[hist-analytic] Philosophy -- What "verboten"?

[jlsperanza at aol.com]

I loved B. Aune´s post to Hist-Anal, pointing out that a recent issue 
of a Science magazine features an article, of intrinsic interest on

             "forbidden colours"

--- Surely something that should interest to B. Aune who taught Kant 
for some time!

I am fascinated by the choice of word "forbidden" in the header of B. 
Aune.

For it is almost like when Grice says that the cooperative principle of 
conversation is ¨mandatory¨. ¨Mandatory¨ seems weaker. It is a command.

¨Forbidden¨ as applied to the spectrum, "Nobody can be red and green 
all over".

B. Aune does NOT desire to rehush a conversation that happened long 
ago. He doesn´t mean Kant-Hume:  No, he means Aune-Bayne! compared to 
which Kant-Hume happened almost in another multiverse!

B. Aune seems to me the modern Kant.

Kant would not have had access to the recent issue of "Science", but 
Aune does. So perhaps this tells us something about

              synthetic a priori.

How many types of "can´t" are at play.

It seems in the analytic realm, it´s the CAN´T of logical impossibility 
-- which is the ONLY can´t I abide with.

The ca´nt of synthetic may not after all be a can´t, thus what it 
forbids becomes ¨forbids¨ in retrospect.

Aune qualifies the discovery in the Science piece: it´s not the 
unempirical apperceptual subject of Kant: it´s people on SPECIAL 
OCCASIONS which may see that something CAN be green and red all over.

Fascinating!

Etc.

   J. L. Speranza