If the rock tripped me, I suppose one could say it affects me. If it does not budge when I try to move it, it competes with me. I'm trying to bring back a notion we should give some attention, the notion that nature is active on us, in the way that St. Thomas argued that light emanates from objects or that the objects produce the light.
You do not address the issue I've tried to raise with you. I would grant that the rock is inert and in itself (an idealized condition I invent). But once it is in my senses it is manipulating my consciousness, a subjective-objective amalgam is formed. in a way that no other rock can. And I don't believe it's really a given that I would have different notions about a rock than a geologist. It's the utility or application of our notions that is different. WC --- On Fri, 8/29/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object." > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 10:32 AM > In a message dated 8/29/08 11:13:46 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > how does the rock manipulate my notions? Would I have > similar notions > > without the rock? There's something missing in > Cheerskep's seemingly > sensible > > argument -- the object. > > > The rock does not manipulate your notions. It DOES nothing. > It is inert. You > observe it -- i.e. its surface -- and your mind begins > manipulating, pulling > up associated notion that your visual sense data "call > to mind". As an artist. > what arises in your mind will be different from what arises > in a geologist's > mind. Can you be more explicit about what you think is > "missing"? > > > ************** > > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find > your travel deal here. > > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
