Concepts of intuition (Kant)

SORREE!

It is not necessory to apologize unless you Meno_. In witch case you Jim Carrey.

Anyway.
1A5F5D99-3C17-4E63-9A2A-1494B03B4233.jpeg

.
FACCEA47-26DD-48FB-B5A4-CBDBE02DEDAD.jpeg

.

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.
47BFDD48-D1C5-44E9-82A2-43F1B9D261FB.jpeg

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).

poke

More: docs.google.com/document/d/1eqX … UyVow/edit

Grade it^

“This^ paper is not for your average, non-fractalicious scaredy meow meow.”

— peer reviewer name withheld

Where’s your god, dear?
Is he present, or only in your head…as a concept, represented by a word with no external reference other than more words.

Is it really cherry picking if the whole tree is cherries?

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.

I can show you what Zeus refers to.

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)
B001E5EF-4B16-42B8-A540-564AD4A207C8.jpeg
3BFC3909-8517-41B3-97AB-97C34D86F652.jpeg
D64A46DB-B114-49A8-815D-EDEE1D8EF351.jpeg

Continued from last post. May have to read in reverse order situation. Source: eternity in their hearts by Don Richardson



C5F01A50-A0DE-4E8B-AE10-C1236ACB7517.jpeg

See…words referring to texts full of more words.

Nihilism.
Spiritual nihilism that evolved into secular variations.

Ask an Abrahamic for evidence and they will refer you to text, or some guy claiming something, by referring to another guy or text.

Meanwhile the world around them is never engaged…in fact it is evaded like the Devil.

Well, there goes history.

toots horn

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.

Would it be better to call the imagination the SYNESTHsense? Why is the third eye a cyclops? I have other questions.

Please fill in the blanks:

If imagination is third eye, or:

  • “second sight”
  • why not second eye instead of third^, since you can still see out of one eye?

________ is third ear, or

  • “second sound”

________ is second tongue, or

  • “second taste”

________ is second “skin,” or

  • “second touch”

________ is second nose, or

  • “second smell”
  • not third nostril^, because still have sense of smell with only one nostril

Seems to me that calling it imagination, or third anything (or sixth anything) is a misnomer, because you can sense all the senses in memory and dreams. Interestingly, some who lack certain senses “behave” (react) as if they don’t—some while conscious, some during OBE/NDE.

Start making sense, woman!

Sure thing, boss!

…it’s all in da wiring.

Wire up, butter cup/s.