How subjective noumena relate to phenomena, and how both refer to the objective world.
Man perceives a geography.
His senses translate stimuli into neural patterns and transmits them to the brain where they are interpreted into phenomena using apriori concepts ([size=80]Kant)[/size], e.g., space, time, cuasality.
So there are two conversion, first on a physical level then on a mental level.
This data can be combined into concepts, ideals, ideas…or left in their raw as abstractions, sensations…
If this mind want to use these concepts in real-time he reconverts them into movement, action, via his nervous system…and the consequences of his actions determine the accuracy of his abstractions.
Nervous system is the mediator inward and outward and there si where language lies.
Kant refers to this objectively real presence, converted into/noumenon/phenomenon as a "thing-in-itself.
It is the forever unknown…since man can only deal with its representations, which represent its qualities but not its essence.
The translation/Interrelations are useful and sufficient, therefore all its perceived qualities - interpretations - are as valid as the quality of consequences produced when applying them in rel-time.
Schopenhauer dismisses this thing-in-itself - for various reasons, using convincing arguments - and replaces it with will and what he calls mater - mater here is not he conventional understanding of a indivisible, immutable, thing…claiming will/matter are interdependent.
Matter for him is not a thing.
Will is the interpreter - matter the interpreted.
‘Will,’ for him, is the groundless, truly free…timeless/spaceless…and even though he does not use it to imply intent, the average mind will nevertheless understand it as a claim that existence is intentional.
I’ve abandoned this term…‘will’…and I deny groundlessness.
All is energy…will only applies to energies that have evolved the ability to move intentionally.
How, is up for speculation.
I offer mine.
No god necessary.
Interaction is attraction/repulsion, and chaos, properly defined, suffice to explain how life can emerge from what is lifeless.
The difference between the two is intentionality
So, they suffice to explain, without certainty - how intentionality might have developed.
Chaos and natural selection are enough.
That which offers an advantage survives; survives long enough to pass on its patterns, methods etc.
Schopenhauer’s, as well, denied ‘thing’, and the knowability of the object being perceived.
Are the interpretations based on the essence of the object - its patterns?
Yes.
Does the object being perceived - interpreted - have colour, form, a smell, a sound…no>
This is how the observing subject interprets the object’s qualities, using a priori methods.
Appearance exposes essence…but appearance is not the object itself…it is a interpretation of its qualities.
In my world-view - that all is interactive energy - these qualities refer to its sequences, rhythms, rates of vibration its signature.
So colour, shape, scent, sound all are true in as much as they refer to an object qualities, translated into a form a subject can process and store and use to direct itself in the future.
The object is not absolutely knowable…and only via mediating patterns, e.g., light, atmosphere,…but this does not mean it is absolutely unknowable.
A subject can only know and understand another via the quality of its interpterion - which are proximations.
More accurate interpretations offer the subject an advantage, and so a priori concepts evolved because they sufficed and were advantageous. Were naturally selected.