The first sentence gave me a headache so I stopped reading. Ask yourself if you could’ve said the same thing with less words and more precision maybe?

Of course others may prefer your style of writing. I’d be willing to take it on if your were already regarded as an intellectual heavyweight by others. As is you’re just some person on the internet so I’d try to think more about your audience if I were you.

GL hope you get some responses :)

I suppose I could attenuate its form in a manner such that what had been spoken of, and expressed on my part, be of greater frugality in that respect.

The World in its every aspect as we ourselves regard it, is mere appearance in full and nothing more. Our faculties of mind grant us the privilege in opportunity to apprehend the reasons for which it stands as it has, and permits our own discernment however much bound by partiality in depth, as to the course toward which it offers guidance, and as to how in time, its cessation shall arise.

Though it has grown evident, that we seek to condition the world such that it accord with and thus reflect upon, the modalities with which its representation manifests; dismissing the nature of either in the hope that it further affirm, and allow us to dispense with constancy in sight as ascribed unto the prejudice which serves to distort all clearness in our passage of judgement, and regarding that which ought to be spoken of as matters of perception as having come to harbor much semblance to the truth to which each alone would pertain, independent of all thought yielded by means of the subject; ourselves.

Yeah, but the reference should be to schema, not noumenon. All that is intimated by the thesis presented here has to do with empirical knowledge, for it involves juxtaposition of phenomena inhering in an apprehending subject, given by the physical world in relation to time, which noumena are not meant to address.

I suppose I could attenuate its form in a manner such that what had been spoken of, and expressed on my part, be of greater frugality in that respect.

It appears to be my inclination to purview your attempts at nomenclature-bridging to be some way short of preventing a wetness in the river of ‘Que?’.

You seem to have hooked a fish though so have fun playing it out - please return it to the water once your game is up though rather than poaching the curious swimmer.

Other than that noumenon is meant (by Kant) in the negative and positive sense. Don’t confuse them, yet it is pretty hard not to given that ANY talk of some supposed ‘positive noumenon’ is necessarily ‘negative noumenon’ - a contrariness it is quite hard to come to grips with and the reason Kant felt the need to rewrite that pat of his work in a vain attempt to satisfy the critique received.

If we are to regard the latter notion as bearing only semblance to the truth to which each would pertain; a form of object of the grandest ideality, without fault and all manner of imperfection; it would suffice to designate that of which I had spoken at the time as merely noumenal, whilst in concurrence with the prior, every aspect therewith, lying contingent upon a certain principle which to the inclusion of all else in its account entails formation of a conceptual scheme in which the aforementioned as a whole must reside.

1. The subject strives to attain apprehension of that which is the case in the world, though cannot garner sight of its complete image; it stands as partial, thusly.
2. All states of affairs, and every conception hitherto known, as occurrence, constitute the world as it appears in the eye's of the subject, in full.
3. The world as it finds' appearance must exemplify all of that which is the case yet shall subsist in destitution of what can arise, in prospect, insofar as the latter remain, true to form; merely prospective.
4. That which has since grown absent, and has made no expression amongst the whole of the world as it appears, bears the privilege and means to ensure that the former become otherwise, and by virtue of which, manifest itself.
5. The preceding conditions if held in account from which none are to be exempt, denote the advent of a world independent of the subject in appearance, in which there has taken occupancy all of that conferred through potentiality; a domain which can never once be apprehended, though must have arisen all the same as consequence.

(All of that which is the case amongst itself independent of representation by means of the subject, in both occurrence and prospect as accounted for through the domain of noumena.)

“The first sentence gave me a headache so I stopped reading.”

Same haha

The World in its every aspect as we ourselves regard it, is mere appearance in full and nothing more. — Vessuvius

True.

I grant your thesis pt-2 parenthetical; it conforms to my understanding of noumena, keyword: independent of representation.

I will nevertheless insist....privately of course...... the remainder, in as much as it concerns itself with perception, apprehension and therefore experience or possible experience with respect to a human thinking subject, is absolutely predicated on the inherent viability of the faculty of intuition, again, of which noumena can never be a part. Mudus intelligibilis, sure; mudus sensibilis.......not a chance in hell. Nor even high water, dammit!!!!!

Are you trying to be funny?

If you're writing run-on sentences that are strings of 14 or 15 prepositional phrases, you should probably revise.

Insofar as I abide in conviction by that which had been espoused on my behalf, prior, for which you had come to serve as the recipient therewith, each reflects unto one another to an extent such that each conform to the same in substance, differentiated only in the manner with which either be granted expression.

"In a domain which can never once be apprehended, and thus bearing no entrenchment in the experiential as noumena."

In Hell I offer no contention nor in High Water; I imagine it to be fortunate then, that neither were the case in truth.

reminds me of Will Ferrell doing the Matrix architect guy .

Nein hat das worden beispiel nahe einsen laune, recht?
(That instance hadn't been near nor of humor, right?)

Are you trying to be funny, here? — I like sushi

Ja.

Das ist nicht gut.

Bye

It’s all good; you added schema to the list of references. I’m happy now.

I could use some help with the #4 in your first post. One can conceive an instance where one’s not in it, ok. But this: “none can for that in which all are in absence”. If all are absent, who would be around to conceive no one was around?

Probably my fault, but I can’t see how that even rises to the level of tautology.

That is....if you still wanna play.

Danke fur alle du die haben bestimmt.

I see no reason which would vindicate, nor serve to warrant divergence from our course as it remains at present.

"One can conceive of an instance in which oneself be absent, yet none can for that in which all are in absence."

As there is no subject through whom the world can be apprehended, need that be true; the world as it appears is conditioned by the former in its representation therewith, yet if either be absent, neither can subsist in the state which must, were it otherwise. The prospect for which the world rests in view, is contingent and thus bound by the determinant of the subject in appearance through its sight.

In the hope of conferring unto you greater depth in the clarity with which you apprehend that for which I have made conveyance since;

Conditions;
1. To conceive of the world in appearance and all aspects contained therein, there must be a subject through whom it be sighted, and as such known in understanding, however much partial the latter may be in form.
2. A mind and by virtue of the same, a subject which bears sufficient depth in all faculties which only in full constitute the former.
3. The presence of a subject is to be regarded and spoken of as requisitory with respect to understanding of the world; its every aspect and all manner of prospect hitherto manifested to which each is in pertainment.

x; a particular aspect or event confined to the world in appearance
X; the subject, if not series thereof
y; that which holds true independent of its apprehension
Y; the world as it is in truth amongst itself, in absence of the subject
Z; the world as it stands' bound and conditioned by the subject, and nothing besides

For any particular event x, there is at minimum a single member of the collection X as contained in that of Z upon which it be contingent and to which it would belong. The collective of X is a subset(proper?) of Z, and by consequence held within it, never to leave its boundary. In contrast therewith, any sentiment y which bears truth independent of its vindication is analytical in form, as each contains the predicate for its own truth in content (no longer conditioned by the subject; is non-conditional). Only the latter can be designated as mere tautology (an instance in which truth stands amongst itself in potentiality; for all possible worlds', to inclusion of the noumenal Y). One can draw inference, that inasmuch as all manner of subject be destitute, and thus in absence of state; all of that upon which there is predicated such a world Z, and dependency wrought upon the subject in its representation, are to persist no longer if either be the case.

(The World as appearance is conditioned by the subject which must grow absent, to reflect upon the state in which the subject lies; yet the world as it is truly, independent of understanding, and representation shall persist despite. It retains semblance in form to the noumenal, without the subject and thus imparts fulfillment unto the central criterion by which determination of its nature is yielded; as imperceptible in the eye's of the subject.)

For the sake of brevity, and your own, I shall offer mere summation of that for which I had sought conveyance, by means of the following.

The World as appearance is conditioned by the subject through its sight. All of that which can be conceived remains latent prior to its inception in thought. If all manner of subject were to transition toward absence in state, there is no longer a basis through which conceptions can be yielded as thought which is itself catalyst for the former, is contingent upon the subject, and thus must be absent if its origin, the subject, were to be the same, in reflection of one another. That which is to entail therefrom, can be regarded as a manifestation of the domain of noumena; all the while remaining without fault, imperceptible, as the subject lies absent therein.

Briefly, with respect to the explanation for my query, you added “no longer conditioned by the subject”, but the original proposition IS conditioned by SOME member of X attempting to engage in the impossible act of conceiving the absence of ALL members of X from Z. In effect, reducing the proposition to an unintelligible state. “None can conceive...” presupposes a subject or a multiplicity of subjects present that can otherwise properly conceive but cannot conceive the absence of all conceivers, in keeping with the map/territory directive.

Superficially a tautology, perhaps, better formed as “there are no conceptions without conceiving subjects”, but actually an unintelligible assertion, unless it carries the implication of a mode of cognition without human intuition or understanding, re: the noumenal realm, which is entirely speculative.

A minor point, to be sure.

Carry on.

Oh Wait. There’s something amiss with y. How can the condition of truth be attributed to anything not in apprehension? There may be a mode of cognition foreign to humans, there may be objects beyond human experience, but what gives us as humans the right to say there is a y, that which holds true regardless of us?

My intent had been to demonstrate the descent toward contradiction which would entail, were it otherwise. The state with which it came to manifest, firstly, is distinct from that for which it was led in subsequence. Therein stands a requisite if apprehension is to be granted entailment in any form as the world must be conditioned by the subject, and remain as such. I wish to concede in that respect; as I ought to have spoken in a tone such that it be evidentiary 'no conception can be yielded if there be absent, the subject', in contrast with 'none can conceive' as the latter of which I acknowledge would presuppose and thus be contingent upon some manner of subject which would remain contrary to that for which I had hoped to make expression at the time.

The notion of truth can arise irrespective of whether the subject and all faculties contained therewith are in absence insofar as that of the object to which the former were to pertain confer implicitly fulfillment onto certain criteria which serve to render itself, if fulfilled, as had been the case before, as a matter of truth within its own intrinsic form. To dispel for a period however brief, with that founded solely in the abstract; its constitution bore semblance to those of the 'analytic'; truths which are nothing else, by virtue of the terms of each, and their content as separate from the subject(for which its truth subsists therein untarnished, and destitute of all externalities as cast unto itself; non-conditional).

For instance; the following suppositions bear truth, despite there being no catalyst, through which either are to be given credence as yielded by the subject, as if each must be experiential in some regard had it been otherwise.
"All bachelor's are unmarried."
" For every three notions there are three notions."
"For every element n+1 of the real numbers R there is at least one member in R of indenticality, whose sum equates to n+1 for any n of R."

"An unintelligible assertion, unless it carries the implication of a mode of cognition without self-contained forms of intuition or understanding (and whose extent of truth is bound by neither)."

I hadn't sought to exercise forethought, of depth sufficient to facilitate my own sight, through which there be determined either, yet felt all the same that the course toward which we have striven, since, may impart unto us what is to be designated and spoken of, merely as a 'God's Eye View' thereby allowing for circumvention of that constraint. By what means, in your belief, could there be amended the prior, in full, and permit it to be reconciled with, in the account, without as consequence deferring to the former to ensure preservation of constancy in form and deter the encroachment of fault in that upon which it need be reflective?

It need be the case, then, with regard to all forms of tautology for which the truth of each, as conferred implicitly unto itself by means of its own content as intrinsic in nature, determine that the former must be transcendental amongst the object of which it stands reflective in appearance.

For all manner of supposition which bears truth, as by virtue of an aspect which resides therein, remains of neither greater nor lesser truth than before, independent of whether it be conceived in thought and thus no longer serve as mere prospect, a priori.

There seems to be a lot of 'word salad' above surrounding the notion that what we call 'the world' is 'observer dependent'. From a species perspective, shared physiology and language gives much agreement which we tend to misleadingly call 'objective', and that sort of blinkered thinking can fuel a futile 'reality debate'. Beyond that relatively simple idea, I cannot see any substantive point being made.

This person is trolling and/or partially insane - both have there merits so will be interesting to watch people’s reactions :D

"I cannot see any substantive point being made."
I ask that you address what has since come to follow, therefrom, onward.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/299642
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/299509
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/299798
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/299654

"From a species perspective, shared physiology and language gives much agreement which we tend to misleadingly call 'objective', and that sort of blinkered thinking can fuel a futile 'reality debate'."

Each of which we regard amongst ourselves as a matter of consensus in form. I see no reason which would vindicate any wish to contest its veracity.

"There seems to be a lot of 'word salad' above surrounding the notion that what we call 'the world' is 'observer dependent'."

My intention as had been made evident, is to ensure that there be a lesser degree of abidance by the prior 'verbosity' on my own behalf in the hope that it abate the burden of understanding of those with whom I have hitherto sought to speak, and for the sake of whom I have acted upon it. The former constitutes a clear preference of mine, and thus must present as to how either would serve to account for that by which it has grown pervasive, in time.

(I harbor a particular condition which detracts from the depth in eagerness with which I strive to partake in an act of speech, as bearing such forms((that which is barren, and plain)); Asperger's; Autism Spectrum Disorder, High-Functioning.)

"Although the social criteria for Asperger’s Disorder (also known as Asperger’s Syndrome, or AS) and autism are identical, the former condition usually involves fewer symptoms and has a generally different presentation than does the latter. Individuals with Asperger’s Disorder are often socially isolated but are not unaware of the presence of others, even though their approaches may be inappropriate and peculiar. For example, they may engage another person — usually an adult — in principally one-sided conversation characterized by long-winded, pedantic speech, about a favorite and often unusual and narrow topic."

It stands as an innate disposition conferred upon birth in potentiality, which has seldom been granted repress on my part.

For further discussion, see the following;
https://psychcentral.com/lib/in-depth-look-at-aspergers-disorders-symptoms/

I think fresco read everything you wrote. You would know this if you were able to communicate in a simple manner.

It appears you either cannot or will not. Either way you’re wasting your time here unless you VERY quickly learn how to read and write.

Note: If your posts continue in this manner I’ll have to report what is clearly - maybe not to you - ‘word salad’. The thing is if you believe it isn’t word salad that just goes show that you’ve bitten off more than you can chew at the moment. Give it time, maybe after some revision you’ll be able to say what you wish to say without the pointless verbosity in between. If you can then you find me asking the same question about noumenon you seem to have missed/ignored completely. The point being if I have to guess between you not understanding and/or ignoring my question I don’t much care.

So you are appealing to what is commonly called 'a medical condition' to account for your 'word salad' ?
If so, I sympathize, but on an intellectual forum like this there is obviously a grey area of classification of comments, ranging from attention seeking to disruptive trolling, into which your convoluted texts could easily be placed.
On a lighter note, I am reminded of this comedy sketch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbnkY1tBvMU

Flagged

How righteous of you to act upon that, and how eloquent your expression had been.

No point pretending. You’re either a troll or unfit for this forum atm.

You have either succumbed to the advent of naivety, and remain blind to your own plight, or persist in destitution of an awareness of that which is the case, at this time. Though one ought not with much immediacy to disregard the prospect in which all the aforementioned, bear truth, as it may well be so.

None of that which you have come to profess, here, is true in even the faintest sense.

"You’re either a troll or unfit for this forum atm."
It is evident in my eye's then, that you have shown no aptitude in proper judgement of character.

"No point pretending." I never once had before, as I am nothing if not earnest.