🚀 go-pugleaf

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:244ae90.0409160339.2abf3981@posting.google.com...
Your emissions prove how apt your name is...

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:244ae90.0409160342.fd93ef4@posting.google.com...
Philo of Alexandria was an intellectual whose achievements bear no
relation to the non-sensical blatherings of "people like you".

QOLON NOTE:
"It should first become clear by means of a distinctive proof that in the
'Critique of Pure Reason', as a laying of the ground for metaphysics, it is
from the beginning and solely a matter of human pure reason. {ie.

- < http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/patent.html#AXIOM4 >

The abstruse consideration is that if the vMeme / Moment quadruple 9(9�+1)/2
= #369 mathematical / taxonomical Kabbalistic paradigm is considered to be a
noumenon which in Kantian (1724-1804 CE) philosophy, is that which can be
the object only of a purely intellectual (non-sensuous) intuition. It is
essentially a postulate on the origins of the English (Australian) language
as encyclical architecture and legislative framework of governance, in that
it presents a claim to higher authority regarding precedence and
prerogative, to any claim to the English language derived from symbolic
philosophical or theological assumptions.

As a noumenon, it is the transexperiental object onto which time stamped
phenomenon is referred, as to the basis or cause of its sense content. And
as a heuristic {ie. a method of solving problems and for one which no
algorithm exists and which therefore depends on inductive reasoning from
past experience of similar problems} attributed to a chronological (24 hr
day / topical year) hermeneutical overlay as 'a priori', it may be
considered in and of itself a jurisprudent determination as to the integrity
of statements and whether, as the measure of their categorical nature, are
compliant with the natural, regulative and metempirical principles of our
legislation as jurisprudent framework and accordingly our human, religious
and Australian Constitutional rights.

To grasp the metaphysical intention of such a mathematical/philosophical
paradigm associated with usage of Bayesian Theory originally formulated by
Thomas Bayes (c. 1702-1761 CE), a British mathematician and Presbyterian
minister, it is prudent to consider his other two works published within his
lifetime, namely: "Divine Benevolence, or an Attempt to Prove that the
Principal End of the Divine Providence and Government is the Happiness of
His Creatures (1731 CE)", and "An Introduction to the Doctrine of Fluxions
{ie. the derivative relative to the time, the rate of change of a varying
quantity}, and a Defence of the Mathematicians Against the Objections of the
Author of the Analyst, in which he defended Isaac Newton's foundations of
calculus (1736 CE)".

} The formula for the problem of the possibility of Metaphysica Generalis
runs: 'How are synthetic {ie. (of language) expressing relationships between
words; something made by chemical or mechanical process; artificial and
neural linguistic intelligence} a priori judgments possible?'

Kant says the following concerning the solution to this problem:

'The above problem cannot be solved except as follows: that we consider it
beforehand in relation to the human faculties by means of which man is
capable of the expansion of his knowledge a priori and which in him
constitute what one can specifically call his pure reason.  For if we are to
recognise under the pure reason of a creature in general the faculty of
knowing things {ie. noumenon} independently of experience {ie.
metempirically} and therefore of sensible representations {ie. as
phenomenon}, then with this nothing at all has been determined concerning
the general manner in which such knowledge was possible in this creature
(eg. in God or another higher spirit}, and the problem is therefore
indeterminate.  As for human beings, in contrast, all knowledge of the same
consists of concept and intuition.' [Kant, 'On the Progress of Metaphysics',
VIII, p 312]

... To human finitude belongs sensibility, meaning the intuition which takes
things in stride.  As pure intuition, ie. pure sensibility, it is a
necessary element in the structure of the transcendence which distinguishes
finitude.  Human pure reason is necessarily a pure sensible reason.  This
pure reason must be sensible in itself, it does not first become sensible in
this way because it is tied to a body.  Rather the reverse is true: the
human being, as finite, rational creature, can thus only 'have' its body in
a transcendent (ie. a metaphysical) sense because transcendence as such is
sensible a priori.

Now, if the transcendent power of imagination is to be the original ground
for the possibility of human subjectivity, namely, in its unity and
wholeness, then it must make possible something like a pure, sensible
reason.  Pure sensibility, however, namely, in the universal meaning
according to which it must come to be grasped in the laying of the ground
for metaphysics, is time {ie. specifically the transcendent nature of the
7th day as the Sabbath}.

Should time as purely sensibility stand in an original unity with the 'I
think' of pure apperception {ie. consciouness}?  Should the pure I, which
according to the generally prevailing interpretation Kant placed outside of
all temporality and all time, be taken as the 'temporal'?  And all this on
the grounds of the transcendental power of imagination?  How in general is
this related to time?

The transcendental power of imagination {ie. such as a child who has no
rational or intellectual conception of God} has been revealed as the origin
of pure, sensible intuition.  Thus, it has been proven in principle that
time, as a pure intuition, springs forth from the transcendental power of
imagination.  Nevertheless, a specific, analytical elucidation of the manner
in which time is now grounded precisely in the transcendental power of
imagination is required.

Time 'flows continually' as the pure succession of the sequence of nows.
Pure intuition intuits this succession unobjectively. Intuiting means the
taking-in-stride of what gives itself.  Pure intuition, in the
taking-in-stride, gives itself that which is capable of being taken in
stride.

Taking-in-stride of ...is understood first of all as the receiving of
something at hand or present.  But this narrow conception of
taking-in-stride, still oriented with respect to empirical intuition, must
be kept seperate from pure intuition {ie. a noumenon which in Kantian
(1724-1804 CE) philosophy, is that which can be the object only of a purely
intellectual (non-sensuous) intuition} and its character as
taking-in-stride.

It is easily seen that the pure intuition of the pure succession of nows
cannot be the taking-in-stride of a presence.  If it were, then at most it
would be able to 'intuit' just the current now, and never the sequence of
nows as such and the horizon formed in it.  Indeed, strickly speaking, in
the mere taking-in-stride of a 'present moment' it is not possible to intuit
a single now insofar as it has an essentially continuous extension in its
having-just-arrived and its coming-at-any-minute.  The taking-in-stride of
pure intuition must in itself give the look of the now, so that indeed it
looks ahead to its coming-at-any-minute and looks back on its
having-just-arrived." [� 1997 Translation by Richard Taft, Martin Heidegger,
Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, p 120-122]

- dolf
- <http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/talk.html>