Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:09 pmI agree and was saying exactly the same thing all along. What are we arguing about again?AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:00 pm False. We deny the dualism of "Experiencing" vs. Thinking in the first place. All Thinking is not other than experiencing, so there is no emergence of one from the other. The latter is generally another word for "perceiving", and Cleric already tried to explain to you the polar relation of Thinking-Perceiving (Idea-Perception), to which you responded "yes I agree" without understanding what it is you are "agreeing" to, as usual.
The only thing I'm saying that this is still a metaphysics based on certain reasonable assumptions. I don't want to lie to people and tell that it is unconditional Truth not based on any assumptions. People still have a choice and freedom to adopt such assumptions or not. I personally actually do adopt them (as a contingent view but not as a religion), but that does not mean anyone else has to.
We are not doing metaphysics. Phenomenology is not metaphysics. We are arguing because you conclude Kant's dualism could be wrong or right, no one knows or could ever know until some unspecified future time. You conclude all we know of Being is "experience/thinking", and everything else is assumption and speculations. I am saying you only conclude this because your assumption that Thinking adds something on top of the world content which exists independently of it. Every time we point this out, you say "I agree, why are we arguing?", and then reassert the same flawed arguments. When we try to point out why you keep reasserting those arguments (unexamined dualism), you feel I am "harassing" you, instead of taking it as a constructive opportunity to discover depths of Thinking which will allow you to move beyond mere "subjective speculation" about Being. And so we keep going around in circles...