If I Only Had A Brain Sometimes i find it really neat to hide an entry backward in time so that any regular reader misses it - i know its a bit teen - but hey maybe im living in a dream. Well this is one of those.

...
I have never really felt very emotionally attached to someone. And this fact really gets to me; when i was younger in school and was all new to grown up relationships i found it really bizarre that i wouldnt give other people the same level of appreciation. So in turn i would force a very intense empathy toward one or two people - needless to say this never lead anywhere into a healthy relationship...when i tried to care i couldnt quite get the action right, and then when i caught myself off guard i realised that i really didnt care about them.

Among this there were a number of other little problems thrown at me during these tenacious years. And mothers being mothers i was thrown into counselling and psychiatrists. I had already been seeing a community psychologist of my own volition that i kept personal and secret from my family. Here lies another story.

Anyhow i was merely setting up a background.

For now there has arisen an interesting circumstance. A good friend, and flatmate, of mine is now in a relationship with the one person that i deeply care about. However my relationship with said person is not at all good at present due to actions within the past. I had carelessly manipulated and lied to to both her and my friend - thus causing their relationship to be put at a tether. It now no longer exists; their relationship, and my relationship with either of them. You see i did nearly anything i could so that i may have had a more personal relationship with this person than anyone else - and in the end i ruined three perferctly good human connections and their respective teenage lives. Well, maybe ruined is too harsh, they are still alive.

So how do i translate this to the current situation.

Will the past replicate itself?

I will try to play a passive role. However i dont think anything will come to fruition. Both parties are very empathatic, and i believe that they will both come to the conclusion that thier future relationship would cause me unnecessary pain and humiliation. This is quite a nice thing i think. Its not really selfish of them - maybe a little in some bizarre way.
And it makes me think, that if i believe that this is what they will conclude; that i personally still want both of them to care about me and the relationship with me. There you go.
- I should talk to both of them because i want them to want to be my friend. When you look at it from that angle it sort of becomes a self answering scenario. If you think about it enough you can tell where life in general may head...perhaps similar to a film (usually in films you can foresee more specific events though, i guess).

Perhaps i examine other people's actions concerning me in a cynical light. Thought, examination, knowledge are all good, but i can understand a personal negative attitude in which one may examine actions that affect one's own life. That is what one has to attempt to circumvent - intersubjectivity.

Let me sleep on that.

----
ok. i slept on that. I do not examine these reactions in a cynical light, merely cautiounary. It is relaxing to be cautious.

Let's be plain here. I am taking sexual advantage of this girl. That much must be true. Nevertheless i do understand some unwanting nature of this within myself. I, embarassingly, hault any intimate proceedings that seem to take place. I dont exactly know why; in as much as i am caused grievous psychological/emotional pain, that is only rendered sufferable when i cease and desist. I never get this anxiety with guys.

I dont want this to be like it was a couple of years ago.

I will commit myself to avoiding and obstaining from intimate relations with this girl. - writing things down always seems to make them stronger -

I will find a new place to live.

I will create music.

And i will learn to love myself before i love another.

I will sleep.  ¶ 9:14 pm 0 Comments

  ENGL2104: Mock Epic CORRUPTION:

MILTON turns largely away from Restoration England. However there is minimal oblique reference:
- to the corrupt court (Charles II)
- to social society as bleek and grim -> individuals who speak out, ultimately good, but achieve nothing.
* Generally society is corrupt and cannot be reformed

MITLON GIVEN UP ON ENGLISH REPUBLIC?!?
-> no reference to england or patriotism

VIRTUE:
+> Religion -> protestant belief
* serving and obeying under free-will - not to save oneself (for care of god)
+> to make sure reason is not overtook by passion

POETRY:
NOT PATRIOTIC EPIC - rather PROTESTANT EPIC
- Milton percieves himself as ENOCH and NOAH
-> poem not effacacious of reformation

Change of poet's construction of evidence -
no longer 'inner light; but emprical data and reason (philosophy)

HEALTH -> related to science [Royal Society]
Physics/Natural Science/Mathematics
[Religion Never Falls Out]
ANGLICANISM -> moderate churchgoing.
=> science argued as consistent with PROTESTANTISM

FLOODING OF BAD POETRY - 1803
-> urban beast...the in thing...modern

DRYDEN & FLECKNO
comparison to Milton

use of...
simile
3rd person omniscient narrative
epithets
elevated word usage/grammar -> diminshed sense via: rhyming
lack of enjambent
set speeches
allusions to Paradise Lost

Simultanouesly incorporating...
low subject/theme
=> MOCK EPIC -> becomes fountain of criticism - standard mode of ridicule:
irony
satire
*the use of words o mean the opposite of their commonly understood meaning
=> TRAVERSTY -> making agents of debased versions of supreme ceremonies/ritual/regality

Labels: english, notes

  ¶ 10:10 pm 0 Comments

  Is The Internet Still Binary? 00100100101110110? i just had a conversation....most of which i cannot remember.

It had something to do with the internet being like a human brain - and that its binary structures are tied mostly to the world of computers and not the concept of the internet.

i understand that the binary world will be lost to quantum mechanics and the chaos theory - much better computers will be designed with these two techiniques. Computers must develop personality and interact with the world on a social level not just as a tool. I will explain quantum binary when i understand it myself!

However the internet, can, and most probably is functioning more like a human brain, in cognitive and memory values than anything that is technically described within manuals computer or otherwise. The process of human thought as electronic movement derived from chemical reactions within the synapses is a firing mechanism of the binary code - that is either on or off. However because it is a chemical process there are ever so slight variations within the on/off properties, such as speed, distance, frequency, transfer rate...and much more that a biomedical student could explain than an arts one.

Needless to say that the internet may be able to think. Of course the most common response is: "what is it thinking?" - but to answer this would be to fall into the trap of linguistics. LOST IN TRANSLATION> in other words to ask what the internet is thinking and expecting me to be able to tell you would be analagous to you trying to explain what i am thinking. This argument brings us to outer world skepticism. That is because we can only know what our 'self' i thinking and percieving that we may not even be certain of anyone else's existence. So then, when u can tell me what i am thinking, i will tell you what the internet is thinking. If i were to offer any advice at this point it would be for you to ask the internet itself what it is thinking - but dont cry to me if you dont like what it is thinking about!

However the most interesting point of this thought, is not that the internet is thinking at all, but how on earth did it begin to think? And how integral was mankind in helping this conceptual world to 'breathe life', if you will grant me such a grandoise expression.

An ephemeral world of electron movement that has becom self aware - for if we are to assume thought then surely self awareness becomes apparent, if not before thought (as first thought) or surely wuickly thereafter. Hitherto our world has been largely divided within the Cartersian duality of the mind and body, and still a large populous and contempory self improvement philosphies are base upon a duality of sorts. Yet is not this category of thought bound within a binary system unto itself>? For it seems that simultanouesly the world of cyberspace and that of human reality are attempting to free themselves of the restrictive (perhaps this is too harsh, perhaps the binary method of thinking is restrictive only in a context in as much as it removes subtleties) viewpoint of the binary system.

Does this mean that both worlds are inextricably connected in some way or another?  ¶ 8:51 pm 0 Comments

  "All Knowledge begins with experience, but not all arises from experience." A Priori knowledge consists of two primary attributes:

Necessity - to disallow things from emprical data
Universality - to disallow any exception

Analytic Vs Synthetic

Analytic: - CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY EXPERIENCE

truth independant of experience. The truth is bound to the subject. This category of truth also follows the law of contradiction - ie. 'a triangle is not three sided' - the opposite of an analytic truth does not hold. This type of truth does not usually extend our knowledge but merely clarifies it. Largely concerned with symantics and symantics of language.

Our notion of general concept (body) is not completely dependant upon the singular experience of things (bodies).
*Analytic truth cannot be obtained from singular experience but rather derived from the general concept that is reasoned from empirical data/experience.
*Analytic does not extend our knowledge but merely unpacks it.

Synthetic: - CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY EXPERIENCE

*Synthetic does extend our knowledge.
Showing the predicate relationship between things/concepts/objects.
This relationship is made obvious from our (own) perspective!

Synthetic A PRIORI?!?
SYNTHETIC A PRIORI:
Looking @ the imortality of the soul: claim cannot be justified by A PRIORI Analytic nor A POSTERIORI Synthetic.

HUME 'gives up' on metaphysics that cannot be justified by experience. Whereas KANT wishes to SALVAGE metaphysics via mathematical thinking - that is SYNTHETIC A PRIORI [arguably mathematicl proofs use synthetic knowedge that is extended prior to experience!]

Synthetic A Priori knowledge is not completely inner logic nor from experience.
EG. mathematical equations: 7 + 5 = 12 ___from the representational symbols 7 5 + = there is no logical connection to 12.
Thus the equation, when observed out of its representation the synthetic knowledge becomes apparent.

(7 x 1) + (5 x 1) = (12 x 1) or (1+1+1+1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)

however when the equation is reversed it is obvious that the conclusion is not necessarily the same - (except in the case of multiplication of prime numbers..this requires another logic) - 12 has many representations, observe:

12 = 7 + 5 = 6 + 6= 11 + 1 (etc)

KANT believes that this EG workd better with larger numbers, because our mind within experience automatically breaks down these large numbers into there smaller representation for ease of use.

Similarly:
The conclusion that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
One does not have to experience this (one may not be able to experience this) to know that it is true.


Sensibility:

SPACE and TIME as A PRIORI Intuitions.

intuition (immediate relation [singular]): not mediated by a discursive domain
concept: categorisation - transcends objects=> singular concept? (GOD?!?)

Intellectual Intuition => act of creating - no need for understanding [Victor and Shelling] - that the act of cognizing intuition would be an act of creation - divine intervention?!?

intuition: singular representation NOT knowledge
concept: gained from intuition, via cognitive knowledge gained

SPACE & TIME_

NEWTON - real objects;
points of space and time that exist outside our subjectivity

LEIBNIZ - no real existence:
logical conveniences that allow us to concieve relations between objects

KANT - A Priori Intuitions;
'Real Status', which cannot be derived from experience but only intuited

PURE INTUITION: -
Base [concept (sic)] character of appearance/notion that exists within our ability to grasp [intuitively].

No sensory (empirical data) perception of the infinite - no logical representation. [KANT"S DAY]

The structural relation between concepts and intuitions forms the basis of how we experience anything.

The kinds of conclusions and knowledge we get from maths, namley 'synthetic A Priori', are built on intuitions.

Inner Sense - TIME
condition for our mental states to be available to us.

Outer Sense - SPACE
condition for our awareness of objects. A place for singular objects to exist.

+>SPACE AS A PRIORI
1. representation of space is conditioned by our awareness of objects.
->our experience is only possible via our concept of space.

2. space must be considered the condition for the representation of the relationships of objects.
->relationships cannot exist without space firstly

3. space functions in a whole unitary feature/character

4. space is represented as an infinite given magnitude

Labels: notes, philosophy

  ¶ 8:25 pm 0 Comments

  Directly To Hell? The basic tenets of Direct Democracy is removing the middle man - it is an organisation of people that gather (in a symbolic sense they dont have to be physically in the one space...perhaps not even mentally) upon one issue, decide the issue and act upon a further reached decision by the vote of their peers. What this does is remove the beauracracy, political crap and unwanted impotence that is inherent within today's system (Australia). Once again i am limiting this argument to my home nation for reasons of understanding; i would deem it unfair and ignorant to begin applying my limited knowledge to nations and their individual state of affairs. When i believe my knowledge dealing with the political atmosphere of other nations is satisfactory i will deal with them more straightforwardly.

The representational form of government that is consistent within the tiered parlimentary system of Australia (local, state, federal [the holy trinity]) not only does not truly represent an Australian population (even though there is preferential voting in place) nor does it create an active community minded government. The three year term structure, and relational term structure between the three tiers create numerous problems that lead to the aforementioned failings of Australian Government. However there is a deep seeded diplomatic contradiction within the democratic representation of the people within Australia's Representational Form of Parliamentary Government.

The two largest arguments against direct democracy are that: the people do not have enough time to access and understand the required mateials to make informed decisions upon the issues that are raised for 'parliamentary action'; and the fear of mob rule over the nation thus silencing minority groups. A third minor issue is raised by a few political sceptics, which is the question of a suitable forum for the duscussion of ideas, issues and voting to take place. This is obviously ignorant rehtoric. For the technological age has shown, via the internet, how easy it is to distribute information and forum like activities that lead to absolute action. We need only to site the protest marches across the world taking place on September 11th against the World Bank Organisation and the meeting that was held in Switzerland. Similar actions have been carried out for "Free The Streets" movements and further protests throughout the Western and Eastern Worlds...including anti-sweatshop actions and the McLibel suit. These have been documented in works by Noam Chomsky, Noami Campbell, and other contempory historians. The secure networking capabilities of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and other international intelligence organisations - especially INTERPOL - have shown that large electronic networking forums are possible with population sizes larger than the total population of Australia.

The result of mob rule within the structure of direct democracy is a fear of the staus quo at its worst. The current form of representational governement present within Australia is empowered by the majority of votes; a minor saving grace of the Australian Voting system is the use of preferential voting, which on some occasions deems what may seem an uncounatable vot as counting in a larger picture. Nevertheless the end result is governed by majority votes, which is not currently deemed as mob rule. The most probable reason that is not labelled as mob rule is because the "mob" does not decide directly what is to be done in action, instead the "mob's" representatives are positioned ot do just that: Insurrect the will of their voters. Under the three year term of Australian Government, the major deciding factor concerning parliament action is public concern, especially within the federal sector, the Party's main concern as being re-elected for the next term. This has been excelently exampled by the current Howard Government of the last three terms in their adoption of unprecedented use of the public opinion polls conducted by a newly instigated opinion directorate installed by the Howard Government. Appropriately the policies of the Howard Governement have remained absurdly pragmatic and at times openly hypocritical when such issues as the "Children Overboard" and the "Troop Withdrawal (from Indonesia and Iraq)" are examined. Of course one must also examine the policies of the opposition party (Labour), which have incidently been non existent due to their current strategy of creating policies that oppose that of the current government within powere (Howard), and since the current government refuse to set policies the opposition party has been left with nothing to oppose. It follows that the opposition does not have a voting market, due to the lack of policy making, which has lead to leadership reshuffling (incidently reminiscent of the Australian Democratic Party). The end political result is passive mob rule.

Under properly instrumented Direct Democracy "mob" rule becomes the action that benefits the largest number of citizens in a unique self staisfying utilitarian form of government. In the event that every individual votes in favour of what outcome best favours their own individual circumstance the end result will logically be the action that could only result in satisfying the needs and wants of the largest number of citizens. This defies "mob" rule in the form that it is not any one organisation or social group that unifies itself by sacrificing individual motivation to manufacture an end result that benefits a "mob". In this scenario the it is the well organised (fanatical) minorites that may potentially have a 'distinct' voice within a direct democracy due to the fact that memebers of some minorities may be willing to forgo their rights as citizens to vote in accordance to their individual needs to represent a greater 'cause'. At this moment we recognise the writings of Rawls' progeny Nocke in realising the political 'makeup' of the individual via his/her spheres of influence. An individual's political motives are influenced by the spheres in which one is actively participating within. For it stands to reason that a member of a cycling group will have in his/her political make-up the importance of dedicated cycling paths because ultimately the individual realises that this will not only benefit the group he/she identifies themself with but also oneself. across the board indivduals are made by there spheres of influence and their individual decisions are inseperable from them, but at a base level the result is instincively benefitting the individual at heart.

The first refutation (that people do not have suifficient time to understand important and complex political issues) is by far the most difficult to comprehensively reply to. In one part the refutation links directly to the aforementioned counter-argument to "mob" rule, in as much as the individual for the individual's sake by one's daily activies within their spheres of influence make informed decisions. Therefore if the individual deemed it necessary that one should acquire more time to understand more diverse and complex political issues to sufficiently govern their nation as a citizen then it follows the decision would be made (into action). Society is arbitary as it is made up of individuals. Take for example the closure of the Australian market over the Easter Period. From Good Friday to Easter Monday the Australian Business and Trading Market is shut-down for the will of the people - the market is exclusively defined by the people's needs and wants. People (society) need to have a functioning economy to maintain a wanted standard of living, yet simultanouesly people want to enjoy their lives and celebrate important religious festivals thus creating a need to ultimately control the economy - in a shutdown method.
A secondary counter argument, as an advantage to the system of direct democracy, relates to the people within the specialised areas. When political decisions pertaining to such public services as education and health, the professionals within the areas under political affect are rarely heard under Australia's current politcal atmosphere. Usually strikes and union stages are enacted in order for concrete public discussion to take place. Ultimately it is the professionals wihtin their specific areas that are comepltely aware of the issues and are directly affected by them in their working lives. What needs to be done becomes expressed among the professional communities within theior respective areas, however Direct Democracy creates a working forum in which professionals can discuss their industries problems and put forward proposed solutions and syntheses for public discussion whereas normally this would be filtered via politicians and media magnates.

Media outputs within a nation of direct democracy would ultimately have more responsibility to present/represent the core social and political issues that concern the now 'empowered' voter that no longer needs to be concerned with character debates or political subtefuge. The political bias, counter and pro subtefuge, and misrepresentation (decontextualisation) os the media can be sufficiently removed due to the source being removed, namely the 'middle men' of government, our poltical representatives. The true reporting ethics of unbiased media as a source of information on which the populus may make informed political decisions will be a necessary section of society that becomes answerable not only to society - in the complex relationship of media shaping society and society shaping media - but also answerable to truth itself.  ¶ 7:43 pm 0 Comments

  ENGL2104: New Virtues New Vices Butler - Crowley

RESTORATION POETS
-> trying to do something different (from Milton)
-> from the political event of Charles II ascention to King after the Commonwealth

MILTON: *English people are depraved backsliders
*Loss of 'Godsend' commonwealth
- this is why Paradise Lost is not a National Epic (unlike Illiad and Odyssey)

Vehement Supporter of commonwealth
-> the majority of English (slaves) have no right to vote on political ruling (they wanted MONARCHY)
=> MILTON is not a MODERN LIBERAL

Early 1660's relief that the REVOLUTION is over and ORDER restored -> shown within POETRY
-> aspects of Modern Liberal Society

BUTLER - HUDIBRIS
+ retrospective poem -> obvious description of civil wars
=> opposition to established heroes => BUT Butler presents SATRICICAL POEM
-> ridicule and comedy
-> resisting the seriousness of the puritans
-> closed theatre 1642

* Comical ridicule of MILTON and other revolutionaries
-. making fun of militant protestants
|-> much less enjambent
|->pause at end of line
-> accentuated by puncuation

* HOW BUTLER ATTACK REVOLUTIONARIES
Metaphoric use of ANIMALS ~> ridicule
-> Butler uses animals as lower than MAN
* underlying assumptions : Vocative use of ANIMAL
-> positive or negative?

HYPERBOLE:
DIRECT/LITERAL ASSERTION: flat description and insult
TRAVERSTY: Analogy of Chivalric Knights -> debased versions of elevated classics
-> presenting revolutionaries as travesties of something that was PURE/GOOD
VERSE FORM:

CHARACTERISTICS BEING ATTACKED
- LANGUAGE
-> polemic
-> not understandable
-> rhetoric
- metaphor
- tropes
- metonymies

- PROTESTANTISM/PRESBYTERIANISM
-> resorting to violence....'pike and gun'

- 'INNER LIGHT'
-> guarentee of truth
-> justification of knowledge
-> godlike intuition


LOCKE attacks (seriously) the grounds of justification of knowledge via 'inner light'.
-> criterion of truth :-> anything that you strongly believe in has got to be true

- RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITY
-> punishment of themselves
-> endure

Labels: english, notes

  ¶ 9:47 pm 0 Comments

  As Always What if the world started turning on a different axis

What if London Town burned into the ground

What if the planes fell from the sky hung in the air

Would you be around
would you be around
would you be around for me?

What if the sea dried up in its glory before your eyes

What if the fish swam away what would we eat today

What if the world started turning on a different axis

Would you be around
would you be around
would you be around for me?  ¶ 6:22 pm 1 Comments

  Kant The object cannot have any truth that is separable from the subject.
- that truth us always bound to human cognitive faculty

Explanatory value: make claim - incorporate into concepts

CONCEPT
- discursivity
- spontaniety

INTUITION
- passivity
- receptivity

Enlightenment -> Reason
- Reflects critical function
- presents as a power of explanation

CRITICAL: As extreme takes reason to Skepticism
- this conclusions is unacceptable for KANT
genuine knowledge is divorced from experience

EXPLANATION: A radical Naturalism -> Measurable and Accountable
- also unacceptable for KANT

+ TRANSCENDING DIVISION OF REASON
Community within METAPHYSICS
KANT: agrees with HUME in separating instances and human understanding (of CAUSE and EFFECT)
- BUT - KANT: wishes to understand both as experience

*EXAMINE HOW we COGNISE before we cognise!
-> what is reasons's relationship to reason (itself).
That traditional metaphysicscould get to unconditioned truth outside HUMAN CONDITION => only skepticism.
KANT: remove the 'other' domain that is unknowable. The 'other' domain is only knowable by itself.

The CONDITION of EXPERIENCE
* Cognition is the condition of experience as it allows our judging and provides us with the conceptual architectonic for having experience.

Leibneiz's position - TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM is unable to show how we recognise the property tht the mind asserts to be true of the object unless we first saw the propert in the object, in which case the truth is not a priori.

KANT claims that RATIONALISTS tacitly rely on imperial facts.

+ What are the conditions of experience? How are they transcendental? -> this is Critique of Reason!

An account is ALWAYS a human condition ACCOUNT; of any object or concept.

KANT"S CORNICOPIAN REVOLUTION:
-> that the 'truth' is moved from the OBJECT to the SUBJECT - the human condition.
* That the subject constitutes the object.
-> our cognitive capacity

TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM & the OBJECT of EXPERIENCE

SENSORY:
- contigent : a posteriori
- truth of fact
- true by experience

NON - EMPIRICAL:
- necessary
- a priori : truth of reason
- true by logic

This rigid division is found in traditional Metaphysics - however KANT will show how this can 'collapse', thus becoming less rigid.

Labels: notes, philosophy

  ¶ 8:43 pm 0 Comments

  Inaugral Dissertation Character of KANT +> PHILOSOPHICAL HOME -> critically challenging philosophical truth
=> sifting through many viewpoints (encyclopeadic knowledge)

Self criticism leads to "Critique of Pure Reason"
* Begins with schematic writings that critique others (such as Wolf)

KANTS METAPHYSICS: principle of sufficient reason (purpose)
-> explaining fundamental rationale

TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM: => reason alone / intelligence
-> Leibniz
-. Wolf
EMPIRICISM => experiemce / sensibility

The Inaugral Dissertation grants the validity of BOTH Realism and Empiricism
-> identified problem as their 'state of separateness'

HUME:
-> removal of rationale from nature
-> that people infer REASON (cause and effect) in NATURE
-> causation cannot be taken from objects themselves -> it is something we impose

Inaugral Dissertation -> identifies (2) divisions -> then 'passes them up'

Sensuality:
sensibility is the receptibility of the subject through which it is possible that its represented state should be affected in a certain manner bu the prescence o fsome object...
- PHENOMENON -

Intelligence:
rationality is the faculty of the subject through which it is able to represent things that cannot by their own nature come before the senses of that subject...'
- NOUMENON -

*Sensitive Cognition:
-> how the subject is modified by the object
(392/54)

REPRESENTATION:
+ relation between mind and world
+ meaning is obtained because it refers to something other than itself
* How does the sound relate to the external world?

INTELLECT
+ Elentic -> prevents contamination
+ Dogmatic -> general principles

Grasps the ideal form of 'sensible' objects.
-> without creating a separate world of ideals (similar to PLATO?)

Elentic => housekeeping - separates phenomenon from nuomenon
Dogmatic => position to discern universal concepts
(ID 411/70)

Intellectual intuition is a Platonic concept: "it was the form of insight transcending all discursive thinking where the intellect had a pure vision of the forms themselves". (beiser 2002 pg. 37)

* Sensible knowledge is not an illusion
-> assert the existence of objects

7) TRANSITION to the 'Critique of Pure Reason' (CPR)
Intellectual Cognition still allowss Quasi-Platonic concepts
-> things (abstract) that are still wholly bound to intellect

Sense / Intellect => central division (CPR)
Inaugral Dissertation => worked this division -> upheld and defended
CPR => rejects division -> aims to blend the two

LETTER to HERTZ (self-criticism)
1) " If the representation contains only the manner in which the subject is affected by the object then it is easy to see how the [representation] is in conformity with the obbject as an affect in accord with its cause."
(130/81)

2) "If the object were created by the representation [as in the divine intuition] the conformity of these representations to the object could be understood."
(130/81-2)

* Our intuitions and our intellect must be able to applu to the same object of experience

Intellect must relate to the spatio/temporal world of sensibility
+> in order to experience 'one must involve intellect and perceptibility (sensibility)'.

+> concepts must show their essential relation to the correlating object

* KANT combines the (2) faculties "which, while quite different, can supply objectively valid judgments only in conjunction with each other". (A 371/B 327)

Labels: notes, philosophy

  ¶ 11:13 pm 0 Comments