posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 06:35 PM
Why do we assume that atoms, electrons and subatomic particles - the fine structure of our percieved reality, are in fact a Phenomenal
representation of the structure of the neumenon and not a structural framework unique to the the Phenomenon?.
What if beyond certain scales the foundations of the Phenomenon and Neumenon differ to the same degree that a photo-realistic painting does from a
photograph?. As we have the advantage of knowing that our experiences are based in the Pheonomenon, where does the assumption that beyond the
ranges of our own natural perception the Phenomenon must still accurately reflect the Neumenon come from?
Surely there must come a point at which the accuracy of the Phenomenon deteriorates and the difference between Neumenon and Phenomenon increases? and
if so, eventually also a point where one is percieving a Phenomenal reality that is not representative of the Neumenal at all?
I hope I've explained my thought process here well enough, I tried talking it over with a few people at work but I couldn't make them understand
what I meant, I'd had quite a lot of espressos and this just kept going round and round in my head. I think I might have got carried away because of
all the coffee and been wildly gesticulating with quite a massive knife too so maybe it wasn't the best time to start raving about 'reality
I'm not even confident that my understanding of the words Phenomenon and Neumenon are correct, I haven't read much about philosophy other than
Here I intend them to be understood as meaning:
Phenomenon: what is observed of the world be experience but is assumed to be our minds fabrication designed to represent the....
Neumenon: a true reality existing outwith our perceptions, imperfectly reflected by the phenomenon.