[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Ham Priday]

[SA]:
> What are TITs using MoQ?  Kant is SOM, as you may
> know.  Would it make a difference as to what TITs are,
> whether one philosophy uses TITs verses another?  I
> wouldn't even know where to begin on these questions.

[Laird]:
> My take is: TITs, in MoQ terms, are "static patterns of
> value". Stuff, before we rationalize into subjects and objects.
> I think SOM has such a tough time with TITs because they
> expect them to come after the rationalization into subjects
> and objects. It's much simpler when TITs come first.

[Case]:
> Hmmm, TITs are undefined and unknowable, subjects
> and objects emerge from them not just figuratively but
> literally. Wow, that sounds familiar...

[Ham]:
There are no "literal" things -- hence, no "things-in-themselves" [TITs] -- 
apart from our intellection of them.  The "stuff" of reality is Essence
which cannot be broken down into parts because it is absolute.  Neither the
finite mind nor quantum physics is capable of differentiating absolute
Essence.  What we explore as observers and scientists is the structure and
form of experienced reality -- the objective world as intellectualized by
the subject.  The metaphysical ground of this world is not "matter" but
sensible  awareness divided by Nothingness.  In the self/other dichotomy,
"self" is aware of "other" as relative Value and objectivizes it as
beingness, i.e., the experience of finite phenomena with a range of
qualitative and quantitative properties.  (In MoQ terms, the "patterning" of
existence is performed by the individual.)  The qualitative values become
the content of individual awareness [PA], while the quantitative properties
are universally experienced and are the basis for what we call empirical
knowledge.  Both activities result in making being aware of Value.

Thanks for letting me add "my take" on this issue.

Regards,
Ham