Robbing a KLF title to excuse a lazy post which is simply a re-posting of an ancient post from the fondly remembered nascent period of this blog so as to form a new post comprised of said post with these few words placed on top.
The Thing in Itself in the Light of a Mirror
Everybody talks about the objective fact or thing in itself all the time; the thing that exists distinctly from and independent of perception. In response, I would like to consider two people looking at a mirror in which each sees the other's reflection. Both looking at the same object which reflects two entirely separate visual realities simultaneously. We could add two more people gazing at the mirror and we have two more entirely separate visual realities in the one object. Or an infinite number of possible points of perspective, each resulting in a distinct visual reality in the entity of the mirror.
So which is the mirror in itself? Are there an infinite number of mirrors and separate realities existing simultaneously or is there one mirror which is a "thing in itself"? If we are to believe in the thing in itself as an objective reality then we seem to be forced to separate this thing's existence from the visual field, and likewise we would seem to have to separate our perception from any contact with reality. Reality retreating from all known experience of it into some kind of idealised realm beyond our perception.
Which would seem to be forming a philosophy to justify a pre-conception, ie that external reality is an objective fact. This possibly explains the desire behind Plato's bizarre world of ideal forms; an escape route from undesired and unsettling implications arising from perception.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hows it going Lloyd? It's wonderful to see your uplifting words. I'm glad the new year hasn't changed your sunny warm outlook and that you are the same Lloyd I've grown to know and...I won't say love as that would be somewhat fraudulent, but instead of 'love'- 'enjoy for the light relief such unrelenting petty bitterness provokes.'
Ever wonder, Lloyd- you don't mind if I call you Lloyd, Lloyd- if I chose to visit your blog and respond with such petty malice what the results might possibly be? Do you think I'd struggle to make your pieces appear self-obsessed, small-minded, unimaginative, tedious, whatever the case might be? Who knows and alas we'll never find out, as I haven't the slightest desire to waste my time on such an intellectual venture. Looking forward to your next post, though it puzzles me why you come here since it seems to have such an unsalutary effect on your disposition, that is unless this is you as is, so to speak. Why is it again you're choosing to portray yourself in the light of an asshole? Though perhaps Occam is right, and the answer is simply because you are an asshole.
Anyway, with baited breath I await the future wisdom of your good self, Lloyd Mintern.
Happy New Year, Andrew.
Sorry I have nothing else to say. It's just that I have nothing else to say right now. Nothing. Not a thing. Mind a blank.
who is Lloyd Mintern and how did you two come to this, on blog pages??? The world, and even the blog pages are large enough for both of you, surely you can both express your opinions with bitterness, life is too short to bother with pettyness
Lloyd Mintern for reasons only known to himself comes on here and posts bitter comments designed to belittle my good or not so good self, Anon. That is the entirety of my relationship with him, and I'd be glad if he simply made his presence felt through its complete absence. In other words, stayed away.
Happy New Year, Neil. A blank mind can be no bad thing.
I have no idea why I annoy you so much, Andrew. You must be a very fragile young man, to be offended by my whimsical comments. I came to your blog because it was on the list provided by This Space, which I highly regard for its insights and recommendations. I don't know how to get out of the category you have put me in; so I will only say: you have got me wrong. Your responses to me far outweigh with invective anything I have said. And if you did visit my blog, or my two other blogs (Mortimer Shy, and Edward Williams--my real name), you would see I am a serious writer who is only trying to be engaging. (And who has a sense of humor.) So long.
I don't have you wrong at all, Lloyd. You for some reason reached a point where every single post you made was clearly negative in intent, without exception. You know it's true as do I.
I should spend this time better, but there's this post:
"You're right. Everybody does talk about this. And gets nowhere. Join the club."
A little dash of poison.
Previous post to that:
"if you don't think so, you should read more."
More dash of poison.
Previous post to that
"The point at which "time collides" might be the point where you grow up."
More poison.
Previous post to that:
"you post some pretty childish things, and seem to want to be scolded. This is what you get."
Previous to that:
"It's a shallow irony, however, if one has not actually demonstrated the capacity to write to begin with."
More poison
And:
"You are not as original as you think. That is a good think, Andrew, writing is not a competition--at least not at your stage."
Another dash of condescension masquerading as something else.
See any kind of pattern in these posts combined, Lloyd? And if by the tone of my response I indeed have lost the benefit of such contributions, I won't consider that to be a negative.
my suggestion is you both get over it and start 2008 afresh, life is too short for bitterness or pettyness on blogpages
I've not been the one posting snide comments on someone else's blog with no plausible source of justification, Anon. Since for whatever reason this became the apparent sole motivation of Lloyd's posting here, then I'm glad to be without him. If he wanted to post without such impetus, then that's be fine & I'd respond in kind.
Post a Comment