[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

Laird said to dmb:
>I might be mis-corrolating Kant's TITs and their positioning in his
>philosophy, but without his TITs, his philosophy has no experience at
>all. For lack of a better term, TITs are the 'subject', the source, of
>his experience. Maybe it's more like ripping DQ out of the MoQ. Surely
>without any source of experience Kant would get a big fat F on a radical
>empiricism (or any empiricism) scale? Seems kind of unfair to remove his
>access to experience and then try to judge him in terms of experience.

dmb says:
I'm not trying to do anything to Kant's philosophy. I'm just saying the MOQ 
differs from Kant insofar as it has no TITs. I'm just saying that Kantians 
have a different picture of reality.

[Case]
Lopping off the TITs is what makes the MOQ in essence wholly subjective. It
is resolving the duality by simply denying half of it. If you shut one eye
you get a different picture of reality and in the Land of the Blind you can
still be King.