<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Chris Doss wrote:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>> CB: Spacetime manifold, quarks, and genes aren't common sense. ( Well,<BR>
>> actually, the notion of human inheritance through "blood" is common <BR>
>> sense)<BR>
>><BR>
>> But Lenin-Sokol-Bricmont vs Bishop Berkeley, materialism vs<BR>
>> idealism-solopsism, i.e. that there is an objective world, external <BR>
>> reality ,to our minds that<BR>
>> our minds don't just create, is common sense.<BR>
><BR>
> Those of course are not the only possibilities.<BR>
> I tend to prefer Kantian transcendental idealism, or variants thereof.<BR>
<BR>
Isn't this idealism the logical implication of the kind of <BR>
"materialism" CB is defending i.e. doesn't the conception of reality <BR>
involved require experience (including experience of time and space) to <BR>
be interpreted as consisting wholly of experience of secondary <BR>
qualities and not at all of direct experience of "reality"?<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
^^^^^^^<BR>
CB: This seems a rhetorical question. What is your answer ? Elaborate.<BR>
Does the proposition that objective reality exists require experience to be interpreted as consisting of experience of secondary qualities and not direct experience of "reality" ? mediate instead of immediate experience ? <BR>
<BR>
Yes, mediated through the senses.<BR>
<BR>
Does mediation through sense imply , surprise, solopsism ? Elaborate. What are the mediations from here to your conclusion ?<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">If this is true, the implication for epistemology is solipsism - <BR>
"solipsism of the present moment" actually.<BR>
<BR>
Asserting the reality of the materialism would therefore be <BR>
self-contradictory.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, any assertion about reality other than the solipsism, e.g. any <BR>
assertion about the reality of Russia, would be self-contradictory.<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Yes there may be a self-contradiction, as the basis of a dialectic of the personality, the individual in relation to objective reality, I don't know. Whadaya think ?</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>