There are no rules by which physicality can
become imperfect, by which physicality can be made to err, meaning if any
imperfection is detected it is a performance in the abstract realm only, never
in physicality’s domain. Physicality has
no counterpart, it is a single infinite set, while every abstraction has at
least two “flavors:” perfect and
imperfect and must thus occupy at least two infinite sets. More shadings are, in fact, possible, down to
the level of infinitesimality, where an abstraction is perfectly imperfect, not
merely imperfectly imperfect, etc. etc. In
fact, there are an infinite number if infinite abstract sets some of which are
“countable” while others are “uncountable.”[1] Uncountability, if it does nothing else, by
itself implicates imperfection, an inability to make certain conclusively,
comprehensively. The issue implicitly
crystallizes: if physicality is not life
and if abstractions (perfect or imperfect) are not life, can any
combination involving the two nonliving realms somehow create life? Or, must a third, hitherto undiscovered,
element be not absent, must by implication (thusly) an actual a priori “living thing,” i.e., having the ability to use two
admittedly dead domains for its own purposes, exist? There seems to be no doubt, the two dead
realms combine to form life, but how? Is
physicality and abstraction dead perfectly?
Can any life be found in an atom?
Is the concept of a living abstraction an oxymoron? Both are seemingly perfectly dead, they
nonetheless combine to form life, meaning, by implication there is a “secret
ingredient” enabling the combination.
Alone by itself abstraction can not do it, physicality alone by itself
can not do it, and nothing seemingly exists in either by which the combination
resulting in life is initiated, both are dead letter law. Implicitly a real [unknown] exists (can not
but be implicated) which real [unknown] combines dead abstraction and dead physicality,
and no matter how invisible the real [unknown] seems, the result, LIFE, the ever opening, evolving
flower, is not in doubt, is everywhere.
I want to defend Kant a bit here as my reading of him is slightly different than yours above.
ReplyDeleteLet us first recall that Kant wrote several hundred years ago before the age of fancy telescopes, microscopes, proton acceleration devices, and all the rest. The point he made repeatedly about the human senses was not that they delivered false data to us; the point he made was that the senses delivered incomplete data to us as to what the thing in itself actually was like. Yes your eyes will burn out from staring at the sun too long but even that experience doesn't give you full understanding of what the sun is actually like. When Kant looked at a flower he had no idea it was composed of cells, protons, electrons, and all the rest. Only more sophisticated instruments invented since Kant have given us knowledge of these things. These instruments are, in turn, likely to be improved over time yielding to later generations yet more precision as to what the flower is like "in itself." But Kant's assumption that we really are not understanding the thing in itself through the mere human senses seems to be a good one. The human senses are after all limited to certain frequencies of light, sound, maginifcation levels, and all the rest.
I dont believe all products of intellectual intuition are nothing. I think they are some of the most important judgments we can make as human beings. The human senses dont per se perceive something as boring; the intellectual intuition does that as a result of many sense impressions over decades of life. But does that mean our judgment that something or someone is boring is a total nothing, has no reality? I don't see it that way.