Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

[owl of Minerva]

I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.

I did not post a response to this correctly so you may have missed it.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has many gaps. While the theory holds, as process, origin and an understanding of whether what emerged was elemental to the process or was created; evolved from the process, is not clear, nor is the origin of the process itself. Although origin is not necessary to validate it, its absence is a vagueness that requires answers.

A study of all that is elemental is important, I agree. But physics studying the last, or first element: space, is especially interesting as evolution is top down, its origins have a better chance of shedding light on what evolved and on how it evolved.

Philosophy has and still plays a leading role as thought that is primary to any research or theory. Maybe all philosophy starts as armchair philosophy, as reflection. In academia if it is too intellectualized, not related to anything fundamental, it can be sterile and not applicable to anything, just a circular enterprise.

As I had stated the top-down approach based on empirical evidences [verified, justified and polished] attempts to go as deep down as possible without anticipation of a starting point. As such we can establish sufficient confidence levels from the conclusion drawn.
Heisenberg's Observable Turn: Kant's Copernican Turn
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34095

The bottom-up approach presume a starting point based on faith then works its way up, thus its conclusions are conditioned upon merely an assumption.
What is based on faith is always questionable, thus the ground in the bottom-up approach is shaky and vulnerable to be exploited.
The bottom-up approach is basically driven psychologically and this in general often end up with a God or some unproven entity.

Whatever the philosophy, what they must be grounded upon philosophy-proper which is an inherent function within all humans whilst active in some and dormant in most at present. As such we need to understand what philosophy-proper entails before doing philosophy.

Heisenberg’s Observable Turn, substituting physical variances with matrices is pertinent to the mathematics of theoretical physics.
Kant’s Copernican Turn is pertinent to the physical location of planet earth in the galaxy. The universe is not seen as having a physical center.

Conceptually Leonard Da Vinci saw man as the center of the universe. Perceptually Hildegard of Bingen agreed. Empiricists focus on physical location, not conceptual or perceptual location.

Scholastics capitulated to the physical location of planet earth. They saw life not from matrices but from a matrix; an entity whose simulation or system had to be considered in relation to what was physical, conceptual and perceptual; three different ways of seeing.

In regard to what is top-down; anti-realist or bottom up realist is debatable. The anti-realist is preferable as the realist is less reliable and is always open to question, or should be. It is a matter of opinion which views are more relative to one or the other. My views tend to be anti-realist as the realist perspective is always tenuous. Facts are more realist than anti-realist. Your perspective is apparently not in accord with that perspective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Heisenberg’s Observable Turn, substituting physical variances with matrices is pertinent to the mathematics of theoretical physics.
Kant’s Copernican Turn is pertinent to the physical location of planet earth in the galaxy. The universe is not seen as having a physical center.

Kant's Copernican Turn is not about physical location at all.

Note Rovelli's

• The best description of Reality that we have found is in terms of Events that weave a web of interactions.
  “Entities” are nothing other than ephemeral nodes in this web.

Kant's approach is the same as above, i.e. we cannot claim objects [including humans as objects] are absolutely independent things [thing-in-itself] but rather are interconnected emerging nodes within the web of interactions [things-with-other-things].

Conceptually Leonard Da Vinci saw man as the center of the universe. Perceptually Hildegard of Bingen agreed. Empiricists focus on physical location, not conceptual or perceptual location.

This differs from Kant unless the detail state otherwise.

Scholastics capitulated to the physical location of planet earth. They saw life not from matrices but from a matrix; an entity whose simulation or system had to be considered in relation to what was physical, conceptual and perceptual; three different ways of seeing.

Not 'Scholastics' which refer to theologians.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... olasticism

If things and life are emergent from a matrix, i.e. a web of interconnections in totality, then that is something for consideration.

In regard to what is top-down; anti-realist or bottom up realist is debatable. The anti-realist is preferable as the realist is less reliable and is always open to question, or should be. It is a matter of opinion which views are more relative to one or the other. My views tend to be anti-realist as the realist perspective is always tenuous. Facts are more realist than anti-realist. Your perspective is apparently not in accord with that perspective.

Note sure of your point.
The debate is whether the realist or anti-realist [Kantian] is more realistic.
Note there are various anti-realist ideology which are not realistic, so a qualification is needed here.
I believe the Kantian empirical realism is the more realistic than the rest.

[owl of Minerva]

Heisenberg’s Observable Turn, substituting physical variances with matrices is pertinent to the mathematics of theoretical physics.
Kant’s Copernican Turn is pertinent to the physical location of planet earth in the galaxy. The universe is not seen as having a physical center.

Kant's Copernican Turn is not about physical location at all.

Note Rovelli's

• The best description of Reality that we have found is in terms of Events that weave a web of interactions.
  “Entities” are nothing other than ephemeral nodes in this web.

Kant's approach is the same as above, i.e. we cannot claim objects [including humans as objects] are absolutely independent things [thing-in-itself] but rather are interconnected emerging nodes within the web of interactions [things-with-other-things].

Conceptually Leonard Da Vinci saw man as the center of the universe. Perceptually Hildegard of Bingen agreed. Empiricists focus on physical location, not conceptual or perceptual location.

This differs from Kant unless the detail state otherwise.

Scholastics capitulated to the physical location of planet earth. They saw life not from matrices but from a matrix; an entity whose simulation or system had to be considered in relation to what was physical, conceptual and perceptual; three different ways of seeing.

Not 'Scholastics' which refer to theologians.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... olasticism

If things and life are emergent from a matrix, i.e. a web of interconnections in totality, then that is something for consideration.

In regard to what is top-down; anti-realist or bottom up realist is debatable. The anti-realist is preferable as the realist is less reliable and is always open to question, or should be. It is a matter of opinion which views are more relative to one or the other. My views tend to be anti-realist as the realist perspective is always tenuous. Facts are more realist than anti-realist. Your perspective is apparently not in accord with that perspective.

Note sure of your point.
The debate is whether the realist or anti-realist [Kantian] is more realistic.
Note there are various anti-realist ideology which are not realistic, so a qualification is needed here.
I believe the Kantian empirical realism is the more realistic than the rest.

Kant’s Copernican Turn is not about physical location as was Galileo’s theory but it is pertinent to place from where the viewer is: at the center as observer with space revolving outside or as observer, looking towards a center. I disagree that Kant saw the observer as object rather than subject; a thing-among-things. Rovelli is a scientist not a philosopher, he studies the objective world, not the subjective as it relates to the objective. There is no Western philosopher who does not see two spheres; knower in one, known in the other. In Eastern philosophy it is different, there knower and known are in the one sphere.

Realists are in sync with conventional wisdom. Anti-realists are not.

Kant can be compared with DaVinci neither saw man as subservient to a web. For DaVinci man was the web, he proved mathematically in Vitruvian Man that man was the measure of all things; within a square within a circle at the center of the universe. This lead to Renaissance humanism and the end of Scholastic rationalizing the non-rational which was something DaVinci would not do as both hemispheres of his brain were active, rather than one active and one dormant. For DaVinci the-thing-in-itself and things-in-themselves were not either/or but both. Kant philosophy is from the perspective of the left hemisphere and he aptly refuted Humes’ claims through his own perspective of phenomena, noumena and synthetic a priori (categories).

Kant’s empirical realism is definitely an advance on Hume but not on DaVinci who was philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and artist. No one’s views are more realistic than DaVinci’s. Unfortunately, the humanism of the Renaissance deteriorated to what could be described as left hemisphere rationalism which is another version of the scholastic rationalizing the non-rational. Secular humanism does not rationalize the non-rational; it does not perceive it to exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant’s Copernican Turn is not about physical location as was Galileo’s theory but it is pertinent to place from where the viewer is: at the center as observer with space revolving outside or as observer, looking towards a center. I disagree that Kant saw the observer as object rather than subject; a thing-among-things. Rovelli is a scientist not a philosopher, he studies the objective world, not the subjective as it relates to the objective. There is no Western philosopher who does not see two spheres; knower in one, known in the other. In Eastern philosophy it is different, there knower and known are in the one sphere.

Realists are in sync with conventional wisdom. Anti-realists are not.

Kant can be compared with DaVinci neither saw man as subservient to a web. For DaVinci man was the web, he proved mathematically in Vitruvian Man that man was the measure of all things; within a square within a circle at the center of the universe. This lead to Renaissance humanism and the end of Scholastic rationalizing the non-rational which was something DaVinci would not do as both hemispheres of his brain were active, rather than one active and one dormant. For DaVinci the-thing-in-itself and things-in-themselves were not either/or but both. Kant philosophy is from the perspective of the left hemisphere and he aptly refuted Humes’ claims through his own perspective of phenomena, noumena and synthetic a priori (categories).

Kant’s empirical realism is definitely an advance on Hume but not on DaVinci who was philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and artist. No one’s views are more realistic than DaVinci’s. Unfortunately, the humanism of the Renaissance deteriorated to what could be described as left hemisphere rationalism which is another version of the scholastic rationalizing the non-rational. Secular humanism does not rationalize the non-rational; it does not perceive it to exist.

It was Protagoras c. 490 BC – c. 420 BC who stated,
"Man is the measure of all things",

while DaVinci existed (15 April 1452 – 2 May 1519). I have not come across any views where DaVinci is claimed as a great philosopher. References? Note,

After decades of study, Claudio Sgarbi, an Italian architectural historian who discovered the lesser known illustration of the Vitruvian man in 1986, now believes it to be the work of Giacomo Andrea de Ferrara, a Renaissance architect, expert on Vitruvius, and close friend of Leonardo's. What's more, Sgarbi believes Giacomo Andrea probably drew his Vitruvian man first, though the two men are likely to have discussed their mutual efforts.
https://www.livescience.com/18183-leona ... n-man.html

I believe DaVinci was more interested in the drawing of the 'Vitruvian man] rather than its philosophical meanings which he linked it ultimately to the Divine.

There is no way DaVinci could be better than Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times] in terms of philosophy.

Kant's Copernican Turn is merely to avoid searching for any independent substance [thing-in-itself] out there but rather adopt the view that whatever is thing, it must be linked to humans.

[owl of Minerva]

Kant’s Copernican Turn is not about physical location as was Galileo’s theory but it is pertinent to place from where the viewer is: at the center as observer with space revolving outside or as observer, looking towards a center. I disagree that Kant saw the observer as object rather than subject; a thing-among-things. Rovelli is a scientist not a philosopher, he studies the objective world, not the subjective as it relates to the objective. There is no Western philosopher who does not see two spheres; knower in one, known in the other. In Eastern philosophy it is different, there knower and known are in the one sphere.

Realists are in sync with conventional wisdom. Anti-realists are not.

Kant can be compared with DaVinci neither saw man as subservient to a web. For DaVinci man was the web, he proved mathematically in Vitruvian Man that man was the measure of all things; within a square within a circle at the center of the universe. This lead to Renaissance humanism and the end of Scholastic rationalizing the non-rational which was something DaVinci would not do as both hemispheres of his brain were active, rather than one active and one dormant. For DaVinci the-thing-in-itself and things-in-themselves were not either/or but both. Kant philosophy is from the perspective of the left hemisphere and he aptly refuted Humes’ claims through his own perspective of phenomena, noumena and synthetic a priori (categories).

Kant’s empirical realism is definitely an advance on Hume but not on DaVinci who was philosopher, scientist, mathematician, and artist. No one’s views are more realistic than DaVinci’s. Unfortunately, the humanism of the Renaissance deteriorated to what could be described as left hemisphere rationalism which is another version of the scholastic rationalizing the non-rational. Secular humanism does not rationalize the non-rational; it does not perceive it to exist.

It was Protagoras c. 490 BC – c. 420 BC who stated,
"Man is the measure of all things",

while DaVinci existed (15 April 1452 – 2 May 1519). I have not come across any views where DaVinci is claimed as a great philosopher. References? Note,

After decades of study, Claudio Sgarbi, an Italian architectural historian who discovered the lesser known illustration of the Vitruvian man in 1986, now believes it to be the work of Giacomo Andrea de Ferrara, a Renaissance architect, expert on Vitruvius, and close friend of Leonardo's. What's more, Sgarbi believes Giacomo Andrea probably drew his Vitruvian man first, though the two men are likely to have discussed their mutual efforts.
https://www.livescience.com/18183-leona ... n-man.html

I believe DaVinci was more interested in the drawing of the 'Vitruvian man] rather than its philosophical meanings which he linked it ultimately to the Divine.

There is no way DaVinci could be better than Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times] in terms of philosophy.

Kant's Copernican Turn is merely to avoid searching for any independent substance [thing-in-itself] out there but rather adopt the view that whatever is thing, it must be linked to humans.

I did not say that DaVinci said man is the measure of all things. What I did say was he proved mathematically that man was the measure of all things. He was a Renaissance man, as as such focused on the whole not the parts.

I do not subscriber to conspiracy theories, whether in relation to Shakespearean authorship or on today’s internet or anywhere else they are promulgated.

DaVinci in mathematically proving the theory linked it to reality from a mathematical perspective as the nature of the cosmos which is the measure of man as universal, macrocosm, and individual as microcosm. This has nothing to do with the divine as DaVinci was not a pantheist; seeing the divine as transcendent, as metaphysical, not confined to the cosmos.

Kant’s transcendentalism is non-physical, as the word means. In his view mind and the whole human experience would be beyond the province of physics. This is contrary to Protagoras, Vitruvius, or DaVinci. If “whatever is thing must be linked to humans” then man must be the measure of all things and not transcendental. The transcendental is other than what is manifested.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not say that DaVinci said man is the measure of all things. What I did say was he proved mathematically that man was the measure of all things. He was a Renaissance man, as as such focused on the whole not the parts.

I do not subscriber to conspiracy theories, whether in relation to Shakespearean authorship or on today’s internet or anywhere else they are promulgated.

DaVinci in mathematically proving the theory linked it to reality from a mathematical perspective as the nature of the cosmos which is the measure of man as universal, macrocosm, and individual as microcosm. This has nothing to do with the divine as DaVinci was not a pantheist; seeing the divine as transcendent, as metaphysical, not confined to the cosmos.

Kant’s transcendentalism is non-physical, as the word means. In his view mind and the whole human experience would be beyond the province of physics. This is contrary to Protagoras, Vitruvius, or DaVinci. If “whatever is thing must be linked to humans” then man must be the measure of all things and not transcendental. The transcendental is other than what is manifested.

The problem is you are not familiar with Kant's work, thus misrepresented him most of the time. [nb: I spent 3 years full time on Kant and had continued to refresh on his work.]

Kant obviously recognized the reality of the empirical physical world and universe via experiences and possible experience.

• Kant's interest in physics continued after the publication of the Metaphysical Foundations, in fact, until the very end of his productive years.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

What Kant claimed is, the empirical physical universe [as verified by Science] is grounded on the transcendental, i.e. a priori elements within humans.
In contrast, the philosophical realist claimed the universe pre-existed before and is independent of the human conditions.

[owl of Minerva]

I did not say that DaVinci said man is the measure of all things. What I did say was he proved mathematically that man was the measure of all things. He was a Renaissance man, as as such focused on the whole not the parts.

I do not subscriber to conspiracy theories, whether in relation to Shakespearean authorship or on today’s internet or anywhere else they are promulgated.

DaVinci in mathematically proving the theory linked it to reality from a mathematical perspective as the nature of the cosmos which is the measure of man as universal, macrocosm, and individual as microcosm. This has nothing to do with the divine as DaVinci was not a pantheist; seeing the divine as transcendent, as metaphysical, not confined to the cosmos.

Kant’s transcendentalism is non-physical, as the word means. In his view mind and the whole human experience would be beyond the province of physics. This is contrary to Protagoras, Vitruvius, or DaVinci. If “whatever is thing must be linked to humans” then man must be the measure of all things and not transcendental. The transcendental is other than what is manifested.

The problem is you are not familiar with Kant's work, thus misrepresented him most of the time. [nb: I spent 3 years full time on Kant and had continued to refresh on his work.]

Kant obviously recognized the reality of the empirical physical world and universe via experiences and possible experience.

• Kant's interest in physics continued after the publication of the Metaphysical Foundations, in fact, until the very end of his productive years.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

What Kant claimed is, the empirical physical universe [as verified by Science] is grounded on the transcendental, i.e. a priori elements within humans.
In contrast, the philosophical realist claimed the universe pre-existed before and is independent of the human conditions.

The problem is with the word ‘transcendental’ it should be reserved for beyond qualities and thought with the physical and metaphysical meaning respectively the physical world, sense perception, and abstract ideas and thought. The transcendental is brought into both in the following quote from the site you referenced: “The Principle of co-existence then argues that harmonious causal interaction between otherwise isolated independently substances is possible only by means of God’s coordination (just as Leibniz thought) was required for harmonious relations between the states of such substances.”

Establishing relationship between human and cosmos was done by DaVinci and predecessors. Relationship was established by Kant between Rationalism and Empiricism. The dualities of intelligence; abstract thought and ideas and sense perception (sensory mind) were bridged by inferences based on reason, establishing a relationship between them while giving validity to both.

There is a relationship between all polarities as with Jupiter and Saturn with the resonance between them having played a role in planetary evolution; what remained in the galaxy and what did not and how it evolved based on their resonance.

Kant’s major achievement was connecting polar opposites: intelligence and sensory perception and establishing a relationship between them showing that the view of the Rationalists and Empiricists were one-dimensional as each lacked resonance via relationship.

Whether relationships in any of the above contexts: world and man, planetary polarity, or intelligence and sense mind, if the resonance between them is transcendent, physical, or metaphysical is for science to determine. What is causal to relationship, to resonance created by polarities and from what field does it arise; electromagnetic, inertia, the gravitational field etc. is an open question. That it is transcendental is speculative.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not say that DaVinci said man is the measure of all things. What I did say was he proved mathematically that man was the measure of all things. He was a Renaissance man, as as such focused on the whole not the parts.

I do not subscriber to conspiracy theories, whether in relation to Shakespearean authorship or on today’s internet or anywhere else they are promulgated.

DaVinci in mathematically proving the theory linked it to reality from a mathematical perspective as the nature of the cosmos which is the measure of man as universal, macrocosm, and individual as microcosm. This has nothing to do with the divine as DaVinci was not a pantheist; seeing the divine as transcendent, as metaphysical, not confined to the cosmos.

Kant’s transcendentalism is non-physical, as the word means. In his view mind and the whole human experience would be beyond the province of physics. This is contrary to Protagoras, Vitruvius, or DaVinci. If “whatever is thing must be linked to humans” then man must be the measure of all things and not transcendental. The transcendental is other than what is manifested.

The problem is you are not familiar with Kant's work, thus misrepresented him most of the time. [nb: I spent 3 years full time on Kant and had continued to refresh on his work.]

Kant obviously recognized the reality of the empirical physical world and universe via experiences and possible experience.

• Kant's interest in physics continued after the publication of the Metaphysical Foundations, in fact, until the very end of his productive years.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

What Kant claimed is, the empirical physical universe [as verified by Science] is grounded on the transcendental, i.e. a priori elements within humans.
In contrast, the philosophical realist claimed the universe pre-existed before and is independent of the human conditions.

The problem is with the word ‘transcendental’ it should be reserved for beyond qualities and thought with the physical and metaphysical meaning respectively the physical world, sense perception, and abstract ideas and thought. The transcendental is brought into both in the following quote from the site you referenced: “The Principle of co-existence then argues that harmonious causal interaction between otherwise isolated independently substances is possible only by means of God’s coordination (just as Leibniz thought) was required for harmonious relations between the states of such substances.”

Establishing relationship between human and cosmos was done by DaVinci and predecessors. Relationship was established by Kant between Rationalism and Empiricism. The dualities of intelligence; abstract thought and ideas and sense perception (sensory mind) were bridged by inferences based on reason, establishing a relationship between them while giving validity to both.

There is a relationship between all polarities as with Jupiter and Saturn with the resonance between them having played a role in planetary evolution; what remained in the galaxy and what did not and how it evolved based on their resonance.

Kant’s major achievement was connecting polar opposites: intelligence and sensory perception and establishing a relationship between them showing that the view of the Rationalists and Empiricists were one-dimensional as each lacked resonance via relationship.

Whether relationships in any of the above contexts: world and man, planetary polarity, or intelligence and sense mind, if the resonance between them is transcendent, physical, or metaphysical is for science to determine. What is causal to relationship, to resonance created by polarities and from what field does it arise; electromagnetic, inertia, the gravitational field etc. is an open question. That it is transcendental is speculative.

There are various meanings attributed to the term 'transcendental'.

In Kant's context, 'transcendental' is defined as;

• I entitle Transcendental ALL Knowledge which is occupied not so much with Objects as with the Mode of our Knowledge of Objects in so far as this Mode of Knowledge is to be possible a priori. 2 [A11] B25

The critical term in the above is 'a priori' i.e.

• A priori meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from Experience,
  but from a Universal Rule, -- a Rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from Experience. B1
  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. B2

The critical term above is 'Universal Rule.'

The transcendental is thus not speculative but can be verified and justified as a universal rule [principle] to be confirmed with empirical evidences.
Analogically, it is something like human instincts which are a priori to experience [a posteriori] which are presented in terms of principles.

While Kant did reconcile rationalism with empiricism, Kant's Mission and Vision is directed at the following;

• 1. What can I know? Epistemology of reality [all-there-is]
  2. What should I do? Morality and Ethics on all human actions.
  3. What can I hope for? Perpetual Peace.

What else can be missed out from the above?

[Age]

A solution implies a problem. What’s the problem?

Good question. What is the problem with different disciplines and perspectives? Does it have to do with control? Either imposed by others or a lack of unified control? Maybe the search for ultimate truth is the problem? How can we fight over something that has not even been demonstrated (to all) to exist?

But 'it' has been demonstrated to ALL. So, 'it' exists. Some, however, are just NOT able to RECOGNIZE and SEE 'it', and this is because they are following their OWN chosen disciplines, or disciples. In other words, they are just LOOKING FROM their OWN already gained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true. For example; some BELIEVE that there is NOT one truth, and so while HOLDING that BELIEF they are NOT able to SEE and RECOGNIZE the ACTUAL Truths that do exist.

f we stop trying to unnecessarily establish such ultimate truths, and instead welcome the broader view/awareness of diverse perspectives here and now, what might we do with that if there were no rigidity or competition between those perspectives?

Maybe the different disciplines and perspectives we struggle with are exactly the BEST manifestation for the greatest potential. Countless types of explorers and 'feelers' for a vast and seemingly ever-expanding landscape. Perhaps we just need to adjust our understandings of what the perceived problems are, and what they're actually caused by.

You "lacewing" are the one who has the RIGID BELIEF ,"there are NO ultimate truths".

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

You "lacewing" are the one who has the RIGID BELIEF ,"there are NO ultimate truths".

Is an unshakeable principle an ultimate truth? If not, why not?

[owl of Minerva]

The problem is you are not familiar with Kant's work, thus misrepresented him most of the time. [nb: I spent 3 years full time on Kant and had continued to refresh on his work.]

Kant obviously recognized the reality of the empirical physical world and universe via experiences and possible experience.

• Kant's interest in physics continued after the publication of the Metaphysical Foundations, in fact, until the very end of his productive years.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

What Kant claimed is, the empirical physical universe [as verified by Science] is grounded on the transcendental, i.e. a priori elements within humans.
In contrast, the philosophical realist claimed the universe pre-existed before and is independent of the human conditions.

The problem is with the word ‘transcendental’ it should be reserved for beyond qualities and thought with the physical and metaphysical meaning respectively the physical world, sense perception, and abstract ideas and thought. The transcendental is brought into both in the following quote from the site you referenced: “The Principle of co-existence then argues that harmonious causal interaction between otherwise isolated independently substances is possible only by means of God’s coordination (just as Leibniz thought) was required for harmonious relations between the states of such substances.”

Establishing relationship between human and cosmos was done by DaVinci and predecessors. Relationship was established by Kant between Rationalism and Empiricism. The dualities of intelligence; abstract thought and ideas and sense perception (sensory mind) were bridged by inferences based on reason, establishing a relationship between them while giving validity to both.

There is a relationship between all polarities as with Jupiter and Saturn with the resonance between them having played a role in planetary evolution; what remained in the galaxy and what did not and how it evolved based on their resonance.

Kant’s major achievement was connecting polar opposites: intelligence and sensory perception and establishing a relationship between them showing that the view of the Rationalists and Empiricists were one-dimensional as each lacked resonance via relationship.

Whether relationships in any of the above contexts: world and man, planetary polarity, or intelligence and sense mind, if the resonance between them is transcendent, physical, or metaphysical is for science to determine. What is causal to relationship, to resonance created by polarities and from what field does it arise; electromagnetic, inertia, the gravitational field etc. is an open question. That it is transcendental is speculative.

There are various meanings attributed to the term 'transcendental'.

In Kant's context, 'transcendental' is defined as;

• I entitle Transcendental ALL Knowledge which is occupied not so much with Objects as with the Mode of our Knowledge of Objects in so far as this Mode of Knowledge is to be possible a priori. 2 [A11] B25

The critical term in the above is 'a priori' i.e.

• A priori meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from Experience,
  but from a Universal Rule, -- a Rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from Experience. B1
  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. B2

The critical term above is 'Universal Rule.'

The transcendental is thus not speculative but can be verified and justified as a universal rule [principle] to be confirmed with empirical evidences.
Analogically, it is something like human instincts which are a priori to experience [a posteriori] which are presented in terms of principles.

While Kant did reconcile rationalism with empiricism, Kant's Mission and Vision is directed at the following;

• 1. What can I know? Epistemology of reality [all-there-is]
  2. What should I do? Morality and Ethics on all human actions.
  3. What can I hope for? Perpetual Peace.

What else can be missed out from the above?

You are versed in the language of philosophy, on its terminology relating to its function; rational analysis. Philosophy is an important and necessary discipline.

From my perspective this has been a meaningful discussion, some answers and insights have been teased out. It has provided clarity to my world view; why I hold it. It highlights the meaning and value of a forum of this kind, used for this purpose.

[owl of Minerva]

The problem is with the word ‘transcendental’ it should be reserved for beyond qualities and thought with the physical and metaphysical meaning respectively the physical world, sense perception, and abstract ideas and thought. The transcendental is brought into both in the following quote from the site you referenced: “The Principle of co-existence then argues that harmonious causal interaction between otherwise isolated independently substances is possible only by means of God’s coordination (just as Leibniz thought) was required for harmonious relations between the states of such substances.”

Establishing relationship between human and cosmos was done by DaVinci and predecessors. Relationship was established by Kant between Rationalism and Empiricism. The dualities of intelligence; abstract thought and ideas and sense perception (sensory mind) were bridged by inferences based on reason, establishing a relationship between them while giving validity to both.

There is a relationship between all polarities as with Jupiter and Saturn with the resonance between them having played a role in planetary evolution; what remained in the galaxy and what did not and how it evolved based on their resonance.

Kant’s major achievement was connecting polar opposites: intelligence and sensory perception and establishing a relationship between them showing that the view of the Rationalists and Empiricists were one-dimensional as each lacked resonance via relationship.

Whether relationships in any of the above contexts: world and man, planetary polarity, or intelligence and sense mind, if the resonance between them is transcendent, physical, or metaphysical is for science to determine. What is causal to relationship, to resonance created by polarities and from what field does it arise; electromagnetic, inertia, the gravitational field etc. is an open question. That it is transcendental is speculative.

There are various meanings attributed to the term 'transcendental'.

In Kant's context, 'transcendental' is defined as;

• I entitle Transcendental ALL Knowledge which is occupied not so much with Objects as with the Mode of our Knowledge of Objects in so far as this Mode of Knowledge is to be possible a priori. 2 [A11] B25

The critical term in the above is 'a priori' i.e.

• A priori meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from Experience,
  but from a Universal Rule, -- a Rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from Experience. B1
  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. B2

The critical term above is 'Universal Rule.'

The transcendental is thus not speculative but can be verified and justified as a universal rule [principle] to be confirmed with empirical evidences.
Analogically, it is something like human instincts which are a priori to experience [a posteriori] which are presented in terms of principles.

While Kant did reconcile rationalism with empiricism, Kant's Mission and Vision is directed at the following;

• 1. What can I know? Epistemology of reality [all-there-is]
  2. What should I do? Morality and Ethics on all human actions.
  3. What can I hope for? Perpetual Peace.

What else can be missed out from the above?

owl of Minerva:

You are versed in the language of philosophy, on its terminology relating to its function; rational analysis. Philosophy is an important and necessary discipline.

From my perspective this has been a meaningful discussion, some answers and insights have been teased out. It has provided clarity to my world view; why I hold it. It highlights the meaning and value of a forum of this kind, used for this purpose.

To answer “What else can be missed out from the above?” The above listed categories are important and so is the relationship between things. It is not all about I, myself. In science, in QM it is not only about things as Carlo Rovelli’s theory shows, it is also about the relationship between things.

DaVinci and predecessors showed the relationship between man (humanity) and the cosmos. Philosophy cannot keep on discussing categories forever. It should, at some point, get to relationships between things, otherwise its purpose and usefulness will be questioned. In light of where we are today understanding our relationship to the cosmos is not only pertinent, it is imperative.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To answer “What else can be missed out from the above?” The above listed categories are important and so is the relationship between things. It is not all about I, myself. In science, in QM it is not only about things as Carlo Rovelli’s theory shows, it is also about the relationship between things.

DaVinci and predecessors showed the relationship between man (humanity) and the cosmos. Philosophy cannot keep on discussing categories forever. It should, at some point, get to relationships between things, otherwise its purpose and usefulness will be questioned. In light of where we are today understanding our relationship to the cosmos is not only pertinent, it is imperative.

Point 1 'What can I know' i.e. epistemology of Reality [all-there-is] will cover every thing that is possible to be experienced and that would include 'relations' and 'relationship' of whatever that is pertinent & imperative and more so, inherent.

What is most critical is one must establish a Framework and System to encompass all that is possible to be known [completeness] and also more importantly one must always be in a state of 'critiquing' [a degree of skepticism] everything that is thought to be known. That is why Kant introduced his Critique of Pure Reason and two other Critiques.

• In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
  Kant CPR Axiii
  I have to deal with nothing save Reason itself and its Pure Thinking; and to obtain complete Knowledge of these, there is no need to go far afield, since I come upon them in my own self.
  Common Logic itself supplies an example, how all the simple acts of Reason can be enumerated Completely and Systematically.
  Axiv

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are versed in the language of philosophy, on its terminology relating to its function; rational analysis. Philosophy is an important and necessary discipline.

From my perspective this has been a meaningful discussion, some answers and insights have been teased out. It has provided clarity to my world view; why I hold it. It highlights the meaning and value of a forum of this kind, used for this purpose.

Good for you that you got something positive out of it.
As I had stated, the 'currency' [that can be traded] of this forum is valid and sound arguments with the relevant supporting evidences. I have always strive to maintain such a point.

[owl of Minerva]

To answer “What else can be missed out from the above?” The above listed categories are important and so is the relationship between things. It is not all about I, myself. In science, in QM it is not only about things as Carlo Rovelli’s theory shows, it is also about the relationship between things.

DaVinci and predecessors showed the relationship between man (humanity) and the cosmos. Philosophy cannot keep on discussing categories forever. It should, at some point, get to relationships between things, otherwise its purpose and usefulness will be questioned. In light of where we are today understanding our relationship to the cosmos is not only pertinent, it is imperative.

Point 1 'What can I know' i.e. epistemology of Reality [all-there-is] will cover every thing that is possible to be experienced and that would include 'relations' and 'relationship' of whatever that is pertinent & imperative and more so, inherent.

What is most critical is one must establish a Framework and System to encompass all that is possible to be known [completeness] and also more importantly one must always be in a state of 'critiquing' [a degree of skepticism] everything that is thought to be known. That is why Kant introduced his Critique of Pure Reason and two other Critiques.

• In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
  Kant CPR Axiii
  I have to deal with nothing save Reason itself and its Pure Thinking; and to obtain complete Knowledge of these, there is no need to go far afield, since I come upon them in my own self.
  Common Logic itself supplies an example, how all the simple acts of Reason can be enumerated Completely and Systematically.
  Axiv

I see your point on its merits, however, there is a shade of difference. The knowing, knower, and known are triune. The ego between sense perception (sense mind) and intelligence uses inference, through reason, to connect sense perception and abstract thought to gain information; a refined form of data that is useful to understand the meaning of things. Knowledge means awareness, intuitive understanding of things, the subjective and objective as different aspects of one unit.

If you have arrived at complete knowledge (completeness) through Reason a framework and a system; a critiquing of it (skepticism) and “have come upon it in your own self” then kudos to you. It is a process that the West uses to acquire knowledge. In the East, the Buddha, as an example, did not struggle with interpreting or classifying inferences in order to know what was real or how to act. That obviously is not the common lot. The Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere play out their dual roles, mutually sharing the insights of both.

Maybe that is the way it is supposed to be. The Buddha used the mind to transcend the mind. Zen Buddhism and other practices do likewise to bypass the limitations of the ego with its reliance on inferences, a limited, and not always accurate, way of knowing.