[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Joe (Larz, can you help?) --


> If "you" is replaced by "one" or "it" and refers in all
> cases to any static pattern of value, then the way
> "you" respond to value (DQ) does vary dependent
> upon complexity of the understanding that is "you".
> If the compexity of the understanding is the same as
> the complexity of the pattern then that complexity
> neatly maps onto an evolutionary scale.  The
> response of a simple understanding (like a rusty nail)
> is just "interraction", whereas the response of a
> complex understanding like a man is what we know
> as perception.
>
> As I see it, any pattern of existence includes the
> observer and the observed - until "you" look at
> something the pattern that is both, doesn't exist
> yet. The act of percieving (valuing) actualises the thing.
> "In it's self" it's something else.

The only statement I could comprehend in this explanation is: "The act of
perceiving (valuing) actualizes the thing."  Perhaps my mental block is a
result of failing to understand what you mean by "pattern".  To me, the
pattern IS the objectivized (actualized) "thing".  I reject the notion of
"thing-in-itself".  The objective thing is the image differentiated or
"constructed" by the observing subject.  Everything else is pure Essence
sensed as Value.

> If the idea that various species of responses are present
> in any pattern no matter how simple its understanding is
> gets around this as the actualisation from DQ (or possibly
> essence) of the observed by the observer happens when
> any pattern meets another and isn't reliant on complex
> patterns having to actualise everything.

Obviously, you have some specific epistemology in mind to account for
actualized reality, but you're not getting it across to me.  It might help
if you could break this concept up into bite-size statements.  Also, you'll
need to explain the meaning of "species of responses present in any pattern"
and "when any pattern meets another".

Thanks, Joe.

Regards,
Ham