This answers my question in the OP, & prolly gets at the source of why I see it the way I do.
red: intuitions of the imagination/judgment
yellow: concepts of understanding
blue: ideas of reason
intuitions, concepts, and ideas are presentations
imagination/judgment, understanding, and reason are powers
intuitions are preschematic
concepts are schematic
ideas are … well. Original.
Obv w my (pfffff!!! lol) harmonic triads Venn I feel like I’m looking at the diamond correctly.
Brentano does not use different words for presentation like Kant does.
Now (but prolly not now…I got distracted with this & need to finish what I started before this) I want to more closely inspect how Kant uses the word presentation in critique of pure reason versus critique of judgment. I could almost swear he only allows time and space (& good?) to be presentations in critique of pure reason. My brain is an idiot, don’t take my word for it.
p.s. This is from Section 35, The principle of taste is the subjective principle of the power of judgment as such. Part I critique of aesthetic judgment. p. 151 in my huge ass copy of critique of judgment. published by Hackett. translated by Pluhar. 1987
That intentional color phrasing between yellow and blue, tends to shift more to the right, with hi dagger. Intuitively neat more with the guys who allow the 11 bottle to be dumped without contest, or, resistance.
And no, that 1 bottle was a chaser or was being chased.
Now the ^ is strictly prefrontal musing, and subject to be taken a part, but a start nevertheless and subject to ilp jury’s verdict.
Must recharge assuming intuitive cracks, along the way of rocky road.
No concept of time, no holding anything in the mind long enough to learn it in order to remember. Reverse it: No ability to grasp, no concept of time/(re)memory. If you have one, you have both, and:
No caring… no motivation/ability to keep grasping. No asking, seeking, knocking. No insight. No rising.
You need all three to even have one, so you must risk rising, or lose the rest.
Kant said the whole thing starts / is triggered by experience… “…our cognition begins with experience,” (B1). The pure apperception (the enduring I) must be added to pure imagination (prior to its being sensible) in order to trigger its intellectual function that would otherwise lie dormant (A124).
First is the act…energy…interactivity…
words - logos - are representations referring to the act…or they are rself-referential, or they refer to text, which is full of mental representations.
Show us what this concept ‘god’ - defined Abrahamically and in no other way - refers to…what activity which is omnipotent, omniscient, loving, willful etc…all the traits you ascribe to this mental concept.
It was not done in a corner, and it doesn’t need to repeat like Broadway shows. We’re the ones who are supposed to keep each other’s torches lit from the Original flame. Kant’s categorical imperative is about the self=other pattern lying ready in us (nowadays we refer to mirror neurons, empathy…) but if not triggered, or traumatized, …even “the conditions for the possibility of loving” denatures (grows cold). But he can replace a heart of stone.
Do you know this stuff about Zeus? (3 pic max, brb)
History is hearsay…but do you read any history that contradicts experienced existence?
History is, actually, corrupted by the victor’s perspective.
Religion is not history.
It wears the mantle of history and then adds all sort of extraordinary bullshyte that contradict experienced reality.
If you read a version of history that made claims like - a dragon swooped over the battlefield and destroyed the armies of Alexandre, what would you think?
History is not truly a science …it is a narrative usually revised decades after the events when those that participated in them die.
History, at least, has ancient artefacts, skeletons buried in stone, all kinds of discoveries, walls, temples, shipwrecks, what does the Bible have to prove the claims that it makes?
It recites a hypothetical version of the past, based on actual events, and then inserts in them all kind of claims.
History is continuously revised…well, other than WWII which is now illegal to revise - again, because of superstitious zealots; the same ones as in your Bible.
Coincidence?
Your book, sweetie, denies all revisions.
It is sacred scripture.
We don’t worship historical figures.
We don’t base our lives on their sanctity and perfection.
Actually, the original gods were the dead ancestors of a tribe…but they did exist.
Jesus may have existed…there’s a debate over it.
And the claims that he walked on water and all that, are lies.
The dead are always recalled in ways that contradict what they really were when alivve.
We always remember a dead relative fondly, even fi he may have been a prick or a bit off.
