"? Isn't he saying "eins mit mir"? "Gott hat alle Dinge verborgenlich in ihm selber, aber nicht dies noch das nach Unterscheid, sondern Eins nach der Einigkeit."

It is more than a likeness, it is an unity...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Mauthner is, I believe, alluding to Goethe's famous poem

_Wär nicht das Auge sonnenhaft,_
_Die Sonne könnt es nie erblicken;_
_Läg nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft,_
_Wie könnt uns Göttliches entzücken?

_Versalia


Oops, Goethe must be alluding to Eckhart.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> »Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich. Gott hat alle Dinge verborgenlich in ihm selber, aber nicht dies noch das nach Unterscheid, sondern Eins nach der Einigkeit. Das Auge hat auch Farbe in sich, das Auge empfängt die Farbe und das Ohr nicht. Das Ohr empfängt das Gedoehne, die Zunge den Geschmack. Dies hat es alles, mit dem es Eins ist«"


The whole quote reeks of very archaic language - not really surprising since Meister Eckhart lived in the darker part of the middle ages. And yes, this phrasing was considered sophisticated back then.
In modern German you'd never hear "es wäre mir denn gleich" with the meaning it has here, except maybe in poetry that is intentionally making use of archaic language.
Don't forget the timeframe when this was uttered - and the language style of those times - when you interpret its meaning!
I agree with Schimmelreiter's rendition. It seems to have the same meaning in modern language as Meister Eckhart's sentence had in his time.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

manfy said:


> I agree with Schimmelreiter's rendition.


But Löwenfrau doesn't like _like. _

In a religious context, _like _rings the bell of _The Lord created man in His likeness_, doesn't it, which, to a mystic, exactly doesn't stand in the way of unity.


----------



## Löwenfrau

It's not that I don't _like_ 'like'...  I was just wondering... 

_like_ = _similar_

but _gleich_, in this context, doesn't mean _same_, _identical_?

Yet, it's not that either. It's not _identical_, but _indistinguishable_, things are _bound altogether_...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

It's a "structural likeness":





Schimmelreiter said:


> _Wär nicht das Auge sonnenhaft,
> Die Sonne könnt es nie erblicken_


The re/perceiver must be of a structure appropriate to the re/perceived:





Löwenfrau said:


> Das Auge hat auch Farbe in sich


----------



## Löwenfrau

Yes, you are right.

Thank you.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, is "ersehen" to get knowledge by seeing/perceiving? I am not sure about the meaning of this, but it seems to be more than just "sehen", more like "erkennen".


----------



## Löwenfrau

Hutschi said:


> Hi, is "ersehen" to get knowledge by seeing/perceiving? I am not sure about the meaning of this, but it seems to be more than just "sehen", more like "erkennen".



That's what I was thinking too, in #1: 





> Ich kann kein Ding ersehen (I can't perceive anything)


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> Ich kann kein Ding ersehen (I can't perceive anything)


No, there's an escalation from seeing to perceiving:





Löwenfrau said:


> Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, [...] ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen


_see _has two meanings:

(1) I see a bird.
(2) I see a film.

If you want to disambiguate it, you might say _sight_​ (as a verb). But I wouldn't.


----------



## Löwenfrau

And you are sure he means "to see" in the sense of (1) because you are sure "erkennen" means "to perceive" here, right?

By the way, I wouldn't say "I see a film", but rather "I watch a film/movie". Are you sure one can say "see a film"?


----------



## Hutschi

I see "sehen" as static, while "ersehen" is more the process from the beginning of looking until you have the whole picture.

Grimms Deutsches Wörterbuch:





> ERSEHEN , _videre, conspicere, cognoscere, goth._ussaihvan, _ahd._ ersëhan, _mhd._ersëhen. sehen _drückt das dauernde, anhaltende sehen aus,_ ersehen _den beginn des sehens, das zu sehen bekommen, erblicken, erschauen.
> 
> _ *2)*_tr. sinnliches erblicken. ...
> 
> *3)* geistig erschauen, erkennen:
> 
> ...
> 
> *5)* sich (sibi) ersehen,providere, ausersehen: gott wird im (sibi) ersehen ein schaf zum brandopfer.
> 
> 
> _



I gave only some parts, please go directly to Grimm, there is more. (I'm not sure whether I omitted something essential.)

http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/call_...textsuche&hitlist=&patternlist=&lemid=GE08646

Grimm gives the synonyme "erschauen".

This meaning of "ersehen" is almost obsolete today.

Duden gives: http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/ersehen


> 1.a entnehmen, schließen
> 1.b (selten) etwas Sichbietendes erkennen
> 
> 2. (veraltet) ausersehen, erwählen



I see meaning 1b as fitting in the context. It is similar to 5) in Grimm: ausersehen
But it may be Mauthner used meaning 2.

This would make sense, too.

I cannot choose a thing unless it is like me, I cannot recognice a thing unless it is like me.

(To choose includes the process character of "ersehen" somehow.)


PS: As you see it has several meanings.

the most essential are - as far as I see after considering the dictionaries and Mauthner's text:
ausersehen/erwählen and durch Betrachten erkennen, erschauen.


--
*
Vermögen vs. können
*The main sense is the same but there is a difference.

Ich vermag nicht = ich kann nicht aus Gründen, die an speziellen, meist subjektiven Gründen liegen  ...
Ich kann nicht = I cannot (aus objektiven und gegebenenfalls subjektiven Gründen.

Ich vermag dich nicht zu sehen.  (Ich bin zu müde.)
Ich kann dich nicht sehen. (Du bist nicht hier. /Ich bin blind)

Es gibt einen großen überlappenden Bereich, ich würde aber, wenn vorhanden, zwei verschiedene Wörter nehmen.


----------



## Löwenfrau

How would "distinguish" sound to you, Hutschi?


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, it might work, could you, please give the phrase? 

Like this?
I may not/ I'm not able to distinguish a thing unless it is like me, I also cannot perceive a thing unless it is like me.


I search a better word than "may".

I'm not able ... ?

--
another version;

I may not/ I'm not able to perceive a thing unless it is like me, I also cannot understand/realize a thing unless it is like me.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Hutschi said:


> I'm not able to distinguish a thing unless it is like me, I also cannot perceive a thing unless it is like me.



Exactly.

I think _I'm not able_ is as good as SR's _I cannot._


----------



## Hutschi

I think it is one possibility to use "distinguish".
*
To be able/can*
But Mauthner used different phrases for cannot for both parts with a small difference in meaning/point of view.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Two things:

You cannot render _vermögen _in English because unlike _be able to_, it's just a higher register than _can/können.

_You're reading too much into the prefix _er-._ When something is _ersichtlich_​, it can be seen.


----------



## Hutschi

I think, "vermögen" has - even with a higher register - a more subjective point of view than "können".

Ich kann es zwar, aber ich vermag es nicht.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hutschi said:


> I think, "vermögen" has - even with a higher register - a more subjective point of view than "können".
> 
> Ich kann es zwar, aber ich vermag es nicht.


The _objective_ connotation of _können _that's absent from _vermögen_ stems from the colloquial use of _können_ as a substitute for _dürfen. _That's, however, certain to have been far from M.'s, let alone Eckhart's, mind.

Apart from the above, _können _and _vermögen_​ are synonymous, I believe, differing but in register.






Löwenfrau said:


> Are you sure one can say "see a film"?


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=700401&langid=3


----------



## Hutschi

"Dürfen" has a very subjective meaning. This is the main difference to "können".
You can say; _Der Wind kann wehen.= it is possible that the wind blows.
_but not "_der Wind vermag zu wehen_" - except in metaphorical meaning with a personalized wind.


---
The question is in the end not how to say it in English but in Portuguese.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

When I called _dürfen _objective I meant to say that whether or not the acting subject is allowed to do something depends on forces outside of them, e.g. the penal code. Whether or not the acting subject can do something is, by contrast, a function of their own ability and, hence, subjective.

_können_, expressing potentiality, is as colloquial as _können _meaning _dürfen. _The modal verb expressing potentiality is _mögen._


----------



## manfy

Schimmelreiter said:


> You're reading too much into the prefix _er-._ When something is _ersichtlich_​, it can be seen.



I see it the same way here. But to be honest, it's just the feeling I get from the language style of the rest of the sentence (and 13th century language - Philosophie noch dazu - is not my strength).
To be sure, one would have to read an extended portion of Eckhart's work. Only this way you can make a firm assessment which vocabulary was used by Eckhart and in what way he intended to use it. Without that, modern speakers always tend to (unnecessarily) overanalyze meanings of very old writings.


----------



## Hutschi

When reading the last part of context, there is the difference between eye and ear.
Essential is the contrast between to see and to "erkennen" (considering other senses, too).

After thinking about the arguments of Schimmelreiter and manfy and after sleeping one night, my proposal is:

_I'm not able to see a thing unless it is like me, I also cannot perceive a thing unless it is like me.
_


> die Lehre von den spezifischen Sinnesenergien _
> _


_

And now he gives examples

_


> »Ich kann kein Ding *ersehen*, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich. Gott hat alle Dinge verborgenlich in ihm selber, aber nicht dies noch das nach Unterscheid, sondern Eins nach der Einigkeit. Das* Auge hat auch Farbe* in sich, das *Auge* empfängt die *Farbe* und das Ohr nicht. Das Ohr empfängt das Gedoehne, die Zunge den Geschmack. Dies hat es alles, mit dem es Eins ist«"


(to see)



> »Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch *kein Ding zu erkennen*, es wäre mir denn gleich. Gott hat alle Dinge verborgenlich in ihm selber, aber nicht dies noch das nach Unterscheid, sondern Eins nach der Einigkeit. Das Auge hat auch Farbe in sich, *das Auge empfängt die Farbe* und *das Ohr nicht*. Das Ohr empfängt das *Gedoehne*, die *Zunge den Geschmack.* Dies hat es alles, mit dem es Eins ist«"


(also other senses)


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> You cannot render _vermögen _in English because unlike _be able to_, it's just a higher register than _can/können._


_
Generally speaking, English, being a hybrid language (basically a combination of German and French), can render most ideas in both a high and a low register. 

Since the Norman conquest, expressions derived from French (also Latin and Greek) are traditionally assigned a higher academic and social register than those derived from Anglo-Saxon.

For vermögen, depending on context, we can say, for example, 'to be capable' or 'to have a capability' or 'capacity'._


----------



## Hutschi

So it becomes _I'm not capable to see a thing unless it is like me, I also cannot perceive a thing unless it is like me. - __ doesn't it?_


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> "... die Lehre von den spezifischen Sinnesenergien (»Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich.


Here we see the reflection of Aristotle's theory of sense-perception, transmitted I suppose through Albertus Magnus or Thomas Aquinas.
For Aristotle, the Greek term _energeia_ meant the actualisation of a potential, its active expression.
The sense organ is said to perceive like by like: the potential of a colour to be seen and that of the eye to see it are in some sense similar and both are actualised in the fact of perception. What this means in detail is much debated.


> Gott hat alle Dinge verborgenlich in ihm selber, aber nicht dies noch das nach Unterscheid, sondern Eins nach der Einigkeit. Das Auge hat auch Farbe in sich, das Auge empfängt die Farbe und das Ohr nicht. Das Ohr empfängt das Gedoehne, die Zunge den Geschmack. Dies hat es alles, mit dem es Eins ist«"


Eckhart, it seems, is not entering into the detail of perception, but asserting that God embraces everything that exists or can exist, so that in him all things are one. Every individual thing is in him, just as the potential for all colour perception is in the eye, or for all sound perception is in the ear.

The distinction between 'kann ... ersehen' and 'vermag ... erkennen' may simply reflect the fact that the second expression is generalising the first, and thus he employs a broader, less specific term. On that basis, I would suggest 'discern' for 'erkennen' ('have the capacity to discern').


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot render _vermögen _in English because unlike _be able to_, it's just a higher register than _can/können._
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, English, being a hybrid language (basically a combination of German and French), can render most ideas in both a high and a low register.
> 
> Since the Norman conquest, expressions derived from French (also Latin and Greek) are traditionally assigned a higher academic and social register than those derived from Anglo-Saxon.
> 
> For _vermögen_, depending on context, we can say, for example, 'to be capable' or 'to have a capability' or 'capacity'.
Click to expand...

_Ich vermag es zu tun _has a literary air about it, it's, hence, also common to the realm of poetry.

In terms of register, _Ich vermag es zu tun _is worlds apart from _I'm capable of doing it/I've got the capability/capacity of doing it._

With all due respect for the might of the English lexis, I still can't think of a truly synonymous English word, with synonymity also pertaining to register.









wandle said:


> The distinction between 'kann ... ersehen' and 'vermag ... erkennen' may simply reflect the fact that the second expression is generalising the first, and thus he employs a broader, less specific term.


The thought that the latter might be a generalisation of the former is to be ruled out, I believe, considering the use of _auch_:





Löwenfrau said:


> Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag *auch* kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich.


So it's the opposite, I believe. _erkennen (to perceive)_, both linguistically and epistemologically, goes far beyond _ersehen_, of which the prefix _-er_ is being overestimated in terms of relevance in this discussion. As I've already pointed out, when something is _ersichtlich_, it can be _seen_, there's nothing more to it. Linguistically, _ersehen_, by virtue of its prefix _er-_, is a _resultative verb_, so it denotes the result of the act of seeing, which, again, is seeing.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> With all due respect for the might of the English lexis, I still can't think of a truly synonymous English word, with synonymity also pertaining to register.


The task of translation, though, is not to tie together terms from different languages one to one, but to render the specific meaning on each occasion appropriately in context.

Am I right in thinking that in the present case, 'vermag' for Eckhart may not carry the literary and poetic associations it has today, but may simply, as suggested above, be representing a more generalised sense than 'kann'?


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> _erkennen (to perceive)_, both linguistically and epistemologically, goes far beyond _ersehen_


That makes it more general, then, does it not?
I chose the word 'discern' above to express the possible senses 'perceive', 'recognise', 'apprehend (intellectually)'.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> The task of translation, though, is not to tie together terms from different languages one to one, but to render the specific meaning on each occasion appropriately in context.


Exactly. And none of your suggestions, i.e.





wandle said:


> 'to be capable' or 'to have a capability' or 'capacity'.


lives up to that _task of translation_ in *any* context because they all lack the literary quality of _vermögen_. It's not your fault. 

So, for want of a better word, my suggested translation, as early as in post #2, was this:





Schimmelreiter said:


> _I cannot see anything unless it's like me; neither can I perceive anything unless it's like me._








wandle said:


> Am I right in thinking that in the present case, 'vermag' for Eckhart may not carry the literary and poetic associations it has today, but may simply, as suggested above, be representing a more generalised sense than 'kann'?


It's neither more general nor more specific than _kann_, it's simply synonymous with _kann_ save for the register of speech. And, yes, there may not even have been a difference in register to Eckhart. I rendered both _können_ and _vermögen_ as _can _anyway_._ You might, if you would, render one of the two as _be able _for the sake of variety.






wandle said:


> That makes it more general, then, does it not?


You will be the expert here but I'd have assumed that perception was more specific than seeing. Mightn't Kant have said that although he saw the wall before his eyes, he nonetheless couldn't perceive it? 



PS
What you said about the _task of translation_ couldn't be more true. You've got to take a "policy" decision as to how freely you aim to translate. What you rightly said can be applied to _vermögen_, to which I don't think there's an equivalent in English, by adding the flavour of the literary to another part of speech:

_Er sagte, er vermöge diese Aufgabe nicht wahrzunehmen. - He said he *deemed himself* unable to discharge that task._

But to consider this an option, you must beforehand have decided that so free a translation was appropriate.


----------



## wandle

I cannot speak for Kant, but in the Aristotelian and scholastic tradition, perception, the activity of the senses, is distinguished from understanding, the activity of the intellect. 'Erkennen' seems to include or trench upon both.

On reflection, I would suggest:

_Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich._

'I cannot see anything, unless it is like me; nor can I discern anything, unless it is like me.'


----------



## wandle

By the way,


Schimmelreiter said:


> none of your suggestions, ... lives up to that _task of translation_ in *any* context because they all lack the literary quality of _vermögen_. It's not your fault.





wandle said:


> For _vermögen_, depending on context, we can say, for example, 'to be capable' or 'to have a capability' or 'capacity'.


Those were not suggested translations for the given passage. I would have hoped the fact that there were three expressions offered would be enough to show that. 

They were merely possible examples of how _vermögen_ might be rendered in different contexts. In the same way, a dictionary entry offers alternatives: not a contextualised translation.


Schimmelreiter said:


> And, yes, there may not even have been a difference in register to Eckhart.


Do I detect some slight variation of view?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> I cannot speak for Kant, but in the Aristotelian and scholastic tradition, perception, the activity of the senses, is distinguished from understanding, the activity of the intellect. 'Erkennen' seems to include or trench upon both.
> 
> On reflection, I would suggest:
> 
> _Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich._
> 
> 'I cannot see anything, unless it is like me; nor can I discern anything, unless it is like me.'


That's a very valuable piece of insight. I used to render _erkennen_ as _perceive_​, indiscriminately.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> So it's the opposite, I believe. _erkennen (to perceive)_, both linguistically and epistemologically, goes far beyond_ersehen_, of which the prefix _-er_ is being overestimated in terms of relevance in this discussion. As I've already pointed out, when something is _ersichtlich_, it can be _seen_, there's nothing more to it. Linguistically, _ersehen_, by virtue of its prefix _er-_, is a _resultative verb_, so it denotes the result of the act of seeing, which, again, is seeing.​Last edited by Schimmelreiter; Today at 8:53 AM.
> ​




Why not:

ersehen = to see
erkennen = to get to know/ to be acquainted with/ (or simply) to know
?

This conveys Schimmelreiter's argument, doesn't it? (knowing is more specific, and more intellectual, than seeing). _Erkenntnis_ can mean_ knowledge_, can't _erkennen_ means _to know_?


----------



## wandle

On further reflection, I am inclined to say:

_Ich kann kein Ding ersehen, es wäre mir denn gleich; ich vermag auch kein Ding zu erkennen, es wäre mir denn gleich._

'I cannot see anything, unless it is like me; I have no capacity to discern anything, unless it is like me.'


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, yes, there may not even have been a difference in register to Eckhart.
> 
> 
> 
> Do I detect some slight variation of view?
Click to expand...

I can't send him a text message to ask him. 

For instance, if I want to make _sehen_ slightly archaic-sounding in English, I render it as _behold. _The problem is that if I want to make either the word _können_ or the word _vermögen_ slightly archaic-sounding because the guy lived so long ago, there's no such word in English.


----------



## wandle

As mentioned earlier, the target language in this case is of course Portuguese. 
However, if 'vermag' was not archaic or poetical to Eckhart, we have no reason to seek an archaic or poetic term for a modern rendering. 
Generally speaking, a modern version ought to be in modern idiom as far as possible.


----------



## Löwenfrau

What is the difference between 





> 'I cannot see anything, unless it is like me; nor can I discern anything, unless it is like me.'


and "... nor can I distinguish anything..."?

And, really, "erkennnen" can't mean "to know"?


----------



## Hutschi

Erkennen is the first step, to know the second

"kennen" without "er" is similar to wissen, only the usage is different.
I know him= ich kenne ihn.
I know it=Ich weiß es.
I recognize it=ich erkenne es (depending on context there are other words for it.)


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> nor can I distinguish anything


Would one not ask back: "From what?"

I find wandle's _discern_​ excellent.


----------

