Kant

[Veritas Aequitas]

My OP wasn't about reification fallacies, obviously. We already consider, assume those issues to be solved. You keep bringing that in (and Eodnhoj is basing his entire 'philosophy' on it.)

Your OP could allude to reification of the noumenon;

Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.

The noumenon is only directly knowable if it is reified as "real" thing that can be known as knowledge. Btw, this is all illusory.

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Kant stated we can only think of Things-in-Themselves termed a noumenon for empirical-related thing-in-itself.
So when you state "So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'" that implied they [forms, ideas, universals] have to be reified to be known.

[Atla]

My OP wasn't about reification fallacies, obviously. We already consider, assume those issues to be solved. You keep bringing that in (and Eodnhoj is basing his entire 'philosophy' on it.)

Your OP could allude to reification of the noumenon;

Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.

The noumenon is only directly knowable if it is reified as "real" thing that can be known as knowledge. Btw, this is all illusory.

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Kant stated we can only think of Things-in-Themselves termed a noumenon for empirical-related thing-in-itself.
So when you state "So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'" that implied they [forms, ideas, universals] have to be reified to be known.

I wasn't talking about ideas themselves, or reification fallacies at all.

Noumenon today simply means what 'causes' appearances, and what exists but doesn't even appear. The part of the world that isn't directly knowable.

We divided the world into two categories but went too far, assuming that phenomena and noumena really are intrinsically different, which led Western philosophy to a dead end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My OP wasn't about reification fallacies, obviously. We already consider, assume those issues to be solved. You keep bringing that in (and Eodnhoj is basing his entire 'philosophy' on it.)

Your OP could allude to reification of the noumenon;

Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly).

But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'.

The noumenon is only directly knowable if it is reified as "real" thing that can be known as knowledge. Btw, this is all illusory.

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Kant stated we can only think of Things-in-Themselves termed a noumenon for empirical-related thing-in-itself.
So when you state "So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'" that implied they [forms, ideas, universals] have to be reified to be known.

I wasn't talking about ideas themselves, or reification fallacies at all.

Noumenon today simply means what 'causes' appearances, and what exists but doesn't even appear. The part of the world that isn't directly knowable.

We divided the world into two categories but went too far, assuming that phenomena and noumena really are intrinsically different, which led Western philosophy to a dead end.

Somehow you cannot escape the reification impulse.

In your above you are reifying the noumena as a thing, albeit unknowable.

We cannot take it that phenomena and noumena are the same or intrinscally the same.

A phenomena is a real thing that can be known.
The noumena is merely a limiting concept like a National Boundary which a rough line agreed within the minds of each governments.
A national boundary or whatever boundary is always an estimation, to insist it exist in the real sense is illusory.
A national boundary is based on mountains, rivers, and other physical things but what is precise basis of delineation of the boundary. The most precise delineation is to separate based on atoms, sub-particles, but this is not practical or almost impossible.
Thus the limiting boundary or the noumenon as a limiting concept cannot be something that is real or thing unknowable.

Note SEP has a whole article on boundary, i.e. limit.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boundary/

I have present the following quote many times, but I don't foresee you will ever understand it clearly;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

[Atla]

Your OP could allude to reification of the noumenon;



The noumenon is only directly knowable if it is reified as "real" thing that can be known as knowledge. Btw, this is all illusory.

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Kant stated we can only think of Things-in-Themselves termed a noumenon for empirical-related thing-in-itself.
So when you state "So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'" that implied they [forms, ideas, universals] have to be reified to be known.

I wasn't talking about ideas themselves, or reification fallacies at all.

Noumenon today simply means what 'causes' appearances, and what exists but doesn't even appear. The part of the world that isn't directly knowable.

We divided the world into two categories but went too far, assuming that phenomena and noumena really are intrinsically different, which led Western philosophy to a dead end.

Somehow you cannot escape the reification impulse.

In your above you are reifying the noumena as a thing, albeit unknowable.

We cannot take it that phenomena and noumena are the same or intrinscally the same.

A phenomena is a real thing that can be known.
The noumena is merely a limiting concept like a National Boundary which a rough line agreed within the minds of each governments.
A national boundary or whatever boundary is always an estimation, to insist it exist in the real sense is illusory.
A national boundary is based on mountains, rivers, and other physical things but what is precise basis of delineation of the boundary. The most precise delineation is to separate based on atoms, sub-particles, but this is not practical or almost impossible.
Thus the limiting boundary or the noumenon as a limiting concept cannot be something that is real or thing unknowable.

Note SEP has a whole article on boundary, i.e. limit.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boundary/

I have present the following quote many times, but I don't foresee you will ever understand it clearly;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

Today noumenon isn't abstract and isn't a limiting concept anymore. Why are you incapable of understanding this?
(It's only limiting in the sense that it can't be directly known, just assumed)

Of course I'm reifying the CONCRETE noumenon, that's the whole point of going beyond idiotic metaphysical solipsism.

Seriously come back when you can carry a conversation in English using post 18th century language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wasn't talking about ideas themselves, or reification fallacies at all.

Noumenon today simply means what 'causes' appearances, and what exists but doesn't even appear. The part of the world that isn't directly knowable.

We divided the world into two categories but went too far, assuming that phenomena and noumena really are intrinsically different, which led Western philosophy to a dead end.

Somehow you cannot escape the reification impulse.

In your above you are reifying the noumena as a thing, albeit unknowable.

We cannot take it that phenomena and noumena are the same or intrinscally the same.

A phenomena is a real thing that can be known.
The noumena is merely a limiting concept like a National Boundary which a rough line agreed within the minds of each governments.
A national boundary or whatever boundary is always an estimation, to insist it exist in the real sense is illusory.
A national boundary is based on mountains, rivers, and other physical things but what is precise basis of delineation of the boundary. The most precise delineation is to separate based on atoms, sub-particles, but this is not practical or almost impossible.
Thus the limiting boundary or the noumenon as a limiting concept cannot be something that is real or thing unknowable.

Note SEP has a whole article on boundary, i.e. limit.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boundary/

I have present the following quote many times, but I don't foresee you will ever understand it clearly;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

Today noumenon isn't abstract and isn't a limiting concept anymore. Why are you incapable of understanding this?
(It's only limiting in the sense that it can't be directly known, just assumed)

Of course I'm reifying the CONCRETE noumenon, that's the whole point of going beyond idiotic metaphysical solipsism.

Seriously come back when you can carry a conversation in English using post 18th century language.

Today??
Whose today?

If it is non-Kantian, then you should have qualified.

In any case, there is no present today definition of the 'noumenon' that is distinctively different from Kant's definition.

[Atla]

Today??
Whose today?

If it is non-Kantian, then you should have qualified.

In any case, there is no present today definition of the 'noumenon' that is distinctively different from Kant's definition.

Do you disagree with the following?

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Noumenon definition is - a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.

Noumenon definition, the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, not perceived or interpreted, incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

noumenon - A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as such unable to be known through sense perception but postulated as the intelligible ground of a phenomenon

noumenon - an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.

noumenon - the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception

[Veritas Aequitas]

Today??
Whose today?

If it is non-Kantian, then you should have qualified.

In any case, there is no present today definition of the 'noumenon' that is distinctively different from Kant's definition.

Do you disagree with the following?

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Noumenon definition is - a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.

Noumenon definition, the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, not perceived or interpreted, incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

noumenon - A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as such unable to be known through sense perception but postulated as the intelligible ground of a phenomenon

noumenon - an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.

noumenon - the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception

I believe in all the above cases the 'noumenon' is reducible to Kantian philosophy.

• In metaphysics, the noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νούμενον) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
  wiki

If you check the above definition to the original reference, note;

• 1. "Noumenon | Definition of Noumenon by Webster's Online Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2015-09-10. 1. intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception; 2. The of-itself-unknown and unknowable rational object, or thing-in-itself, which is distinguished from the phenomenon through which it is apprehended by the physical senses, and by which it is interpreted and understood; – so used in the philosophy of Kant and his followers.

In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is restricted to empirical related forms, ideas and universals, i.e. empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. noumenal apple aka apple-in-itself.

The noumenon is not related to non-empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. independent God, the independent soul that survives physical death.

If anyone were to define the noumenom as unrelated to anything empirical, that would be have nothing to do with Kant but a personal view of the one who defined it.
In this case we will have to read up [his book, etc.] to understand the specific context. If such a perverted case exists, I don't think it will be well accepted within the philosophical community.

[Atla]

Today??
Whose today?

If it is non-Kantian, then you should have qualified.

In any case, there is no present today definition of the 'noumenon' that is distinctively different from Kant's definition.

Do you disagree with the following?

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Noumenon definition is - a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.

Noumenon definition, the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, not perceived or interpreted, incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

noumenon - A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as such unable to be known through sense perception but postulated as the intelligible ground of a phenomenon

noumenon - an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.

noumenon - the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception

I believe in all the above cases the 'noumenon' is reducible to Kantian philosophy.

• In metaphysics, the noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νούμενον) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
  wiki

If you check the above definition to the original reference, note;

• 1. "Noumenon | Definition of Noumenon by Webster's Online Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2015-09-10. 1. intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception; 2. The of-itself-unknown and unknowable rational object, or thing-in-itself, which is distinguished from the phenomenon through which it is apprehended by the physical senses, and by which it is interpreted and understood; – so used in the philosophy of Kant and his followers.

In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is restricted to empirical related forms, ideas and universals, i.e. empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. noumenal apple aka apple-in-itself.

The noumenon is not related to non-empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. independent God, the independent soul that survives physical death.

If anyone were to define the noumenom as unrelated to anything empirical, that would be have nothing to do with Kant but a personal view of the one who defined it.
In this case we will have to read up [his book, etc.] to understand the specific context. If such a perverted case exists, I don't think it will be well accepted within the philosophical community.

If you accept these definitions (and yes they are reducible to Kantian philosophy), and you agree that noumenon isn't related to the non-empirical,

then why are you babbling abut the non-empirical and illusions for dozens of pages?

Are you talking to us, or are you wrestling with your past theist self?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you disagree with the following?

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.

Noumenon definition is - a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.

Noumenon definition, the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, not perceived or interpreted, incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

noumenon - A thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

noumenon - a thing as it is in itself, as such unable to be known through sense perception but postulated as the intelligible ground of a phenomenon

noumenon - an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.

noumenon - the intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception

I believe in all the above cases the 'noumenon' is reducible to Kantian philosophy.

• In metaphysics, the noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νούμενον) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
  wiki

If you check the above definition to the original reference, note;

• 1. "Noumenon | Definition of Noumenon by Webster's Online Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2015-09-10. 1. intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception; 2. The of-itself-unknown and unknowable rational object, or thing-in-itself, which is distinguished from the phenomenon through which it is apprehended by the physical senses, and by which it is interpreted and understood; – so used in the philosophy of Kant and his followers.

In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is restricted to empirical related forms, ideas and universals, i.e. empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. noumenal apple aka apple-in-itself.

The noumenon is not related to non-empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. independent God, the independent soul that survives physical death.

If anyone were to define the noumenom as unrelated to anything empirical, that would be have nothing to do with Kant but a personal view of the one who defined it.
In this case we will have to read up [his book, etc.] to understand the specific context. If such a perverted case exists, I don't think it will be well accepted within the philosophical community.

If you accept these definitions (and yes they are reducible to Kantian philosophy), and you agree that noumenon isn't related to the non-empirical,

then why are you babbling abut the non-empirical and illusions for dozens of pages?

Are you talking to us, or are you wrestling with your past theist self?

Because within the context of the whole of the CPR, the non-empirical and illusion carry a weightage of 90% compared to the empirical-related noumenon at 10%.
As such it is critical I put the noumenon in its proper perspective in relation to the thing-in-itself right from the start to prevent the wrong understanding of the noumenon.

The CPR is one long argument and the noumenon is merely a part of it.
It was never Kant's intention for the noumenon to be a standalone point.

• A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
  Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.
  
  If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
  B-xliii

[Atla]

I believe in all the above cases the 'noumenon' is reducible to Kantian philosophy.

• In metaphysics, the noumenon (/ˈnuːmənɒn/, UK also /ˈnaʊ-/; from Greek: νούμενον) is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.[1]
  wiki

If you check the above definition to the original reference, note;

• 1. "Noumenon | Definition of Noumenon by Webster's Online Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2015-09-10. 1. intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is known through perception; 2. The of-itself-unknown and unknowable rational object, or thing-in-itself, which is distinguished from the phenomenon through which it is apprehended by the physical senses, and by which it is interpreted and understood; – so used in the philosophy of Kant and his followers.

In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is restricted to empirical related forms, ideas and universals, i.e. empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. noumenal apple aka apple-in-itself.

The noumenon is not related to non-empirical_things-in-themselves, e.g. independent God, the independent soul that survives physical death.

If anyone were to define the noumenom as unrelated to anything empirical, that would be have nothing to do with Kant but a personal view of the one who defined it.
In this case we will have to read up [his book, etc.] to understand the specific context. If such a perverted case exists, I don't think it will be well accepted within the philosophical community.

If you accept these definitions (and yes they are reducible to Kantian philosophy), and you agree that noumenon isn't related to the non-empirical,

then why are you babbling abut the non-empirical and illusions for dozens of pages?

Are you talking to us, or are you wrestling with your past theist self?

Because within the context of the whole of the CPR, the non-empirical and illusion carry a weightage of 90% compared to the empirical-related noumenon at 10%.
As such it is critical I put the noumenon in its proper perspective in relation to the thing-in-itself right from the start to prevent the wrong understanding of the noumenon.

The CPR is one long argument and the noumenon is merely a part of it.
It was never Kant's intention for the noumenon to be a standalone point.

• A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
  Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.
  
  If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
  B-xliii

But then you do NOT agree with today's meaning of noumenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But then you do NOT agree with today's meaning of noumenon.

I have already shown, there is no specific meaning of today's meaning of noumenon without reference to Kantian philosophy which is basically this;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

which you do not agree with.

[Atla]

But then you do NOT agree with today's meaning of noumenon.

I have already shown, there is no specific meaning of today's meaning of noumenon without reference to Kantian philosophy which is basically this;

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  B311

which you do not agree with.

You've been exposed and now you merely resort to twisting things.
'Reference' isn't the same as 'same meaning'.

[Eodnhoj7]

As usual yours is a red herring from conflation.

Note Kant defined and differentiated a priori from a posteriori,

• In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori Knowledge, not Knowledge independent of this or that Experience, but Knowledge Absolutely Independent of all Experience. B32
  Opposed to it is Empirical Knowledge, which is Knowledge Possible only a posteriori, that is, through Experience.
  B3

The above is the basis Kant relied upon to justify his points in the CPR.

At the very extreme one can argue black is white, thus a priori is also a posteriori, but this is off tangent from the issue.

Actually you are using fallacies as a redherring, as there is no proof it is off topic. Second your accusations are contextual and subject to the fallacy of

1. Ad Hoc Rescue (as your are trying to save your beleifs in light of the evidence they are assumptions and rely on empty contexts)

2. Fallacy of Ambiguity in light of point 1.

3. Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence, as you strictly do not have enough evidence to back up your claims empirically.

4. Fallacy of Anthropomorphism as you claim subjectivity and group agreement (other fallacies) determine not just scientific truths but also rational understanding.

5. Appeal to Consequence relative to the circularity of all phenomena.

6. Appeal to emotions as you are trying build a scientifically oriented system around world peace which is not only undefined but inherently emotional.

7. Appeal to Past Practice, as you claimed the scientific practice worked in the past (which has fallacies issues as well) but this does not prove they will work in the future.

8. Argument from Outrage; your stances are built upon a negation of specific belief systems.

9. Black or white fallacy; either your system or noone elses.

10. Fallacy of Cherry Picked Evidence; you fail to take into account the deaths science has brought forth as well as opposing points of view to Kant (and his inherent contradictions).

11. Etc. I am bored....

A posteriori is an a priori concept, a prior concepts are defined through a posteriori phenomenon...it is fallacious.

The proof is quite literally Kant's writings...a priori is described a posteriori and we are left with a posterior existing as described, thus sensory, but as assumed becoming a priori again.

Kant strictly defined the senses into a dualism of what is definable (a posteriori) and what is indefinable (apriori) in certain respects.

Knowledge independent of experience is fundamentally empty and assume, thus this set the foundation for a priori being not only "void" but the act of assumption itself and self negating.

You are equivocating the above.

"a priori is described a posteriori"
In this case you are implying black is white, p is not-p, thus a contradiction.

Note I argued in the other thread ANEKANTAVADA
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27514
it is possible for p to be held in the same stance as not-p but only if they are presented in a different perspective, i.e.

In your above you are conflating and equivocating.

I suggest you refer directly to Kant's CPR instead of merely expressing your opinions without reference to the CPR. In this case we have a common basis we can argue upon.

Contextual looping, but even under equivocation...that is Kant's fault not mine. If a contradiction occurs a contradiction occurs...you cannot go around stating everything is distinct.

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't understand your point.

As for the number 1, that is derived from experiences.
Humans observed 'standalone' objects that are independent from other similar objects.
Thus a standalone 'independent' object within a group of similar objects is assigned the number 1 to differentiate it from another which is assigned as 2 and so on.

So 1 is a symbol that is assumed to differentiate phenomenon from other phenomenon...thus as subject to experience it necessitates subject belief and religious experience.

1 can mean an infinite number of things...it is subject to equivocation. So definition is grounded in something that quite literally is a manner of assuming reality?

One is how we assume phenomenon, thus an assumption?

So all of your logic is really just assuming things?

Where did I mention 'assumed'.

The significance of the symbol 1 is representing a mathematical concept of 1.
It is the mathematical concept of 1 that enable its reality as the emerged single empirical object.
One apple is really one apple which can be eaten. Such a 'one' is not assumed.

But 1 can equate to anything, for 1 to be an "apple" is for it to assume the apple. 1, the foundation of measurement and "reason" is not only a variable but subject to equivocation as it is an empty context.

Your foundations are built on nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Cognitive illusion is not a context. You keep reifying abstractions.

Actually it is a context as it is a statement of relation...and it is an abstraction...you cannot empirically see a cognitive illusion, thus even what we deem a cognitive illusion falls within it's own definition.

You also reify 'relation', that too is an abstraction in this sense.

It doesn't negative that cognitive illusion is an abstraction and as an abstraction it falls under it's own terminology and is self negating.

"Relation" is an observation fo intrinsic emptiness within one phenomena through its inherent self referencing, thus no phenomena exists in an of itself. It is an abstraction?...yes. It is empirical? Considering what separates the river from the land is an intrinsically empty curvature...also yes.

Kants stance does not address this however and as such is self negating.

The only true definition for a cognitive illusion, or any illusion for that matter, is seperation as contradiction. If it exists in multiple disconnected states it is an illusion, but this necessitates illusions existing as real, thus we are left with progressive definition as both illusion and "illusive".

Aristotelian identity and analysis result in the same illusions they seek to avoid by multiply propositions endlessly...no wonder why the west is in chaos.