>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [MD] Illusion? >Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:22:34 -0400 > >[Dan] >A glass of water is not a substance. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. A >glass of water that gives the illusion of substance. > >[Krimel] >You either misunderstand or continue to foster misunderstanding about >"illusion." An illusion is not phantasm nor is it without "substance."
It could well be that I both misunderstand AND continue to foster misunderstanding since I do misunderstand. However, looking to the dictionary I see: 1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. 2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. 3. an instance of being deceived. 4. Psychology. a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion), that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality. (dictionary.com) I think #1 is what Platt and me were discussing, especially the misleading impression of reality part. So it appears you're the one who is fostering a misunderstanding. >Illusion is the result of perception. This would pertain to #4 above. >Perception is the mental processing, >organization and classification of sensation. Sensation is merely the >activation of the nervous system, which is the only way that I can make >sense of a term like "pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality." Your shortcoming, not mine. > >Sensation is the activation of the nervous system by physical stimulation, >light, motion, pressure, molecules in the air... Perception is the >organization of sensation into meaning, concepts, memory, etc. Within the culture we inhabit, yes. > >To say that the world is "illusion" does not mean that reality is without >substance it only mean that there are a number of different ways that one >could organize sensory data. Here is an excellent website that illustrates >this with about 75 different forms and varieties of illusion. > >http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/ Yes. Optical illusions. Very cool. But not what we were discussing. Sorry. > >A more grounded view of the nature of illusion and perception moves the MoQ >away from the Hindus and Buddhists and toward Lao Tsu and Kant. You might get away with feeding your students that load of bullshit but it won't get off the ground here. Back to the ivory tower with you. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
