..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Henry M]

Is a soul neccessary to conceptualize space? Does Schrödinger's cat
have a soul?  Kant be sure!

AsB4,
٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
Henry Mu
http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20


On 2/7/12, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> some p-list emails are not coming through to my p-list mailbox. I started a
> couple days ago  and I thought there was a problem and looked to the online
> archives. That is why  my recent emails are weirdly formatted. Prolly
> preferences , going to call apple.
>
> From: Mark Kohut
> My original kutely kryptic post was to communicate what I learned from Kant.
> We cannot think of space, nor time, in any other way but in the way we have
> to define them.
> We cannot IMAGINE space without a concept of space. A priori he termed
> them....(although he did say space was also synthetic---known by our
> experience of it to know it is what it is)they are
> not materialistically contingent
>
> We seem to be formed in and of space on every level of experience:
> conceptual, touch, travel,  sound, sight, bodies with insides and outsides.
> We can't separate the self from space, is that what synthetic means?  A cat
> handles  itself  adroitly in space, but that seems more perceptual than
> conceptual. Still It isn't hard to see a cat as a concept of space time by
> which it may languor in the sun and sneak up on mice for a thrill and lunch.
> I don't know if I want to pick a fight with Kant, but creatures are imaging
> space by their very existence and imagining space within the parameters of
> their perceptual facilities.   Maybe this is all saying the same thing in
> different ways and I need to read Kant. I like that line about space " to
> know it is what it is."
>
>