Illustrate ours and the Raven's deductive logic.
Camellia Japonica

High soaring above the Raven glides
What do you see with your eyes?
A bird? A black bird?
What to you hear? A caw? A song?
What if we are in a dome?
The Raven looking down
What does the Raven see?
You? Me?
What colour are we?
The Raven is a paradox
If he sees us and we see him
Both observing that neither of us are black, nor Ravens
Increases our belief that the Raven is black
Unrelated observations under the dome
Supposition, inductive logic, intuition
Illustrate ours and the Raven's deductive logic.
Our logic is the same.
The Raven soars on
We remain.

#sad   #life   #emotion  
The beginnings of my deductive empathy
Aug 20, 2012

Is this useless?
Am I useless?
Are doubts the mark of wisdom?
As the wise sit and wait.
The greatest advice I heard,
For my family to lift my chin
For my shoulders to lift our backs,

Is that the ground has nothing for eyes.
With one last look around I noticed why,
This debris is interesting, but deprived.
Stories. From what is left behind.
The beginnings of my deductive empathy
Sound like the pauses in my discrepancy
And sure, these countless questions can lead to great things
But when should I release my reticence for my wings?
Another twinge in rhetoric,
A singe in my time's tick

I must look up from the path to see my own,
There is no use in musing at buried bone.
A miser of different dirts will become rich among rubble.
Not believing that anything is worth its trouble,
Is a mark of death, not wisdom.
I am sorry for not seeing this prison.

thers me who believed in seductive over deductive reasoning. When someone calls you somet
Marci Mareburger

This is a precursor to everything to come in the next year. I believe if I begin to focus on stream of consciousness writing, my content may begin to resemble that of Bukowski or Poe but hopefully not as rapaciously violent or ominously insane. More specifically, I figure in my own storytelling fashion I will account my platonic relationships gone awry based on false pretenses established by reputation of the "societal self".  As well as the romantic relationships that I so eagerly sabotaged believing in the assigned repetoire cast upon me by others me who believed in seductive over deductive reasoning. When someone calls you something for long enough, you begin to believe it. But unlike others, I can't drown my demons because they know how to swim. I seek catharsis and self definition. I seek growth and competency. I seek understanding, and I seek to turn my version of insanity into something that others can relate to or translate.

This isn't poetry but it's me.
Deductive insurrections stirred in memory,

All estuaries flow eastbound, and the subterranean rail tracks keep forcing against the estuaries’ grain and dust foundations perpendicularly to them.

How can a sane proposition -- a quantification of syntax execution (those squirming cuticles through bonds of regression)— an excessive reflection, reflexive inspection,

Prove its sanity through continued suggestion?

Deductive insurrections stirred in memory,

A rumble, causing sediments to crumble,

Wineglasses balanced atop countertops tumble.

Spilling contents upon the grained wooden, elitists' floors.

"Anesthetic, onsetting tuberculosis in breath patterns,

Gavels ringing on rigged tolling tongs in caverns,

Dark tolerances to Copernican astronomy in shadows,

And the handle grinds as boxcar wheels' flints and steels catch and spark in addled locks," I mumbled from a half-nap.

It was surgery, the smooth procedures on the moving trains,

The gains and plectrums scraped against the brains' spider veins,

To reorganize the sane, to bridge the broken definitions changed,

To prevent arguments' bone structure from fractures and sprains.

"Use gavels against the scalpels, sculpt with their judgment," a corona dream's habitant corrugated.

He pounded the gavel's end against the knife to chisel at the pituitary gland pulsing in his subject,

And her arms flailed like a horse's legs in heat-induced convulsion.
I thought it was done.

The Canson Merue train screamed in the night under earth to Yellowknife to meet Canadian soil as the Heavy Breather pounded his gavel.

With its linear logic and high powered deductive reasoning
Matt Davis
Matt Davis
Jun 26, 2013      Jun 29, 2013

The last time I saw you, you were standing there at the gate, watching me walk away  
I was trying to look cool, like nostalgia in motion
That’s a difficult thing to pull off when you’re constantly looking back 
You were smiling and waving, like it was all gonna be alright
I secretly hated you for that  
Everything in my being screamed at me to turn around, to run back to you
I wanted to take your hand in mine and pull you out of there like Wayne did to Cassandra…
Only I didn’t

I did my duty
I turned around one last time at the end of the longest hallway in the world and stole one last look
Blinking back the burning sensation in my eyeballs and the tightness in my throat
And then I plodded on
Just like I was supposed to
I had a stabbing pain in my gut like things would never be the same again
Like the WE we were was dying and going away forever  
At the time I dismissed that sharp unbearable thought as sentimental weakness
The sloshy musings of an admittedly overdramatic youth  
Never would’ve guessed my gut knew so much more than my thirsty brain
With its linear logic and high powered deductive reasoning
I told myself we’d be together again soon
I told myself to focus on the task at hand, and you’d be the reward waiting for me at the end of it all
The bright white light at the end of my long dark tunnel  
I told myself you’d be the sunshine on the other side of the mountain
Knowing somewhere deep down it wasn’t true  
Knowing somewhere deep down, that the WE we were
Now existed only in my fondest memories
Only in the dark moments I would occasionally indulge on the cool side of my pillow
I turned around
And walked out of your life

deductive reasoning flees and genetically modifie
Samuel Lyman Temple
Samuel Lyman Temple
Jan 17, 2014      Jan 18, 2014

fevered reaper selecting baby souls
only one tool keeps the beast young
sun shines behind grime covered window frames
criminal thinking sinking the ship
quipping pre-teens preen while they lose
reproductive capabilities
deductive reasoning flees and genetically modified food stuffs
alter our life code
strife molds encircle biochemists
mutated fingers point blame
shame covers faces of misplaced racial stereotypes
Cold decomposed moral compass
worn down from years of abuse
overused, as holey shoes
by the religious and worse
the fundamentally pure
white robes
hide white skin
while white hair
flows beneath white clouds
telling all non-whites to conform as best they can
and with hard work
and proper taxation
one day they could be considered differently
accepted into the greater herd
part of a better society
not white, but accepted----

broken dams drown civilization

Stroked yokes of yesterday’s slavery
sit upon grandpa’s shoulder
tales of tribulation and uprising
behind wild eyes bent on maintaining the norm
“it is the failings of a nation that gives rise to interracial breeding”
“without purity there can be only chaos”
…….I sit profoundly injured
my psyche battered by the blood
that flows in our collective veins
how could we all have come from such hate and bigotry
is it really that strange that we are so crazy about political correctness
when we separated church and state
was it the same as pulling the head
off a grasshopper
contented in a land of unease
my hat sits slightly tilted
to match the society in which I live

It's deductive reasoning,
Micheal Bevan
Jan 13, 2010

Blue for the chill,
It's blue,
That hill,
Off in the distance,
Past that window,
That hasn't been washed,
I'll do that,
I will.

But the hill,
It's blue,
Blue is for the chill,
In case you forgot,
I do that sometimes,
I can't remember my lines,
But it's ok,
Cause they did too,
So it's not just you,

But look,
Out the dirty window,
That I forgot to clean,
A minute ago,


Now look,
Past the window you don't know is there,
Cause its so clean,
Out to the hill,
It's blue,
Just like you,
Blue is for the chill,
Blue is for you too.

I know why blue is yours,
Cause I know almost everything,
I knew what your favorite colour is,
I know your favorite song to sing,
I shouldn't give it away too soon,
But the colour is blue,
And the song Blue Moon,
I knew I shouldn't have said anything,
I gave it away too soon...

But that's why you need to look,
You need to see,
Just like me,
I see you have eyes,
I know that cause I can see,
Big surprise,
It's deductive reasoning,
I like your wide eyes,
Makes you look scared,
Maybe you won't be so combative,
Maybe you'll do better than the others faired...

No no,
Don't cry,
Please don't cry,
I don't know what to do about tears,
I find them to be one of my bigger fears,
I fear them like you fear death,
I'm not sure how to make them stop,
Without stealing your breath...

That's better
I'm glad you stopped,
It's better than you smile,
Cause it's been quite awhile,
Since I've seen someone not so scared,
Perhaps you will do better,
Than the others faired...

Oh no,
I've gone and frightened you again,
I'm sorry,
I don't mean to,
I'm unsure what to do,
How about I show you something?
Here look,
It's a ring,
Diamond and gold,
Will keep shining forever,
Till we're grey and old,
Isn't that something else?
It'll last longer than both you and I,
But that's no surprise,
Rocks have long lives,
We humans almost never survive...

But never mind that,
You got me all sidetracked,
Trickster you!
But look,
Beyond the window,
All the blue,
That is the hill,
Cause blue is for the chill,
And I know how you like the colour,
I like always how the world is still,
Never moving,
Not an inch,
Not a mile,
Not bit,
Not in quite awhile,
I've often wondered why not,
But then I forgot,
What I wondered about,
And then I scream,
And I shout,
And when I stop I find everyone's sleeping,
Not making a sound,
Not even breathing,
So I dig a big,
Big hole in the ground,
And in they go,
Without a sound.

But don't worry,
I won't forget a thing!
I won't ever forget the name of that song,
That song you love to sing!
It's called...
It's called...
It's called.....



Wake up sleepy head,
Wake up lazy bones!
You're dead...
You never even got to see the hill,
That's passed the window,
It's blue,
Blue is for the chill,
All for you,
That hill,
Cause it's blue,
And I know you really like the colour,
Or liked I guess,
What a mess...
I'm sorry for this,
I really thought I'd miss,
Never hit anything with it before,
But I guess I did today,
I had hoped you could stay,
For a little while longer,
I knew that I could be just that little bit stronger,
But not today...

akable system of thought; they felt, by deductive reasoning from simple premises, reinfor
Hal Loyd Denton
Nov 17, 2011

Beloved Country

To former days I can’t attest did a like occurrence happen before the fall of ancient Rome if so it is not
Recorded what is recorded is the words of Adam’s who spoke about the natural order of things including
The nations he said it is now our solemn duty to manage the decline of this great nation that has been
Birthed did this solitary figure that walked in the dark valley start from that premise or was it another
Form of truth the truth that was blatantly obvious was he like the prophet of old that was told to do
Things before the eyes of Israel each command from God was a man living out an example a living object
Lesson your actions are not without consequence your folly is the tolling of the bell of death this figure
Crisscrossed this nation it held the straining haunting memory of Woody Guthrie, Jack Kerouac but more
Tragic was it a man or not human at all a spirit an angel one thing to have him brush past you were
Drawn to study him intently there was an announcement brimming a pronounced knowing that was
Born upon brooding wings he wasn’t a chameleon but at times he was identifiable with our history as
The time in a suit the dust in his hair his whole being spoke simply twin towers 911 the word from he
Who keeps the nations in peace and safety said this never would have happened if America still prayed
And sought his inexhaustible favor the figure was heard to repeat over and over again Abilene a white
Headed five star General not much when you just say Ike but he was the one that was waiting in the
Wings ready to march onto the world stage in his hands the winds of war were tamed we entered a
Great time of prosperity we took the statement in God We Trust to the depth of our hearts and he
Responded as he always does to that kind of faith broke the grip of tyrants who threatened the world
We were benevolent even saved and rebuilt the lands destroyed by imbeciles who thought they could
Butcher innocent people and a righteous God would look the other way in their deaths justice shouted
The favored words of victory you don’t have to be strong just trust and I will fight your battles then the
Figure is seen in the Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius it’s also a
Nickel bag of marijuana Nam and a sexual revolution sets the country on a course that you wonder can it
Recover it was pinball on the big scale every thinker and crack pot was listened to you played the game
One brain trust put it that this all started centuries ago they said by looking back we can see how we got
Where we are and where were going they say our crisis today is from the foundation laid by the age of
Reason here are the writing of two essential groups the rationalists and the empiricists. In the 1600’s and 1700’s, strains of humanisistic, man-centered thought came together and flourished, producing a widespread change in assumptions about reality. A group of thinkers known as the Continental Rationalists, composed of Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, assumed on faith the mind’s ability to function correctly, independent of any external guidelines for thought and independent of God’s revelations about his creation. The mind could build a sound, unshakable system of thought; they felt, by deductive reasoning from simple premises, reinforced by truths retained from the biblical worldview from which they could borrow for the sake of convenience.

Then another group of philosophers known as the British Empiricists took things a step further toward modernism. This group, composed of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, denied the existence of the “innate ideas” held by the rationalists. All that man can know, they proposed, must originate in experience. All “abstract ideas” such as God or truth must derive from some sense impression in order to be intellectually valid.
You approach man in his mind you will find no guards to turn you back no resistance but the truly wise
That are built on this foundation it renders all that is false lifeless and harmless it says “See to it that no
One takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition
And the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ Colossians 2:8 false teaching respects not
Borders or fairness only the power of ruthless lies that seem light as feathers what harm can they do
Put the rest of the picture together feathers on a bird of prey will spread death and terror you walk
Unaware in a violent land you will soon be a victim without remedy and then the man that holds the
Highest office in the land says officially we are no longer a Christian nation but we are opening our arms
To all beliefs and systems of thought if that had been our history you wouldn’t know the world you and I
Live in first we would never had the blessing that enabled us to bless and build the weaker nations
Up where they could stand and make strides against ignorance and poverty I was at the store an old
Gentlemen was setting on a bench and he was shaking from a terrible ailment why didn’t I rush over and
Discuss Plato’s man cave I know in the right situation it has validity only to a point no I dropped my eyes
As my heart broke because of his situation he is my brother not one of a government but of a human
Fact I care because a real God a deity of love flows through my entire physical and spiritual life I don’t
Analyze create the perfect orderly answer I cry out in my lack of understanding please gentle one go
To him be his unshakable rock steady him on the inside the outside passes away that what our figure
Of this story knows we have such riches not in temporal realms but in those that will never falter they
Will only increase in coming days as glory is revealed my figure in this story shows we are being
Destroyed by forgetting who we are where we came from Abraham Lincoln said if we ever come to ruin
It will come from within I doubt if he ever dreamed it would come from the highest elected officials
Again this is all a bad dream if you make a personal and family altar he never has denied the cry of a
Humble and contrite heart this nation is yours not Washington’s fight for it on your knees or stand with
Tears in your eyes like the French when the devil incarnate Hitler Pranced about in Paris tears of regret
Or tears that will usher in triumph

than being deductive, are actua

For this paper I will be
examining Hume’s account
of the nature of personal identity
and the ways that this belief affects
his overall idea of change over time.
This will be from section 1.4.6 and
any other sections which come that
may actually account for this topic.
In this section, Hume argues agains
t the existence of a self that persists
unchanged through a person’s exp
erience of it.
The premises for this argument
(1) If there was a continually
existing self, it would have
to borrow from basic sensation
stimuli (impressions) to
perpetuate its existence
(2) There are no continually
existing impression sensations (1)
(3) The existence of a self,
like the existence of an
impression, is always
changing and is not fixed
in an individual moment
in a person’s experience
of the self.
(C) There is no continually
existing self (2), (3).
In this paper I would like to
raise possible objections to the view
that there may not be a continually
existing self.  Due to the limited
nature of my knowledge in philosophy
, I will not be using a lot of terminology
from other disciplines but will instead
attempt to find contradictions in
Hume’s supporting arguments
  Some of the contradictions I will
be referencing are from other sections
of The Treatise On Human Nature and
some will be within section 1.4.6 itself.
  In the beginning of the section, Hume
makes reference to so-called positive
assertions putting forth his
supporting arguments to his
main argument.  These positive
assertions are an attempt at
understanding the possibilitie
s or limitations of impressionally
gathered experience knowledge
.  The main argument denying the
the existence of a continually existing
self is itself a positive argument
because it reveals that our unde
rstanding of the world, rather
than being deductive, are actua
lly inductive, and not only
inductive, (
but totally mind dependent
rational as well.  
In section 1.3.3 of the Treatise,
Hume puts forth his first
argument for a first cause
or “Base Case.”  Hume su
ggests that every argume
nt “in fact” has a first cause
in 1.3.15 and describes under
what conditions an argument
must “in fact” exist.  The first
cause argument is as follows:
(1) we can clearly conceive of
a beginning without a cause
because ideas of events are
distinct, meaning that they
are separable in the imagination
(2) If we can clearly conceive of
x, then x is possible (3) so, it is
possible for a beginning without
a cause to exist (C) So, it is not
necessary that every beginning
has a cause.
We used the argument above
in class to illustrate how a
person is capable of imagining
a six story bike existing and
can reorganize inside of their
“imagination” variations on
this bike existing, but never
have deductively referential
sensation based experiences
to draw from to be certain of the
bike’s temporal existence at a
moment in time.  Also in class
was mentioned that Hume was
not referring to an actual first
cause, but is referencing an contingent
truth about how things must
be by our ordering of events
in a way we associate with caus
and effect.  
That is the contiguity, resemblance,
and cause and effect beliefs that
we hold which support our beliefs
about the permanence and nature
of objects through time.  Two objects
of the imagination (ordered in the mind)
or sensible objects (objects ordered in the field
of sensation) are contiguous of one
another when they are ordered nearer
or further from one another.
  Resemblance is the quality that the
observer assigns to sensible objects
which is the secondary quality of
the objects how they appear to the
observer (red, white, blue, purple, etc).
Cause and effect beliefs are
based in a past experience that
is revealed to us to be true by
force and vivacity and connections
to the above mentioned impressed
Using the idea of the first cause
as a starting point for further
analysis of Hume’s rationalist
account of the possibility
of continuous existence of the self
as well as the empirical account of
possibility of sensible objects holding
continued existence through time,
I would like look at how Kant might take
this question by using his method of
Antinomies for finding a contradiction in two opposing either empirically or metaphysically justified claims (
Kant mentions earlier philosophers
who use metaphysical justification
to prove that a priori knowledge of
the nature of posterior objects is incorrectly
gathered based on his ideas of synthetic
/analytic relationships between
objects and their predications
.  He uses Descartes’ rational claims
to the existence and predication of a
god in Descartes’ understanding
of a causal principal as well as the
claims of Liebniz referring to a priori knowledge that reflects on the experience that a person has of posterior objects, to find a
contradiction in the predication
of these cognitive objects through
the comparison of Antinomies.  For rationalists,
analytic truths held about the
nature of external experience was
gathered through a combination
of a priori followed by a posteriori
reflections of those basic cognitive
experiences.  And the other way that
this might work is through complete
posterior synthesis of objects or
complete interior synthesis of objects
to get a clean syntactic connection.
However, Kant claims that there is no way
to have a rational account of a completely
interior synthetic relationship of ideas
because there would be nothing of which
to hold the parts of the synthetic
relationship together lacking the needed
external components that give the a priori
knowledge base the power it needs to
exist.  By using the internal/external,
empirical/metaphysical criteria for
analytic/synthetic connections of ideas
Kant has found a contradiction in the claims
of these philosophers who hold a
priori knowledge existence by taking
the claims in both their internal and
external forms and placing them against
an a priori concept that doesn’t even exist.  
I realize that Hume does not hold these beliefs
in a priori knowledge because to Hume,
the only possible answers to these questions
about ideas and knowledge acquisition lie in
the corresponding impressed beliefs
but there appears to be some space to explore
in Hume’s claim in the Base Case that no real
connections can be made between two objects,
only the configuration of those objects is
possible to grasp.  With no actual understanding
or experience of the cause and the
effects of that cause, almost any concept
may be replaced for the actual cause of the
cause that supports the subsequent effect
in our beliefs of that experience.  So if we
can find evidence both affirming that the
cause of the experienced cause and the
negation of that indeterminate cause
conflicts with Hume’s positive assertions
of an deductive view of the
self over time, we might come to
a conclusion that if not rendering
them false, at least makes the  
positive views seem less plausible.  
I realize that attacking an indeterminate
cause that Hume isn’t worried about solving
or confronting with his Treatise, but rather using
as a placeholder for an empirical argument
against the possibility of knowing the continuation
of a self or object, may not seem like the
best way to confront this issue of permanence
because Hume is only interested in showing
how it’s NOT possible to know that two objects
are causally connected, but there is some room
to move around I think because Hume is both
questioning the validity of the possibility of
the existence of first an impression and then a self.  
Hume is considering the self as being the
mind. This does go against the copy
principle and even his positive argument
.  The mind to Hume is a bundle
of simple and complex ideas
ultimately controlled by the oper
ations of the whims of a pers
on’s emotions and therefore
force and vivacity depending on
their proximity to the initial contact
with impressions or memories of im
pressions that order ideas in the
mind and with which sensible
objects gain or lose F&V; priority
in our field of experience.  This
connection from impression to idea
makes the mind both dependent on
empirically gathered evidence and
the operations of the mind to make
sense of a single examined idea.
  In this case we are examining the
idea of its contents rather than
letting it pass from moment to
moment unnoticed to us as is the
case in the first premise (1) of the
argument for a positive explanation
for a continually existent self.  
Hume appears to want to have a view
that supports both the examined
and unexamined versions of the ideas
that make up the self as is suggested
in paragraph 2 stating “the idea of self
pass for clear and intelligible” opposed
to an unintelligible unexamined
version pushed forward by the positive
Following this last quoted sentence,
Hume continues by stating that
“self or person is not any one impression,
but that to which our several impressions
and ideas are suppos’d to have a reference.”
A later statement concerning the
nature of the soul, which is a reference
to the material soul of Descartes who
was breaking away from the mind
independent idea of a god controlling
the actions of the body and moving
toward a body that controls the mind
sometimes and the mind controlling
the body sometimes, Hume is attempting
to use this same looseness of distinction
of function of the mind and body to make
a point about our ideas of continued
existence of objects and the mind.  Being
that the mind is no longer necessitated
by a god that is part of its function as a
mirror on the world, it is no longer
susceptible to the level of skeptical
criticism that Kant uses to discredit
the rational views of the contemporaries
of Hume who held views on a priori
knowledge about physical objects.  However, I believe
Hume continues with this project
of if not a god, then an indeterminate
something that controls the mind and
its views of the world as much as a god does.
As earlier stated, there are first cause
questions or Hume having trouble with
pinning down what is exactly going
on with connections between sensibles
objects which only have contiguity and
priority to measure their proximity and
order in a person’s experience of them.  
This is an external view to the maximum
because there is something happening,
there is a first cause, but the cause to
Hume is actually outside of our reasoning
of its cause.  
The self is connected to Base Case
by a causal chain involving the ordering
of external objects to mirror the ordering
of ideas in the imagination and the force
and vivacity we consciously/unconsciously
assign to these ideas.  But Hume is dedicated
to the view that though our perceptions
of sensible objects through our experience
are compelling enough to trick a person into
believing in a continued existence of a self,
those immediate unconscious stimuli do
not in fact hold any empirical weight or
simplicity  which is indicated by the lack
of compound function of the sensation.
  Hume in the appendix to says that
he is only focusing on the self that occurs
after the immediate unconsciously
gathered sensation.  He is dealing
with personal identity as it relates
to thought or imagination but not
focusing on the nature of brute forces
that influence our beliefs in a continually existing self.  
The way that objects exists in the
external world is in question because
Hume is grabbing for an indefinite
something is beyond the cause of the effect.  
This I believe is a big problem to his project
of finding a constantly occurring self because
he is invoking an a posteriori  claim about
something that is just not an impression.
  And if it is the start of a personal project
to understand the nature of himself and
not the operations of other objects in the
world as he suggests he is not attempting
when mentioning “rocks and animals” in
1.4.6, (I am using this idea of
cognitive focus from the talk from the colloquium by Emily Kelahan)
and this does make it look like there
is a purely psychological project going on.
If the indefinite starting point of Hume’s
causal claims is something like a claim about
something that doesn’t exist except as abstract
object in external, then it should be treated
as one part of the contradiction that though
affirming his case against the existence of
such objects in (1) of the premises for his
main argument, it is still a large hole in his
project of finding if there are real objects such
as this.  The other part of this contradiction is
the claim to a mind/body connection that is
constant in its ability to output data that confuses
the subject to such a point where they don’t
know what is in and what is out.  Impressions
become the ideas which are ordered in the
subject’s mind but that Hume says we
should discount as faulty because we cannot
know the true nature of the connection
between one sensible object and another.
We only use deduction to understand this
idea and what we believe happened in the
past to make this idea clear.  On the other
hand, the inductive properties of this argument
are also fallen back on because Hume admits
to using induction to order the causal ideas
of past experiences in the mind for future
reference to causal relationships in the external world
.  Hume says that his goal is find a causal
relationship between two sensible objects
but that the closest he can get to an empirically
useful data is an impression.  But then there’s
the circularity which he accepts as being necessary
in his project because prior experience is
supposed to fill in the gap where causation
leaves blank between two objects which
are causally connect, one still precedes and
gives power the to next taking power from
one and transferring it to the other (From
Anaximenes). This power Hume calls force
and vivacity which is consistent with his
claim to the impossibility of knowledge (J
TB) about objects of perception.  But,
his claim is a positive claim because
impressions are the only way
to go in an account of the world
in his opinion.  Not a negative
claim which it shares in properties of by affirming
an indefinite a posteriori concept
to the experience in the world.  Prior
experience is not a substitute for an
initiating cause.  Hume doesn’t care
and doesn’t make a distinction either way.  
Hume’s positive project was
to find what was possible through
deductive means.  All through out 1.4.6 if the Treatise
he is put out claims to why this project
does not work because there is something
that gets in the the way, “je ne ce quoi” as
he puts it in previous sections of
the Treatise to describe the process of force
and vivacity on the mind passing from
one thought to the other with the properties
of force and vivacity as a means of
bridging this gap.  Hume sees his Positive
assertions as a way to prove a Negative
possibility in the world.
Why not call this possibility a sleight
of hand because it means the same
thing as the Positive assertions that
Hume is putting out there with the
weight of experience to back him up.
Because Hume is not serious abou
t finding real causes in the field of experience,
why not invoke the principles early stated
when talking about his Positive argument?
The a posteriori “something” that
sits in front of all of us is as much an
object of absurdity when taken as a literally
standing principle of the experience, as is the
conglomerate of shifty association ideas
in the mind that dictate the terms of a
person’s reality.  Taking the absurd idea
of a completely rational claim to reality
and shoving that in to a thing called a mind
and then taking an a posteriori claim
to something that really looks like an
abstract object which goes completely
against what Hume states in both Copy
Principle and the Base Case, it is clear how
Hume’s Positive assertions prove a contradiction
in his project.  Hume is claiming that
both Negative and Positive views are
to be taken into account concurrently
which if not absurd on its own feet,
should lose all footing given that what
holds it in place are ultimately less than
impressions and absolutely relative to the experience of a subject.
he result is a sort of reductioad absurdum meta absurdum meta
philosophy absurdum lost on everyone but the man himself

To comment on this poem, please log in or create a free account
Log in or register to comment