Hi Rick and Focs,
This is just a very quick note for clarification
> JONATHAN:
> > My point was that we are getting confused between the ontology and
the
> > logic. It seems that our predominant
> > logic is not subject-object at all, but OBJECT-Object.
>
> RICK:
> I'm not sure I understand this... (although it does remind me of
something
> Struan wrote when I tried to map Kant's concept of the
phenoumenal/nouminal
> split onto the subject/object divide; he said I had created an
object/object
> metaphysics, I'll try to find the post.)... Could you elaborate on
what this
> means a bit?
If logic deals with the relationships between things, then it seems that
those "things" must first be "objectified" i.e. made into objects of
study. I don't know any other form of logic.
I also don't know much about Kant, but from the little I do know, it
seems that he was differentiating between knowledge acquired through the
senses, and "innate" knowledge e.g. the passage of time, moral sense
etc. I think he was trying to objectify things than classical empicism
has trouble with.
Does this help?
(I enjoyed the rest of your post Rick - I see large areas of general
agreement)
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST