Discovery vs Disclosure
November 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Discovery vs Disclosure :: [epistemology] Discovery vs Disclosure :: Discovery vs Disclosure* :: Discovery vs Disclosure*
Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> Joseph Polanik schrieb :
>
>>Michael Eldred wrote:
>>>No being _is_ without showing itself _as_ such-and-such for
>>>understanding. So the being of a being and the disclosure of that
>>>being belong together
>>from the first person perspective of this being-here looking at
>>objects which are merely existential realities (physical beings, or
>>physical realities), the observing I does the discovering. the object
>>lacks the capacity to disclose itself.
>ME: If the “physical being” does not show itself AS such-and-such, the
>”I” cannot discover it.
it is certainly true that if a physical entity is not such-and-such,
this being-here can not accurately discover that it is such-and-such.
however, this simple observation does not tell us whether the
entity-there does the disclosing or whether the being-here does the
discovering.
>>if you look at an inkblot and see a bat, it is not the inkblot that is
>>disclosing itself. you who look at the inkblot are self-disclosing.
>>the bat is ‘there’ because you put it there.
>If I look at an ink-blot, it has already shown itself AS SOMETHING;
>otherwise I could not see it.
the question is: did the inkblot show itself to be the bat or did you
discover the bat in the inkblot?
>>at the subatomic level, particles do not even have definite values for
>>their dynamic properties — until observed. so, the particle does not
>>disclose itself. the observer discovers its values when the
>>observation forces the wave function to collapse the superposition of
>>all posssibilities into a single definite value.
>At the “subatomic level” there is no simple looking-at (Anschauung,
>intuition) — what shows itself shows itself only in the light of the
>noetic-theoretic concepts that construe certain phenomena (in certain
>apparatuses constructed according to the physical theory) AS the
>appearance of “particles”, “wave functions”, etc.
yes, it takes considerable apparatus to observe a subatomic particle;
but, the question is: does the particle disclose itself or does the
physicist discover its properties?
how can a particle disclose its dynamic properties (eg its spin) when
those properties don’t even have definite values in between
observations of that property?
did the number 3 disclose itself as a prime number; or, did some ancient
mathematician discover that three was a prime number?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
