[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Ham Priday]

Hi Laramie, Joe --

You said (to Joe):
> Aristotle held that you can't want something until you know
> what it is, so truth-abstraction is superior to good-will.
>
> I think Aristotle was right.  In order to feel something, you
> have to be able to ~see~ it.  Cognition determines the ~form~
> of enlightenment.  Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.  If it's that the
"form" must be (re)cognized in order to feel something, I would beg to
differ with you (and Aristotle).

I think the point you were addressing was the Kantian epistemology outlined
by Joe:
> Kant resolved the dualism by claiming that while we do
> have senses we format their input. This act of formatting
> or perception is a how we construct reality. He claims on
> the one hand that all we can really know about is what
> we can format but that something unknowable is being
> formatted.

This is a good interpretation of Kant's position, and I side with him on
this issue.

Socrates said: "... the man who desires something desires what is not
available to him, and what he doesn¹t already have in his possession; and
what he neither has nor himself is - that which he lacks - this is what he
wants and desires."

Desire doesn't presuppose a cognizant form; it only infers a "lack of
something."  I think Socrates' definition of desire relates to one's sense
of Value, which is pre-intellectual.  In the temporal mode of human
awareness, the value "of enlightenment" precedes the intellectual form -- 
the "object" that represents our experience of this value.

Again, I see Value filling the void of PA as the precursor to objective
cognizance.  Am I off the track here, or have I misconstrued your comment?

Essentially yours,
Ham