From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:14:23 GMT

RE:Kranowski's Aug. 26 message
(I have just started to use a modem from my home and the commands are subtly different so excuse any lack of cp net protocol)

	K remains concerned with proof and relationships . This is fine. These limits exist. I take nothing away from them. But there u  is more, there is always more. You may, if you like concern yourself with the relation between eg, 
consciousness and existence. That is fine and a valid object of study, whatever your conclusion. but these things also exist. They exist. They are. And in that context, they both, eqaully exist. As existence, both consciousness and ex-
istence exist and exist equally. There are, of course, differences between
them and they can be studied. but these differences exist. And, in the limit 
of existence, all three, existence, comnsciousness, and their relation., all
exist and all exist eqaully.
	You dent deny the eg, sub/obj connection with various justifications.
Episte, your justifications can be refuted. Rand dowes does this (I cannot
delete to an extent). however, Existence is much more powerful than philosophy
Yout justificvations exist. They exist just as much as the things they justify. As existing things they exist and there is no problem relating them because
they are not separate (as existinh thingds). In some other limit or context
they are separate and THEN is the poroblem of relating. But NOT as existing
and that has been neglected, for the most part, in the history of philosophy.
That which is separated within one limit or context may not be separated in
another. Please consider that WHATEVER you consider, there is always more.
In some limit, valued by you and many others, sub and obj are split. Of course. but in other limits, no. Peopole on this net are physically separate but, in
the limit of the net, connected. Deny the net and no connection is possible.
Accept the net and the connection is possible. A talks to b on the net. A, B, 
and talking all exist and exist eaq  equally. There is no difference, no separation. 
	Forget, temporarily, how things are related, including the knowledge
relation. consider that things exist. consider that things and their relationsboth exist. and as existing, they are not sepaate separate so no problem ofd of
relating. 
	One of K's justifications of the sub/obj split is from language, implying that language is a substitute for divine omniscience from which we know all
of existencew Anothe rjustification here is needed. And on and on. Knowklwdge
is limited and THAT is HOW we know anything, via the limit. Unlomited know-
ledge would, literally, be nothing, have no limit, have or be no identity.
Human knowlwedge is limited to human consciousness of existence . That Is what it is. This is good, not bad. survival demand a human view. Caution, i just
intoduced a non-meta concern or limit. It is good but not meta. 
	Again, there is objectivity.It exists, along with ec  everything else.
Your claim that obj is sub impossible is true or a rather, it exists. As an
objectivist, i don't value your limit, subjectivity. i value objectivity and
am concerned with the properties of objectivity. I have an obj view of obj, not a sub view of obj. you do and that is fine (m no relativism). I make a n obj
critique of subjectivity, not a sub critiwque of subjectivity. THAT is K's
concern or limit.
	Objectively, objectivity exists. and there is more.I'm unsure if this isad hominem but consider the intellectual need for subjectivists to dent deny
objectivity. Why cant they tend their own garden? Because, sub need to justify their retreat i away fro m existence. If convincinced of objectivity, they
would ignore subjectivity. They cannot intellectually afford to recognize thatthey are conscious of existence. 
	Mainstream of contemp philosophy is unbelievably unprincopled. Each techissue is isiolated, no connection to anything else. Vey difficult to persuade
people to recognize the whole of existence since they want to exclude this 
or that. A intellectual haboit which should be broken. system exists as much
as pragmatism.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta