----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
Krimel (Marsha quoted) --
Since my name has been invoked, I feel obliged to clarify my ontology with
regard to things-in-themselves.
[Krimel to Marsha]:
What you describe sounds more like a thing "unto" itself.
Ham might find affinity with that but my view of TITs is far more
pedestrian. I hope I have made it clear that I am no expert
on Kant but as I see it, TiTs are everything every where.
The computer I am typing on exists in my head as a pattern of
associations. It's color, its texture, the heat from the processor
are patterns of experience in my head. They are what I know
about the computer. But the computer is also a TiI (Thing in Itself)
independent of my perception of it.
You cannot prove that except by your experience. If the color, shape,
texture, mass, design, and operation of your computer are all properties
of your experience, what evidence supports your assertion that the
computer is independent of your perception? The only answer you can
offer in defense of the TiT ontology is that your wife, a friend, or the
manufacturer would vouch for your experience of it. But that's only
because we all experience the same reality, and our knowledge of it
derives from the same five senses. Likewise, any mechanical "detector"
that may be applied to support your assertion will be designed to measure
or verify these very experiential properties.
Marsha is right.
[Marsha]
A thing that would inherently exist (like a thing-in-itself) would be
an entity that would not depend on anything or not be subject to
change of any kind.
The existence of a thing depends on one's experience of it. Experience is
the organization of sensory impressions by the central nervous system into
objective entities, relative to the observer's perceived locus in time and
space. With the aid of memory, the intellect then interprets these
impressions as concrete objects and changing events, relative to a
substantive whole called physical reality. The "substantive" or primary
source of these finite impressions is Value. Thus, your computer is an
intellectually configured pattern of value.
Hi Ham,
Thanks for the intrusion. I am terrified I'll misrepresent something I
highly respect. It all seemed to roll out of you fingers. Very nice.
I agree with the way you put it except for a few points. Things like time,
space, motion, desire, cause&effect, essense, &etc., &etc., &etc., also do
not inherently exist and are nothing but conceptions.
Marsha
[Krimel continues]:
The effect of having ones conceptual continuity shaken and radically
restructured into something more profound and beautiful is simply
marvelous. What I take from such experiences is the conviction
that lurking behind or beneath my present understanding is the
possibility of even more profound restructuring to come.
If there is any "more profound restructuring to come," it will be the work
of your intellect. What is really profund is the realization that all
experience starts with value sensibility, and that without a being-aware
(cognizant subject) there is no experience. In the absence of cognitive
awareness, there is no agency to bring value into being, hence no
existence, no universe. Ultimate reality is the antithesis of
"emptiness". Essence is primary, absolute, and undivided. Anything else
is secondary, transitive, and relational.
IMO, of course.
Thanks for allowing me this intrusion.
--Ham
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/
