[There are a number of things wrong with this passage. For example, in describing Kant’s position, Meillassoux employs his own very simple contrast between the ‘thing itself’ and ‘for us’ in place of Kant’s own sophisticated understanding of the ‘thing-in-itself’ which is bound up with the frameworks of transcendental realism and idealism... Meillassoux’s argument risks blurring both the public-private vs. consensual-nonconsensual distinction and the true-false vs. objective-subjective distinction. If so, this would be fatal... Secondly, Meillassoux risks running objectivity and truth together. Realism and Correlationism: Truth
from Grundlegung by Tom]
[On the other hand, I think Roy Bhaskar’s transcendental realism as developed in A Realist Theory of Science provides the resources for moving from the domain of epistemology to ontology.
First, Bhaskar argues that the treatment of being according to the requirements of knowledge, or the reduction of being to knowledge of being, constitutes a fallacy that he refers to as the “epistemic fallacy”. This fallacy is rife throughout both Anglo-American and Continental philosophy, and is visible in social constructivisms that reduce being to discourses about being, forms of phenomenology that reduce being to sense-bestowing intuition or only allow us to talk of being in terms of being-given or donated, and, of course, Kantianism. Object-ions from Larval Subjects by larvalsubjects]
[One of the errors of phenomenology — including both Husserl's and Scheler's — is that when it regards itself as investigation into essences, as distinguished from existence (as a consequence of eidetic reduction), it forgets that essences also have their Dasein (existence) and their Sosein, that Dasein is not as such real existence. There is also, as with essences and mathematical idealities such as numbers, and values, ideal Dasein. From: Jitendra Nath Mohanty - Phenomenology. Between essentialism and transcendental philosophy - Chapter 3: Nicolai Hartmann's phenomenological ontology - Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1997 pp. 26-27. 6:40 PM 3:57 PM]
[The mind will solve nothing. At the high school my passion was philosophy, I know very well what the mind can build, legitimating everything and, by the same force, rejecting it. If we don’t start from the very foundations on which we have built our personalities, and which condition our sadhana directly, we’ll go on chasing enemies forever. Nobody is entirely right, and nobody entirely wrong. Discord can only subside by quietly looking within and, from there, listening to the reasons of both, harmonizing at last the opposites into a compassionate whole. At least, this is what the Mother recommends. Integral Psychology! Paulette permalink Re: Archetypal Images and Symbols—by Paulette]
[At the end of the day investing physical processes that fall under the scrutiny of science with spiritual meaning or spiritual meaning in terms of quantifiable scientific processes does not so much speak to the "truth" of the matter as it does an attempt to make sense of the world and its phenomena by contextualizing them according to the comfortable perspectives of one's own belief system. tc Re: Convergent evolution Tony Clifton Science, Culture and Integral Yoga 8:25 AM]
It is bad metaphysics that is to blame and The Life Divine alone offers the most intellectually satisfying perspective. [TNM]