![]() ![]() ![]() The final performance is all there is to record, not the real reasons as to why the performance occurred the way that it did. We can handle an object, or use instruments upon it, all that we want, and never know its real features, as all we are working with are the concepts of our senses and instruments, in creating, validating, or invalidating a theory. These are the things that make your noumenal body different from a noumenal brick with, hopefully, a vast difference in phenomena. The noumenal object has features or properties whereby it gives rise to one set of phenomena rather than some other set. The ingredients are mysteriously more nutritious than bricks - until we get ahold of them.("Brick, fall to Earth!")Ĭonceptual objects can also be related to each other through constructs, which need not be representations of objects, but handy mental tools. We can form a conceptual relationship between these phenomena, giving us a model, both qualitative and qualitative, of how these phenomena arise together, and how they interact with the phenomena arising from other objects. The conceptual object can, in the modern sense, only consist of our knowledge of the phenomena which arise before us, the phenomenal object. While a brick may not yield any hidden properties to such a development, these new technologies have great promise in the material sciences and medicine. Note that some phenomena are more available, however, than others for example, the terahertz frequency EM emissions currently require very sophisticated and expensive equipment to detect, something that is changing as solid-state electronics continue to be adapted to new applications. The noumenal brick is beyond anyone's ability to perceive or truly understand in and of itself, but the phenomena arising from it are readily available. A brick is only as real as your ability to sense it to see, hear, smell, touch, and yes, taste the brick. The phenomenal object is the thing we can actually see and "lay our hands on". just an historic change of conceptualization? The atom began as a "Noumenon", evolved into something resembling a platonic ideal, and then became a working concept, in an historical process. Then, one fateful day, someone went and broke this elegant, innocuous little concept and began introducing features and properties, not to the element and its propensity to combine with other elements, but to the atom itself! Horrors! Thus, our modern " atom" has all sorts of features mucking it up, like electrons, neutrons, and protons, which we now have the temerity and audacity to call sub-atomic particles! Indeed, either an oxymoron, or. The original construction of "atom" ("indivisible") came to be associated later with the elements of the periodic table it could still, however, be presumed to be as smooth and featureless as a cue-ball. The Noumenal Object is Kant's "Ding an Sich", the "thing per se" or "thing as it is" that the classical philosophers held to be beyond the reach of human senses or material instruments it could be apprehended by Mind alone, and only by Mind (perhaps Psyche, or even more loftily, Pneuma).Īn example might help to illustrate the problem. Reflective Self-awareness: Each of us is the Primal Context of our own knowledge comparison and contrast of other Phenomena and Constructs amongst each other, without comparison and contrast to the Self, leaves ALL of our knowledge without an essential ground or context. We would today call such a conceptualization a "construct", a handy term that finds greater use today in the hard sciences, across the wide ditch that some nameless idiot dug out between it and Philosophy and the other Humanities. His use of the term seems to cover, in addition to the classical noumenon, the imperceptible thing which is apprehended by "philosophical intuition" alone, and not by mere crude senses, but also the conceptualization of the object arising from our abstractions of its phenomenal presentation and theoretical "features". Some of the criticisms of Kant's use of the term "noumenon" arise from his use of the term in a way (or two, or more personally, I lost count, to be honest) that differs significantly from its use by the classical philosophers. 6 (5) Phenomena, Instruments, and Constructs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |