You don't need extra organs, you need an entire new set of transcendental conditions. The mere addition of sensory apparatus doesn't give you a new world so long as the representations of space and time, and your concepts remain the same.
-
-
What if you think of something like CERN (or better examples that eludes me r.n) as the organs i was talikng about. Every H endeavour for knowledge and expanding its milieu as an extra-organic sensory apparatus. Also, time and space has already changed quite a lot since Kant.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lesoiseauxdumal @NegarestaniReza and
For a blind person, isn't seeing a color for the first time through an exo-organic sensory apparatus a 'new world'? Isn't the squid an alien that already has been put into new non-human lights via our new organs? I realize my argument is ill-equiped but i guess you get my drift.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes and no. Perhaps new elementary experience (erleb) but not a new Welt. The latter is entirely inferentially structured like a new web and to structure that you don't only need new sensations but also concept to organize and make sense of those primitive sensations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @lesoiseauxdumal and
Ex. when a red dot is registered on your retina, it doesn't tell you anything about itself, to say otherwise it's just the myth of categorial given (Sellars). You need to have the concept of red to plug that new sensation in. For X to be read, it means it's not white or blue.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes but these sets of relations cannot be put inside an absolute container (welt). they are the welt. there must occur a sensory-register for them to even produce a shade-concept. so, when you require a new organ, the milieu changes into something witing to become-world.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No welt is just the set of the transcendental conditions you have, at the top of which is language. To embark on world making requires something more than just new organs. Sensory registers are just Aristotelian tode-ti (this sucres, stuff).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @lesoiseauxdumal and
Tode-ties by themselves don't give you anything novel because they are not by themselves capable of revealing a new structure, a new world.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
true enough. but can there be a world without any tode-ti? isn't the transcendental conditions already a matter of "sensory organs"? any assemblage of sensors can have a different "world" from the other one.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lesoiseauxdumal @NegarestaniReza and
the universal then must be something that makes the assemblages possible in so many ways, not just what the self-reflecting assemblage builds out of the "chaos".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is the whole point. The universal without the local is as meaningless as talking about wholes and parts. These are not fundamental ontological categories, they are epistemological which means they can shift. We should reclaim the universal precisely though such shifts.
-
-
How to put the mereology nuts in their place in one tweet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To be honest the problem is not metrology, it is a subset of a much larger problem, the so-called metaphors of levels. Check Carl Craver's essay Levels for a good introduction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.