Greetings Magnus,
At 02:47 PM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
Good afternoon! (At least it was afternoon when I started writing)
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?
Actually, no. To "see through" an illusion, do you mean that you
begin to realize that the illusion was false, or that it's true?
I understand that what I thought and believed to be true, is not
true. It passed way of understanding was an illusion. "See
through" was an incorrect phrase. It's all an adjustment to my
conceptual understanding.
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'?
I translate conceptual into "an intellectual static representation
of something else", and phenomenal into "a dynamic, cutting edge,
real-time experience". Note that the real-time experience is always
of a certain level, but it can be any level, also intellectual.
Perhaps I'm trying to mold your conceptual/phenomenal split into
something you didn't intend? But I don't see conceptual as
subjective, it's rather more closely related to what we usually mean
by objective. Either way, it does sound less real than phenomenal
because of its static nature.
Here I could go on for a very long time. I am suggesting that humans
have really no access to the phenomenal external world. (Unless of
course you are a Buddha.) If you have a direct experience of an
external world, the moment you add a word or image to the experience,
it overlayed with pattern. And that would be conceptual pattern.
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.
I may be lost as to what you mean with conceptual. Of course my
story about the elephant is conceptual to us, but not to the elephant.
The elephant in your mind is conceptual. Any speculation you do for
that elephant is conceptual. The minute you attach a word or image
to your experience of elephant it is conceptual. All your methods to
recognize an elephant is conceptual. All that you know about
elephant behavior is conceptual. Have you ever directly experienced
an elephant without your thoughts and images? Have you ever directly
experienced the moon without your thoughts and images?
Nothing wrong with concepts. But they are not direct experience of a
phenomenal world.
What? Is the fact that you can *think* something, proof of it
being conceptual?
Yes.
I disagree. The thought of the original phenomenon is of course
conceptualized and static and dead and all, but not the original
phenomenon at the time of experiencing it.
This seems to be true. I think I originally used 'static and dead',
but that is much too negative. I was trying to make a point and
exaggerated. I like patterns. They are not dead, and aren't
terribly static either.
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.
Be careful with that slogan. You know it doesn't mean anything if
you can't connect it to a coherent model of reality.
It might not be the conventional model of reality, but it's the model
I'm working with. How is it incoherent?
Biological experiences are immediately conceptualized. I do not
see them as much different than analogs.
I disagree again. In my essay I claim that biological value are
based on the 3D fitness of different molecules. If two molecules fit
well, (like the computer game Tetris but in 3D), it's biologically
high value. In such a scenario, there are no concepts involved, only
a real-time, cutting-edge experience.
It's only in larger animals that biological value is almost
immediately conceptualized, but there is still such a thing as
direct biological experience.
YES there is, I totally agree.
Yes, gravity is an experience, a conceptual experience.
A "conceptual experience"? Perhaps I got your phenomenal/conceptual
split all wrong after all?
I think I need to declare a disclaimer. I'm just working with what I
have at the moment. I make very definitive statements, but for sure
I'm thinking, playing, testing & etc. I'm not a trained scientist,
but doing my best see if this hangs together, and where it might lead next.
It feels like I've entered Sophie's World.
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/
