[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Case]

[Ham]
I see Essence as an either/or proposition.  Either the "things themselves"
are essence(s) or essence is something else.  If TITs are "irrelevant", what
is their essence?  If you don't believe in Essence, then why continue to
look for it in the experiential world?

[Case]
Remember our previous chat about false dichotomies? Personally I am not
looking for anything in particular in the world. I am just looking. You find
the most interesting things when you aren't looking for anything in
particular.

[Ham]
"Still around" is a temporal qualification that applies only to finite
space/time existence.  Essence is not affected by the boundaries and
conditions of finitude.  You seem to have an aversion to the idea of an
absolute reality, an uncreated source, which restricts your metaphysical
understanding to the physical world.  Did Pirsig "have no business"
proposing a universe based on Quality?  There was no empirical reason to
suppose it.  Is it not the "business" of Philosophy to hypothesize theories
having to do with metaphysical reality?

[Case]
Kant said that time and space are hardwired for us. We can not have thoughts
that do not come formatted that way. I am still struggling with Kant but
that sounds about right to me. If you want to imagine the unimaginable and
seek after sources and the absolute knock yourself out but I would not call
that philosophy. As for the business of philosophy I rather like James and
Dewey's notion that it must be relevant. It must be judged by its
application and consequences.

[Ham]
Your first statement relates to the quantitative aspects of the objective
world -- the numerical value of Pi, the orbit of Mars, the speed of light,
the irreducible unit of matter.  That is the province of scientific
investigation.  The philosopher does not attack empirical knowledge or the
scientific approach; his specialty is discerning the reality beyond the
physical world. And, yes, it is largely intuitive and hypothetical.  But you
have no more reason to demean it than the philosopher does to demean
Science.

[Case]
Again I would not characterize philosophy as you describe it as philosophy
at all. There are mathematicians who pride themselves on doing work that has
no practical consequences but philosophers are having enough trouble finding
work to afford that luxury.

[Ham]
Since there is no experience without a subject, I do not see how experience
can be a contingency for subjects and objects.  The actuality "being-aware"
is contingent upon beingness and awareness.  This is the self/other
dichotomy.

[Case]
Again there is no subject without experience. This "being-aware" thing
sounds like Hamish. I don't speak the lingo. I believe the idea is that the
subject does not occur in the absence of objects so they are part of the
same phenomenon. My problem is that I do believe that objects can occur in
the absence of subjects. That's what this whole TITs thing is about.

> [Case]
> Biological systems require only an inorganic source.

[Ham]
Interesting.  Do you have that on good faith, or on some authoritative
source?

[Case]
That has been the prevailing view in biology for the past 200 years or so
yeah that is pretty authoritative and I long ago professed my faith in
science.

[Ham]
You seem to thrive on circularity and the infinite regression of causes.
One might say you suffer from the "merry-go-round" syndrome.  Better grab
the brass rail before you get dizzy and fall off!

[Case]
I missed the specific circularity but it wouldn't surprise me. Either way it
is better to be on the 'merry-go-round' that spiraling down the drain.