Philosophy Now Forum

This is a post I develop here but that I will use for my own philosophy blog too.

I have just come to the conclusion that I need to review my philosophy. An important part of it claims that males and females or rather Significant Others, have complementary intuitions and realizations. It has become clear to me now, that I have been subject to that myself in writing my whole text. I don't believe that the figures are wrong, for they fit too well and seem to tell the story all on their own. The text can hardly keep up with them, so to speak.

I have always assumed that material and cultural reality create or produce intuition, as a part of it, that in itself reflects itself and reality. Reality is the environment, the other, or the Significant Other. However. When I follow the force of my own logic, I now realize that intuition (not talking about its own self-reflection now) creates reality just as much as reality creates it. So a part of reality creates reality and that part is called intuition. Our very own.

I have always assumed that reality must independently confirm intuition, to make sure that it functions properly. That is intuition prior to realization. Then, intuition posterior to realization needs to independently confirm or reject it as being or not being what was aimed for. Now, I realize that this sequence may be reversed: starting with the independent confirmation of realization by intuition, followed by the independent confirmation of intuition by realization.

The difference is how selective attention can be for our environment, reality, the other or the Significant Other. How open or closed is the mind. How open or closed is morality. Does morality really need, like I still believe, independent confirmation in all its constructively recollected elements? It is my argument against postmodern disfiguration of philosophy in general and a misunderstanding of Bergson's criticism of Kant in particular (last paragraphs of my philosophy).

Why does Descartes' proof for god fail?

-Imp

Hi Imp. I don't know why it fails, for I don't know how he understood God exactly or how people generally understood God in the 17th century, even though Descartes lived four years in the windmill De Zandhaas of my home village (as if that could have anything to do with it).

Maybe this is my way of coping with the problem of being sensitive only to one's (my) own input. After a while, or rather after a loooong while, certain ideas or facts are still very much alive, while others have long gone. Of course, they all were selected by me, but time has taken 99 out of 100 out. What I am stuck with are not only problematic things that still need processing. They are also things that tell me who I am or where I need to go, especially when they really get alive by revitalizing each other, being so close to the core apparently, having survived the selection process of time, and speeding time up and making gravity stronger, as if it was a galaxy about to implode and become a Red Dwarf, emitting gamma rays in the process. Anyway, I have very many pet thoughts (and they are all recollected in my knowledgebase), but only a dozen or so are definitely in the final rounds, so that is where my attention is drawn without a feeling of only having attention for myself, grossly overestimating myself.
http://constructiverecollection.blogspo ... to-be.html

Watch out, you're starting to sound a bit like Kant. At least from a broader conceptual view where the specific meanings behind the terms of differing systems might become less sensitive to an outcry of non-commensurability between them.

.




Ron I continue to be enthralled and impressed with your views of the world.


I did the Google map thingy with your De Zandhaas location. What a neat place. Everything around the windmill looks so well kept!


Do you live near there?






............................................






I don't know what the caption says...but I'm assuming that this is a photo taken of your army.


................................................

................................Manne wakker worden, vrouwelijke soldaten | Para Commando, ParaCdo...














.

You make it sound as if it would not be a great honor to even sound a bit like Kant. As you may have read, I do not share postmodern understanding that cultural multiplicity is missing from his work, making it dogmatic. How hard can it be to understand his criticisms as the search for Truth in the same way we have always done so before and since which does imply something similar but that would be dualism, not multiplicity. “Reinstate the duality of origin, and the difficulties vanish” (Bergson 1932, p79).

Yes I live about 30 miles from there. When I grew up there I did not fully realize how politically correct it was, much like what we see on the left now, but that was more to the right. It had an impact on my decision to become a social psychologist no doubt.

Yes that is our army. Here is another picture of it.



The woman in front is actually a Dutch newsreader.

The caption to your photo says: "Men, wake up, female soldiers".

.





....................................AMAZING!



What an amazing, incredible life you lead!




.

I guess the answer to How selective does attention need to be, is: the more objective we can be, the less selectiveness is needed. And being objective, we sense what we sense and know what we sense (realize), without letting that knowledge interfere with what we sense. Then, we no longer only sense what we sense, but also sense what we know (intuit). That means that in that controlled situation, sensing only uses knowing to sense more and better and less selectively.

who needs justification or Truth?

we believe what we want to believe

your senses lie to you, our senses are truth

when you believe what we want you to believe, we'll believe it is true

and he loved big brother...

-Imp