Hi Bo & others Yes, quite right this is a discussion about the workings of the 4th level.
As for imagination it allows us to explore possibilities that have not yet been experienced, are not currently actual, some that cannot be experienced as actual, or will never be actual, or might be helped to become actual. Imagination enables us to transcend the limitations of the finite actual (clearly closely related to DQ I'd suggest). The possible is the sphere of the non-actual and is something that human beings can experience and explore. The possible means that human beings and other dynamic processes are a bridge/connection between the actual and the possible. Something completely different from the appearance- reality distinction by the way (just in case DMB is lurking - a real possibility that can cause actual replies I'd suggest bit might not, such is dynamic possibility). Regards David M ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Reason and experience > Ian, David M and MD. > > First David M. said. > >> How do we see reason in the MOQ? Do we need it? > > Reason is (according to my infamous opinion) the intellectual > level and is badly needed in that capacity, but NOT as a > metaphysics - as SOM. > >> I think we do, and I think it is more closely tied to imagination than is >> usually suggested. > > I'm relieved that you thin so, but what is imagination in a MOQ > context? > >> Think of a ball. Look at a ball. What do you experience? >> You cannot see a whole ball, it is a sphere but at any one >> moment you can only experience the side facing you. >> Yet memory, previous experience, and imagination >> completes the incomplete experience so that you >> 'see' or comprehend the experience of a ball as being >> of spomething that is a whole sphere that has a side that you >> cannot experience without moving round to the back of the ball. > > Dearest DM "...need we ask anyone to tell us these things"? This > is what Phadrus speculated about regarding Kant's somish > approach and what made him see the need for a Quality > approach. This we are supposed to know from MOQ kindergarten > (just old grumpy me ;) > > We sense objects in a certain way because of our > application of a priori intuitions such as space and time, > but we do not create these objects out of our imagination, > as pure philosophical idealists would maintain. The forms > of space and time are applied to data as they are > received from the object producing them. The a priori > concepts have their origins in human nature so that > they're neither caused by the sensed object nor bring it > into being, but provide a kind of screening function for > what sense data we will accept. When our eyes blink, for > example, our sense data tell us that the world has > disappeared. But this is screened out and never gets > > Kant's ideas are reason, but perception is biology. Animals > perceive objects in their time and space setting even better than > human beings. A dog receiving a ball or frisbee surely "know" all > about their shape, but nothing about intellect's explanation. > >> I propose that reason-imagination is our capacity to complete, >> in a way that makes sense, the gap ridden nature of our direct >> experience. > > Intellect-SOM-reason has made "objective studies and > formulated scientific explanations" but the actual biological > patterns are two levels below it and has worked for aeons without > any knowledge. > > On 1 Jan. Ian: > >> Agreed ... > > After zero point zero time of reflection > >> Interestingly I've just been on a vacation that took in Monument >> Valley and Grand Canyon ... taking pictures (flat images) cannot do >> justice to the 3D scenes. > > Agree, you have to have an artist's impression. > >> The human observer is dynamic - the movements of observer's body and >> head exploit the parallax to fill in the depth of field detail that is >> not present in any static view. Experience (observation) is dynamic - >> the mental faculties (avoiding the word reason for the sake of >> argument) are sense-making, filling in the gaps. > > Even if Ian has added more mumbo-jumbo the same (as said to > David M) goes for this. Seems like a dicision NOT to apply the > MOQ in 2008 has been made. > > All friendly > > Bo > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > 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/
