[Colin Hales]
No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-)
Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested
in everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is 
manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface.
Keep the space, throw the reflecting surface and glass away. What you are 
interested in is 'being' that space, not the mirror. When you do that
the 'movie screen' that is the experiential field becomes part of you. Yes
it's a play, only 1 viewer who literally 'is' the theatre, no regressing 

[David Nyman]
Oddly, I think I *see* what you mean (and I use the term advisedly).  One
of the problems we experience in discussing these issues (certainly  I do,
anyway) is the lack of a really effective way to share powerful 
*visualisations* of what we're proposing. Not everything we're trying  to
express is formalisable (at this stage anyway) in mathematical or 
strictly logical terms. I've tried to express before this image of the 
relationship between what-is-functioning-as-perceiver and
what-is-functioning-as-percept, and the picture in my head was always 
something like you describe. And the key aspect is that you *are* this 
relationship, your grasp of the situation is unmediated, there is no 
regress. For me, this is the primary intension of 'exists', and it lies 
at the heart of what I confusingly referred to as 1-person primacy - 
meaning only that you can't come by any of this unless you *are* the 
entity in question. The commitment is total - there is no way of
climbing outside of this to study the situation 'objectively'.

[Colin Hales]
Glad to 'see' that you 'see'. :-)

It is very interesting to see how much trouble people have with this and
it is very ironic because it is the position we naturally inhabit (all
observation is subjectivity), yet the subjectivity delivers the capacity
to behave objectively so brilliantly we think we have actually stepped
back from it... but as you say...

"there is no way of climbing outside of this to study the situation

Yet that is what we scientists insist we are doing! Without subjectivity
there's no 'objectivity' (in the form of an 'as-if' or virtual
objectivity) to be had. The descriptions we define as 'objective' and
describe 'objectively' are merely generalisations in respect of
appearances of what bruno would call 'objective' (actual) reality...what
it is that is actually there, whatever it is that is the 'underlying
reality'..... That also delivers the appearances into your brain/via your
brain, which as actually made of the underlying reality, not of anything
we divine through the appearances it delivers.

Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our
one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality
and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most
telling/instructive  of the true nature/structure of the underlying
reality, not the appearances thus delivered by subjectivity.

As I think I have said before: 'seeing' is evidence of the underlying
reality and its capcity to deliver 'that which is seen'. The latter
delivers two sorts of evidence

a) more evidence of the organisation of the underlying reality
b) what we regard as objective evidence used by scientists in formulations
of emopirical laws that organise the appearances but tell us nothing about
the underlying reality because we throw (a) away for no reason other than
it is our culture to do so.

There's a lot more to observation than merely 'that which is seen'. The
act of seeing at all is also observation.

Metaphorically... if you hear "X is true" being said you get 2 lots of
evidence, not one:
c) some evidence in support of the proposition that "X is true"
d) more definite evidence of the proposition "somebody said something"

'that which is seen' corresponds to "X is true"
The underlying reality is the 'somebody'

Science calls any consideration of the 'somebody' as evidenceless
non-scientific metaphysics and spurns/eschews it when is is actually
_more_ evidenced! in that (d) is a better supported claim than (c)

That's about the lot on 'observation' except to wonder when mainstream
science (in particular cosmology and neuroscience) finally 'get it'. This
simple cultural foible hides the key to 'everything'. The belief that the
'underlying reality is actually made of quantum mechanics (as opposed to
being merely described by it) to me looks like a mass delusion of the most
bizarre kind. Thomas Kuhn should be marching up and down with placard


Colin Hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to