IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« A case of murder | Main | I've got worms! »

Comments

Kant is a pretty good fit with your M-space/N-space paradigm, I agree. Most of the Idealist philosophers would also fit fairly well, I think. The guy your theory always reminded me of the most is actually George Berkeley... being an Anglican bishop, he called N-space "God", but he seemed to mean something rather similar by it.

And that's just in the West. There are a number of Idealist schools of thought in the East that your paradigm would be at least somewhat harmonious with - Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, various schools of Mahayana Buddhism, etc.

Just my thoughts. For me, science has come some way, and can help to explain the state of things. I think there's just one universe/ universal state. We already know that electrons in an atom are tabbed by thinking, which may suggest as "Seth" says that the universe is conscious. And already shows that consciousness affects matter. So to me, when I choose to do something, that then becomes my reality over another choice. As does my thinking or belief. In other words, I have chosen those atoms from matter over other choices to form my reality and this becomes my world.

So to me there is just 'N' space, inside us, outside us, everywhere. And I suspect that as "Seth" once again suggests, we have a static world because of our beliefs. Which forms a"camoflage" in our three dee world of confined spacial thinking, and that hides true reality from us.

Therefore thinking changes all realities, and forms them. I know when I resoundingly changed from an atheist to a believer due to some of my experiences. Overnight I heard spirit voices, one informing me to get my washing as it was going to rain, another that my candle was going to burn and the wax dribble all down my draws etc. And probably why skeptics don't hear and see, as they have created that actuality. Now scientists would suggest that 'well if you think that then that shapes you're core belief system'. And in our ways, we are both right.

This separation of science and mysticism I feel is also a carryover of past beliefs. Lets face it, the mystics may have been on to something all along. To me its time we saw it as 'all science' and worth investigating into how the universe works.

I don't think science has all the answers however or even the upper hand in the conscious/afterlife arguments either. The dead can't come back and speak, so this will be, and is harder than a theory to prove that "strings' form basic matter. What do others think?

Just my 2 cents, Lyn x.

Well the dead can come back and speak, that's my experience anyway. But a hard one for science to prove. Something like that.....
Lyn x.

I wonder where 'N space' comes from. Did it evolve or has it always been there? If it evolved, did the idea of evolution precede it?

@Lynn

"harder than a theory to prove that "strings' form basic matter"

Current projections estimate that proving string theory may require a particle collider the size of the Milky Way galaxy (like the Large Hadron Collider which found the Higg's Boson but instead looping all the way around the edge of the galaxy). And even this may not be enough if string theory has multiple possible solutions (what, 10^500 solutions? Yikes!). As things currently stand, there is more scientific evidence for the afterlife than there is for string theory. Some people, like me, consider parapsychology a real science while string theory is a pseudoscience.

You've come a long way from Rand, whose bugbear was Kant, MP!

That's true, Roger. Rand called Kant "the most evil man in history." She felt he had killed off the Enlightenment with his theories - though in fact, Enlightenment-era philosophy was in crisis already, which is precisely why Kant devoted himself to finding a new approach.

"As things currently stand, there is more scientific evidence for the afterlife than there is for string theory."

Somewhere, Sheldon Cooper is clutching his head and screaming.

I am not comfortable with apparent resignation to man's mind being forever locked in an unresolved dualism. The left and right brains are a good example of dramatically different ways of processing reality, yet they are united in one skull, designed to work together, to unite in their very different products of knowing. All left brain, as society tends to be now, is a half-witted approach to resolving mystery that must be accessed through the right brain. Each side is indispensable to full cognitive capabilities. Thus, we find the roll of meditation where we temporarily set aside left brained logic and typical rational processes to humbly submit to the magical side of man accessible only through the right brain. Although indescribable in words and concepts, N-space is, IS, accessible within the right brain.When we learn to retain the wonders of left brain processing, and at once access the understanding that comes through the right brain, whole brained consciousness awakens and takes us to a unity of conscious reality not comprehensible to the functions of left brain. Unity, both/and, not eternal polarized dualism is our destiny.
Rip Parker

I find that the trouble with wrintig on Kant is always having too much to say, since the critical philosophy is (supposed to be) extravagantly coherent. One begins talking about the nature of a categorical imperative and suddenly finds oneself staking out interpretive positions on Kant's modal theory and the distinction between things in themselves and appearances. Even with close readings of his major works behind me, in my research on Kant's philosophy I feel like a worm attempting cartography - such is the scale of it all... My point is to say thanks very much for this, I find it a helpful new beginning. A year-long seminar I just finished on the first critique began to pick up the sticks in a common way, with a focus on the question as to the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge, but I think the alternative of reading one's way out of the historical context and out of the dialectic (which seems to be where you're heading so far) promises a number of advantages, especially for beginners. For I expect it will allow us to see at every turn many of the considerations that motivated Kant, and that the windfalls will come quickly; it may demand less patience. I'm grateful for the notes on the development of Kant's philosophy and on the ID, which I haven't gotten around to reading yet. I also appreciate your early emphasis on the distinction between active and passive activities of the mind*... it seems to me that a misunderstanding of the basic distinction between practical and theoretical reason spoils a number of attempts to make sense of the Faktum-Lehre. I would be grateful if you would say a few more words about the historical background of this distinction (my own knowledge of medieval philosophy is thin), and about where Kant might have come across it. In my ignorance, I tend to see Kant reacting to a number of medieval authors whom he probably never read - reading Ockham, for example, I thoguht I could hear a main, tacit voice of the dialog in the first critique, I even found specific points that receive specific responses, only to learn that Kant's knowledge of Ockham was second-hand at best, and that my observations were perhaps only evidence of the care with which a series of philosophers marked the works of their predecessors. *btw. I haven't had a chance yet to read your work on Kant's theory of mental activity, and so I'm excited to see where just you're going with this use of "mind". I've just begun to venture in a serious way beyond the horizons of the last twenty years of Kant research, and I've found the experience very rewarding so far (particularly for Paul Dietrichson's insights into Kant's practical philosophy). I hope this series is a chance to get my feet wet before diving into your works and others from not so long ago. Thanks again - sure beats the Suddeutsche Zeitung as lunchtime reading!

The comments to this entry are closed.