I enjoyed that. Ray
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:59 PM Subject: Re: Blank Slate > The "blank slate" is perhaps a good > image for trying to get across the > message of Kantian philosophy [broadly > construed]. > > For the empiricist/realist, a "blank slate" is just > emptyness on which "anything" can be imprinted. > > But from the Kantian perspective, a "blank slate" > is rich in attributes (AKA transcendental categorial > determinations, etc.). To state what should > be obvious: one can write on a blank slate with > chalk, but one cannot use it as an abacus for > arithmetical operations. > > If we focus on content, then the blank slate is > undetermined: anything that can be chalkied can be > chalked on it. > > But if we focus on the medium, then we see that > a blank slate is incapable of registering anything > except chalk marks -- but there many other kinds of > things in the world (which are inaccessible to the > slate). From this perspective, to be a blank slate > is already to be incapable of many experiences, > actions, etc. (and, of course, to be capable of > certain specifiable others). > > By reflecting on the properties of a slate, we > may come to see how its slate-nature determines > its perspective on and its place in the world. As said, a slate > cannot do arithmetical operations but an > abacus can; but an abacus cannot receive > chalk marks as reminders to oneself or messages to others. > > The medium is the co-message. > > For an inhabitant of a "market economy", everything > is a commodity. > > Since the marks one can make on a slate are > infinitely variable, the empiricist will never > reach the edge of his flat-earth, and so he will > never notice that what he takes to be > *the world* is really > only the "world of the slate", and therefore, > despite its infinite dimension, > nonetheless, is ery small (constrained) indeed. > > This is, of course, a parable, metaphor or whatever.... > > For a mind is not a slate or anything else that is > part of the world (the set of all possible chalk marks). > A mind is a perspective upon the world (a receiver > of chalk marks, a writer of chalk marks, an observer of > the fact that there are other *kinds of* > things besides chalk marks, etc. > > I find it more interesting to study the nature of > the slate than to study the particular marks that can be > made on the slate in their particularity. I like to > see the "whole situation" and not to mistake part of > the situation (the blankness of the slate) > for the whole (what it means for something to be a slate). I like > highly "leveraged" knowledge. I like to get a > big ROI on my mental activity. Leave the bean couners > to count beans -- but studying the form of life of > the bean counters (what they do with > beans, etc.) *is* interesting.... Perhaps you > feel similarly? > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
