I'm very grateful to DS who, off-line, has answered my question about
the acceptability of Hugo Munsterberg's reference in 1916 to 'the forms
of the outer world, namely, space, time and causality'.

Quite rightly, DS says that these three 'categories' don't stand up in
'Kantian' terms because they are already 'in here' and determine
cognition, perception and imagination for Kant.

Of course, Munsterberg distinguishes them from 'the [futher?!] forms of
the inner world, namely, attention, memory, imagination and emotion'.

This prompts me to say that some things are more obviously inner than
others!  And Schopenhauer, for one, felt the need to make such a
distinction as Munsterberg makes, for practical purposes.

He sought to streamline Kant's complicated apparatus of the Categories.

Quote from Christopher Janaway, 'Schopenhauer' (Oxford Paperbacks,
1994), p.17:

'Schopenhauer has a simple, uncluttered view about the nature of
empirical reality.  Individual material things exist in space and time.
  A material thing is something capable of interacting causally with
other material things. ...

'In Schopenhauer's account of perception, the human intellect "creates"
the world of ordinary material things, and does so by applying the
principle of cause and effect to sensations received by our bodily senses.'

But, of course, Schopenhauer recognised - and described quite splendidly
- the elaborate inner world of 'all desiring, striving, wishing,
demanding, longing, hoping, loving, rejoicing, jubilation, and the like,
no less than ... all abhorring, fleeing, fearing, being angry, hating,
mourning, suffering pains - in short, all emotions and passions'
(Quoted in Bryan Magee, 'The Philosophy of Schopenhauer' [Clarendon
Press, 1983], p. 126.)

Let me conclude by something tangential but - to me -  exciting.  Dr
Adam Roberts teaches literature and culture at Royal Holloway,
University of London, and is the author of several s-f works.  I have
lately stumbled on his review of a book by Jack Horsley, 'Matrix
Warrior: Being the One.  The Unofficial Handbook'.  If by chance you
have been following in recent months (e.g., my 'Report' on Patrick
McGilligan's biography of Hitchcock) how I have been applying my
Schopenhauerian/Nietzschean formulations to Hitchcock's 'vitalist'
world-view, including that director's ambivalence on Nietzschean and
elitist positions re 'the masses', you may be struck by how well Roberts
says things that I have struggled to set down!  I highly recommend his
review (and intend to somment on it on my website soon to bring out its
applicability to Hitchcock).  It's a good read in any case for anyone
interested in the MATRIX films (for which, before shooting began, Keanu
Reeves was instructed by the films' co-directors to do some reading in
Schopenhauer, Hume, and Nietzsche).

A URL for Dr Roberts's review is: http://www.divinevirus.com/roberts.html

- Ken Mogg
Website: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin

*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**