Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA11230 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:51:05 +0100 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:18:14 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Irreducibility of subjectivity (was Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism)) Message-ID: <20010429111814.A1344@ii01.org> References: <3AE72289.8580.1153E92@localhost>; <20010428121727.B1282@ii01.org> <3AEAF0F5.32407.1F8845@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AEAF0F5.32407.1F8845@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 04:33:57PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 04:33:57PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2001, at 12:17, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:16:25PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> > > On 25 Apr 2001, at 20:22, Robin Faichney wrote: > > Actually, our
> > perception of reality would have to bear a part/whole > relation to
> > the reality we are perceiving, for it to have evolved and > been
> > selected. Those who saw tigers that were not there, or > missed
> > tigers that were, simply didn't survive to reproduce, and as > Leakey
> > has maintained, the history of the evolution of life on this > planet
> > has been the history of the evolution of the capacity to more >
> > precisely and inclusively act upon our environment, which required >
> > the evolution of the capacity to more precisely and inclusively >
> > represent it as well. Whatever the thing-in-itself might be as a >
> > whole, it has to be such that it noncontradictorally includes the >
> > thing-for-us as a component or aspect. Our perception of our lived >
> > world is forever incomplete, as any empirically perceived object is >
> > phenomenologically inexhaustible, but it is not incorrect.
> > That in no way contradicts what I said -- though it adds to it -- and
> > I basically agree with it, even though there's a smidgeon of
> > subjective/objective confusion in it.
> What's the smidgen?
I'm happy to withdraw that remark. What matters is that "subjective"
means "from a particular point of view", and while that, in turn,
necessarily implies "incomplete", it does *not* imply "false" or
"inaccurate" or anything of that sort. We seem to be in complete
agreement on this.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 12:58:28 BST