>[Krimel] >You either misunderstand or continue to foster misunderstanding about >"illusion." An illusion is not phantasm nor is it without "substance."
[Dan] 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. [Krimel] Nothing in what you say above suggests that there is no substance to a glass of water. We might suffer the delusion of illusion as to the nature of this substance but this does not alter the fact of the substance. >Krimel >Illusion is the result of perception. [Dan] This would pertain to #4 above. [Krimel] It is a definition pursued by a host of psychologists of different philosophical persuasions for more than a century, yes. It acknowledges the deception in #1 and asks why we would find it compelling. What had you got beyond platitudes? >Krimel >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." [Dan] Your shortcoming, not mine. [Krimel] And yours is lapsing into incoherence. Pretending that this is all some mystery beyond words. Phooee! >Krimel >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. [Dan] Within the culture we inhabit, yes. [Krimel] It can be best understood by someone from this culture but the pattern holds regardless of point of view. That is what science is. >Krimel >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/ [Dan] Yes. Optical illusions. Very cool. But not what we were discussing. Sorry. [Krimel] What we know about certain illusions is highly relevant. We know that even with the most simple figure ground relationships; we tend to static latch between them. We are able to reconfigure our sensations of a picture from one way of seeing it into a completely different way of seeing it. This ability to reconfigure our perceptions extends well beyond two dimensional images. It extends to whole world views. It is often called taking another point of view. An expansion of consciousness occurs when we are better able to see the world as others see it. We gain insight when we can see our own illusions though the eyes of another illusion. Our understanding of the underlying substance is enhance by this process. >Krimel >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. [Dan] 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. [Krimel] As one who tinkers with cycles I would think you would be a bit more in tune to the idea that, if we want to know how to tune the cycle we need to know how the cycle works. You can continue to pretend that ignorance is bliss if you like, I was only trying to toss you a rope. 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/
