Ok. Let’s see if I can be clear about what I’m saying. Then maybe our conversation will be a little more productive at this point. 1. The names we …Clarity.
I don’t think we are defining correlation in the same way. In fact, this term is a description from Meillassoux on Kantianism.
One can say it is a derogatory, non-neutral and negative for Meillassoux.
I accept the separation between phenomena and noumena. Nonetheless, it is strange to say that one is not motivated by the other. If they phenomena is not motivated by noumena then there can be no reliance on phenomena as access to the noumena (physical reality).
I understand that the physical is inconsequential to you. If that is the case then who or what are you counselling, and who or what are you conversing with through this blog?
This attitude is rather condescending and lacking empathy towards the external other. Why should I waste my time if you should think nothing more of me than as an internal discourse?
If I were to take your position that there is no necessary correlation between you as the object of my mind and you as a physical being that motivated my object of the mind then disregarding your presence in any form would be without consequence.
An untenable position from the start. Highly frustrating.