Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:33 pm
Maybe rather than trying to understanding motives, you should concentrate on understanding what I actually write.
That's exactly where I started, with question 1 and 2. I only went to intents and motives in response to
your exhortation to consider and not to miss a particular sentence of your article. Therefore, as an expression of goodwill, I have given you my best understanding of that paragraph that
you have pinpointed for me.
Again, I am more than happy to look at the understanding of what you actually wrote. My questions 1 and 2 are exactly about that:
1. If there is only the model, and subject and objects are gone, this should mean that your model creates with equal rights, as representations, the you who writes the article and the explanation of the model enclosed in the article, correct? In other words the model you are presenting in the article must be within the model, right? If the model generates mere representations of the things-in-themselves (you, your body, your room, the tree outside your window, the clouds in the blue sky at a distance, all you remember about the past or imagine about the future are all parts of the model) then the explanation of the model itself, as product of the model, is itself an illusion, correct? If no, please explain. If yes, does it mean that behind this illusion there is an unknowable model-in-itself and inside the illusion there is a representation of the model-in-itself, within the model, which you are sharing with us? If yes, does it also mean - memory being also part of the model as you say - that when you consider your idea of the model, or the article you have written, the model forms a representation of the representation? So that there is a potentially infinite series of re-representations of the model, because there can't be a subject that rises itself above reality and postulates, or realizes or cognizes *the* model? If not please explain. If yes, then the model you are experiencing and the one you are sharing in the article can never be the real model, but only a representation of the model of some level. Then how can this (re)(re)(re)(...)representation teach you anything?
2. Also, if the you who has written the article is not rising above the model and cognizing it, or creating it (you is within the model, because the model is all there is) then how can the article speak of our models, how can it be about *the* model, as opposed to just Jim’s model? Hence how can this model teach us anything?
.