According to Kantian Melon Park, Kant's meaning of time, as he uses in
his PUDOR, is the same meaning as found in the dictionary.

Kant:
"In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to
experience, but begins with it."

Replacing "time" with Kant's meaning of it, accordng to Kantian Melon"

In respect of the system of those sequential relations that any event
has to any other, therefore, no knowledge of Kant's is dependent upon
the experience, not even dependent to Kant experiencing the objects
and or events required for there to be sequential relations that any
event has to any other.

How can man know there are events, let alone know about a sequential
relationship between events, in the absense of experiencing objects
and their realtionship to each other?

The question therefore is, how can there be knowledge of time without,
or in Kant's words, not dependent upon man experiencing objects /
events?

Answer;
Do as Kantians do and treat time as a god, pure 100%% imagination.

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3aba646b-e2ba-4ef7-9bc5-b359902ed546@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 22, 10:25 am, "brian fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:

Only in your weirdly confused state of mind Brian.

MG

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7944c9d0-a940-44e2-8336-3a01e1de5a91@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 22, 10:25 am, "brian fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:

Only in your weirdly confused state of mind Brian.

MG

So thats your answer to your knowledge of the status of a mystic.

One thing you are correct about, although you do try to personalize it, is
the mind being in a confused state.That is the status quo of 'the' mind and
can be seen clearly by a 'clear' observer by simply reading the constant
banter and arguing in attempt to being 'right' by you lot.

BOfL

On Mar 21, 5:34 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

Well accourding to Kant in a nut-shell?

TIME [A23/B37] Generally, Kant defines time as "a determinate
form. ..in which alone the intuition of inner states is possible"
adding "and everything which belongs to inner states is therefore
represented...

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:

That's out of context, you've been fooled by one of Gouge's
word-twisting, context-dropping games. The context is B1 - "In the
order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to
experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins."

"Malrassic Park" hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:fkiau3l3t0fg97pmap3va6n28ec85am0vp@4ax.com...

I know he's read this before:

"
(MG:) >Last sentence first paragraph of his PUDOR where he talks about his

(T:) No, he doesn't.

Let me explain it to you.

On Mar 23, 6:11 am, "Tron" wrote:

Hahaha whooops there they go again, the dopey Kantian belief that by
preceding "knowledge" with an adjective somehow, but of course
Kantians never explain how, that somehow the preceding adjective
somehow changes the meaning of knowledge.

What meaning did Kant have for knowledge, there's no doubt he had only
one meaning for empirical and for pure, (in the context and the phrase
he's uses them in) so why not for knowledge?

Hmmm, the religionists say god starts out for them as an experience,
so how does Kant's version of experience differ to the mystics?

Anthropomorphic piffle.

On Mar 22, 6:54 pm, "Brian Fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:

"the status" oh sooo your knowledge of the mystic is that they have
only one status?

Check your dictionary, I believe you will find its author was Kant, he
has many meanings for every single word known to man, but his victims
of course blame the translation from his native tongue.

HINT; mystics accept ideas on faith alone Brian and regardless of
contradiction.

Michael Gordge

On Mar 22, 2:38 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote: