[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


>
> 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.

Hi Ham,

Thanks for the intrusion.  I am terrified I'll misrepresent something I 
highly respect.  It all seemed to roll out of you fingers.  Very nice.

I agree with the way you put it except for a few points.  Things like time, 
space, motion, desire, cause&effect, essense, &etc., &etc., &etc., also do 
not inherently exist and are nothing but conceptions.

Marsha




>
> [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
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/