Philosophical Speculations

"1) You are not asking for phenomenology by any reasonable definition - you are asking for a mechanistic and reductionist explanation..." How precious. Some people would say that the mechanistic and reductionist way of describing how we recognize a pencil is to say that we must attach fin...

"The bolded text in your response is not something that Steiner claims in PoF." The part you bolded that you say doesn't mesh with PoF is when I said that Steiner was talking about how we can recognize an object. Yep, this is a typical move. Okay, so I'll come back with a plethera of evid...

And Cleric please know that I'll be more than ready to go through all your wonderful description of the concentration exercise as well. I hope you can see why my asking you to describe the phenomenology of simply straightforwardly looking over at the pencil is a cleaner starting point regarding what...

Okay, I found your pencil example. Just so you know, I've been doing the concentration exercise, as modified by Dennis Klocek, for over 20 years. It's wonderful. But I could see right away that I failed again to be clear. I will go into all the downstream things you said if we find that is necessary...

AshvinP, you wrote: "Cleric already illustrated what is meant by "attaching" several different times..." Okay, well then I missed his phenomenology of that. Later today I hope to have time to scroll back and try to find it. If either of you have it at your finger tips and could j...

This is what I know for sure: If I asked you to describe the process of finding a certain kind of butterfly and to describe the butterfly, you'd probably take a little time to give me that description, especially if it was, as you say, straightforward. Steiner says many times in his early epistemolo...

Someday if you ever notice that you are looking at, say, a table and you want to describe your experience of encountering a bare percept and then searching through various concepts until you "find" (Steiner's word) the "corresponding concept" to then "attach" it to the ...

This is exactly what always happens. You say it is very straight forward when Steiner says we must find the concept that corresponds to the percept we have encountered and THEN, says Steiner thinking "brings" and "attatches" the concept to the percept. I say, great: describe this...

No, just describe the attaching. Imagine you look over and see a duck. No big deal. Now describe each aspect that leads from there being no concept to the "search" (Steiner's term) to the 'selecting' and to the "attatching". Oh and describe how many concepts get sorted through be...

Why did he say within itself?