Balder, My neglect of this thread is due more to time constraints than a lack of interest on my part.  My job doesn't leave me with a lot of free time (and the recently begun NHL season leaves me with even less), and I've found that I haven't had time to even visit any of the I-I sites.  As a result, I'm going to be cancelling my ...

Mascha, If I have left some of your questions unanswered, it is because I cannot make sense of them.  You maintain that distinguishing between subject and object is ''dualistic,'' and therefore to be avoided, and yet your posts are filled with statements attesting to the legitimacy of making such distinctions. Lonergan's cognitional theory ...

Bruce: Or else you're just being a little over-zealous in protecting something that is dear to you... Can one really be ''over-zealous'' when it comes to defending the one true faith?

Mascha, You're completely evading the question. Yes, it is true that I first denied that this epistemology is ''dualistic,'' because I had a different definition of ''dualistic'' in mind.  I subsequently decided, for the sake of argument, to accept your definition (i.e., the absence of a distinction between subject and object).  ...

Bruce and Tim, I will respond to your posts when I get a chance. Mascha, I've thought of a better way of responding to what you wrote before. You've asserted that my distinction between ''subject'' and ''object'' is ''dualistic.''  You've implied that this is a deficiency.  So my question to you is, what do you ''know'' that makes ...

Mascha, Every salient point you make in your original post, especially and including the examples of California or the dog really being ''out there'', they just need to be apprehended by ''authentic subjectivity''. That postulates a split between subject and object as a given. And that, in my view, is the Myth of the Given inherent in your ...

Mark: ...every occasion is conperception, the mind co-creates the reality, the world, it sees. For the most part I agree with this statement, but if this is so, what is it, other than the mind, that ''co-creates the reality, the world, it sees''?

Balder: With Mark, I appreciated what you wrote, but would like to see a closer comparison to Wilber's epistemology (as you see it). It's coming. It appears (at this point) that the model you have described could fit within an IMP context, rather than standing strictly as an alternative to it. I agree.  I'm beginning to think that Wilber's

Ralph, Perhaps we have different perspectives on what is considered ''acceptable'' in the world of academia because we live in different countries.  I did my first degree at the University of Toronto, the largest university in Canada (not a ''non-mainstream'' institution from my perspective), and remember Copleston's books as being highly ...

Mark: Thank you for your comments/questions.  I'm writing a follow-up that will make clear the difference between the epistemology presented here and that implicit in Wilber's work.  My own sense is that he has overcome some, but not all, of the problematic elements of idealism, and I suspect this is the cause of the confusion over ...