The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

“Progress” toward what?
“Free us” from what?

Pwendishery.
Stagnant repetitions.

JSS,

Are your thoughts your own? :mrgreen:

One only owns what he controls.

Does anyone truly control his own thoughts?
… I know that you certainly don’t. :laughing:

No then?

Hi Mangoose: if I say my mind works intuitively, I’d be proposing an untestable hypothesis. However, I am not alone, I find pleasing company with those who claim Quine’s definition of intentionality does not much sway from those of Kant. If the objective/subjective differentiation goes back to Saint Anselm, and progresses to Quine, another surprise awaits to postmodern who think of the philosophy of signs as fine tuning this seemingly inpenetrable digression.

Had to introduce this seeming irrelevance, but it is as far removed from the problem, then it is to digress into the realms which has landed the forum.

This is the problem surrounding the intentional use of language, where without such movement away from the ontological into the ontic, no sense could be made of the other definitions of Being, intentionality as a psychic movement-of the willful force of transformation.

That such has taken place in the modern sense by Brentano, does give it a common bond, of credibility.

Apart from that historical depth, the forum would or could laps into a dialogue such as Meno, where both affirmation of logical structure of the argument would need to correlate with it’s intuitive basis.

Don’t hold this clarification against me, even if, You were to deny it in the manner it is introduced.

If You SIGNAL that I am becoming obscure for the sake of other then learning, I would hope You would at least give some validity for the claim of an intuitive
Philosophical basis.

Will try to connect this, however seemingly convoluted, with the pre-requisited arguments which may or may not substantiate some beginning with some end in terms he progression of phenomenological basis. However, it may work without such, and may in fact, naturally connect the missing cogs, since it is the correlation’s mechanism which seems to generate these.

Perceptual intelligence.

http://sicksadworld.forumotion.com/t199-identifying-reality
A project.

Outsider: Natural selection is the sublimation toward this hidden intentional act to forcefully avoid the pitfalls that would prevent a correlation between the intentional acts and their lack, , in which case the future of this relationship would/could land an existence fall into the absolute and irrevocable nihilism, that some find it inescapable.

Sartre, ‘No Exit’.

Granted, but with limitations into the development of basic metaphoric representations.

And this is what an irrevocable nihilism can regress into.

jerkey wrote

Metaphors, why? Substance only, screw style when it comes to the finished product.

Metaphors as substantive, lacking in lower order beings with no intention or object to further development.

Substance without style lacks this development, the
objective intentionality without the subjective signaling remains unavailable and intuitive understanding is reduced to mumbo jumbo
mysticism.

Word play is discrete? Thanks for the heads up towards Brentano. :smiley:

You can’t remain on the fence forever…or can you? :evilfun:

Indiscrete, according to those who are unable, or unwilling to connect the project from the projection.

No jerkey. You haven’t even been over there yet, have you? Abstract to concrete with flowery wordage will not be coming from me, that’s for the word smiths who "get it."

I have been there, but like it’s said, only to visit, not to stay.

But ok, later.

René Magritte, “Hegel’s Holiday”:

They’re not though. A subject can never be “more real” than an object. Because all things are objects first. It is only from objectivity that a subject can build its"self".

Self requires an object. From a cell (object), builds any given, individual lifeform.

The human mind can never process the totality of objective reality entirely due to limitations and because of this when human beings try to objectify anything they subject actualize things.

Another flaw in my Objectivism, at which I already hinted in the OP, is that the processes of the objective world filtering can be distorted, as is the case in the stage of the “cycle” above when good times create weak men. In this case, artificial environments existing within natural environments permit the genetic/memetic propagation of what is unfit in nature. This is why not only reproduction is important, but also the context.