Good morning!
At 03:38 AM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
Good morning Marsha
I would imagine the conceptual pattern of fish
(opposite-from-non-fish), scales, vegetables, have long ago taken
control of the experience of such things. A fish cannot be
separated from water without major alterations separating it from
interconnect processes. Or the fact that nature knows nothing
about "fish". It a name directly given to our
conceptualization. The system we use to measure weight is
man-made, the idea of weight itself is man-made, etc., etc.,
etc. I cannot see where there would be much direct experience in
that transaction at all. We conceptualize. That's what we
do. There is the experience of analog on analog on analog.
I get kind of sad reading this, it seems you have given up on much
of what reality is about and only see it as dead, conceptualized
static patterns, as if you're seeing the world through a TV.
Not true. I am trying to understand the basis of "reality". I have
no dog in this fight. As I begin to see through the illusion of
reification, it all becomes more beautiful. Do you get that?
What I said was that the *scale* is experiencing the weight, not the
human user of the scale. The scale itself. It's man made, but so what?
The "scale" is experiencing the weight? It's all analogy. Conceptual.
This morning I was wondering what is wrong with conceptual? Nothing
really. What IS wrong is misinterpreting it. So why the sudden
silence when I said it's conceptual? Is it that 'conceptual' is
translated into 'subjective'? And therefore less than 'reality'?
Take another example, when an elephant wants to reach the leaves of
a high tree, or it wants to make those leaves reachable for a
smaller elephant, it can bend the tree by grabbing a branch by its
trunk and use its own weight to bend the tree. The weight of that
elephant is quite real, even though the elephant may or may not have
conceptualized it. It may even be the difference between life and
death for the younger elephant. So don't think for a minute that
weight is just a man made concept.
Granted, we may have found out that weight is just a combination of
mass and gravity, but for that elephant, none of that matters. To
her, it's simply a means to reach those leaves.
ALL CONCEPTUAL. I am NOT saying that there isn't a phenomenal
world. I think there is. It's that our experience of it is
conceptualized. Mostly.
Huh? No phenomenon? Perhaps you would change your mind if you
tried zero-G? Not that I have, but that way, you could first hand
compare gravity vs. no gravity. Just an idea.
Are you saying gravity is a tactile experience? Can I touch, see,
smell, hear or taste gravity? No? It must not be phenomenal
entity. I can think it. It must be a conceptional entity.
What? Is the fact that you can *think* something, proof of it being
conceptual?
Yes.
The experiences you mentioned, touch, see, smell, hear and taste,
are just biological value. Are you saying that only biological value
are real to you?
No conceptual experiences are real too, empirically real,
conventionally real. A real that is dependent on ever-changing,
collections of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
See, this is where it gets sticky.
No Marsha, you only need to open your eyes to the possibility that
other types of value are just as real as biological value.
Biological experiences are immediately conceptualized. I do not see
them as much different than analogs.
I would, for example, imagine that you would say that it's
impossible to conceptualize one your paintings, right? If I
conceptualized it, i.e. took a digital photo of it, that photo
wouldn't be the painting, right? But since I can take a photo and
thereby conceptualize the painting, I can *think* the painting.
There is nothing left to do with my paintings but to perceive them
which leads directly to conceptualization. The viewer's
conceptualization. As the painter I had the added privilege of
conceptualizing each individual paint application. Want to know
what's on my mind and in my heart when I paint? Nope. I'm not telling.
Turn this around at gravity and we see that gravity is, like your
painting, the original experience. We can conceptualize gravity into
a "law of gravity", but in doing so, we have also left the original
experience of gravity behind, just as we left the original painting
behind when we photographed it.
Yes, gravity is an experience, a conceptual experience.
I hope I didn't send you fleeing now.
No, not at all.
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
