[MD] Tit's

[Ham Priday]

Krimel (Marsha quoted) --

Since my name has been invoked, I feel obliged to clarify my ontology with 
regard to things-in-themselves.

[Krimel to Marsha]:
> What you describe sounds more like a thing "unto" itself.
> Ham might find affinity with that but my view of TITs is far more
> pedestrian.  I hope I have made it clear that I am no expert
> on Kant but as I see it, TiTs are everything every where.
> The computer I am typing on exists in my head as a pattern of
> associations. It's color, its texture, the heat from the processor
> are patterns of experience in my head. They are what I know
> about the computer. But the computer is also a TiI (Thing in Itself)
> independent of my perception of it.

You cannot prove that except by your experience.  If the color, shape, 
texture, mass, design, and operation of your computer are all properties of 
your experience, what evidence supports your assertion that the computer is 
independent of your perception?   The only answer you can offer in defense 
of the TiT ontology is that your wife, a friend, or the manufacturer would 
vouch for your experience of it.  But that's only because we all experience 
the same reality, and our knowledge of it derives from the same five senses. 
Likewise, any mechanical "detector" that may be applied to support your 
assertion will be designed to measure or verify these very experiential 
properties.

Marsha is right.

[Marsha]
> A thing that would inherently exist (like a thing-in-itself) would be
> an entity that would not depend on anything or not be subject to
> change of any kind.

The existence of a thing depends on one's experience of it.  Experience is 
the organization of sensory impressions by the central nervous system into 
objective entities, relative to the observer's perceived locus in time and 
space.  With the aid of memory, the intellect then interprets these 
impressions as concrete objects and changing events, relative to a 
substantive whole called physical reality.  The "substantive" or primary 
source of these finite impressions is Value.  Thus, your computer is an 
intellectually configured pattern of value.

[Krimel continues]:
> The effect of having ones conceptual continuity shaken and radically
> restructured into something more profound and beautiful is simply
> marvelous. What I take from such experiences is the conviction
> that lurking behind or beneath my present understanding is the
> possibility of even more profound restructuring to come.

If there is any "more profound restructuring to come," it will be the work 
of your intellect.  What is really profund is the realization that all 
experience starts with value sensibility, and that without a being-aware 
(cognizant subject) there is no experience.  In the absence of cognitive 
awareness, there is no agency to bring value into being, hence no existence, 
no universe.  Ultimate reality is the antithesis of "emptiness".  Essence is 
primary, absolute, and undivided.  Anything else is secondary, transitive, 
and relational.

IMO, of course.

Thanks for allowing me this intrusion.

--Ham