Marsha: I remember a while back you ardently defending tit's. I think maybe you have softened your view. Are tit's independent, autonomous entities, or not? Example? Are tit's patterns? Or something different?
Or maybe this post should wait until the levels post has come to a finite conclusion. But then, can anything comprised of patterns have a finite conclusion? Useful? Yes. Absolute? No way, Jose. Ron: I think what Krimmel needs to distinguish, and I'm not sure that Kant does, is differentiate between noumena and things in themselves. Roughly, a noumenon may be distinguished from the following concepts, although there is debate of the synonymity between them: Thing-in-itself, an actual object and its properties independent of any observer. the Absolute, the totality of things; all that is, whether it has been discovered or not. For instance, the philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term noumenon synonymously with the phrase thing in itself. A phenomenon is that which is perceived; A noumenon is the actual object that emits the phenomenon in question. these both use the classical terms of Objecthood. No doubt Kant was headed in the right direction but still under the analytical SOM assumption of independent objects. Kant's writings show points of difference between noumena and things-themselves. For instance, he regards things-in-themselves as existing: "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears." Schopenhauer's critique Schopenhauer claimed that Kant used the word incorrectly. He explained in "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy", which first appeared as an appendix to The World as Will and Representation: "But it was just this difference between abstract knowledge and knowledge of perception, entirely overlooked by Kant, which the ancient philosophers denoted by noumena and phenomena. (See Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book I, Chapter 13, ' What is thought (noumena) is opposed to what appears or is perceived (phenomena).' ) This contrast and utter disproportion greatly occupied these philosophers in the philosophemes of the Eleatics, in Plato's doctrine of the Ideas, in the dialectic of the Megarics, and later the scholastics in the dispute between nominalism and realism, whose seed, so late in developing, was already contained in the opposite mental tendencies of Plato and Aristotle. But Kant who, in an unwarrantable manner, entirely neglected the thing for the expression of which those words phenomena and noumena had already been taken, now takes possession of the words, as if they were still unclaimed, in order to denote by them his things-in-themselves and his phenomena." [26] The Noumenon's original meaning of "that which is thought" is not compatible with the "thing-in-itself," which signifies things as they exist apart from being images in the mind of an observer. -wiki http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdom-Middle-Way-Mulamadhyamakakarika /dp/0195093364/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216889119&sr=1-1 . . . Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
