>[Krimel] >We temporally removed from any possibility of direct experience of a TiT. >It is not just a philosophical issue. If you accept for just a second a >strict materialist view you will see that the process of sensation alone >creates a time differential. What we sensed is no longer the same by the >time we sense it. Perception, that is integrating or deriving meaning from >sense data create even more time lag.
Marsha In this statement there seems to be a strong sense of independent self along with the TiT. Do you not see this or is this independent self also something that you think inherently exists? [Krimel] I really don't even understand the question. What do you mean by "independent"? Would that be something that has no relationship to anything but itself? Nor do I know what you mean by "inherently exists" would that be like something that pulled itself up by its own bootstaps? I don't think either of these have anything to do with what Kant was talking about. As Pirsig discusses it, Kant is saying that all we have access to is the evidence of our senses, formatted in such a way as to allow us to create meaning. We do not have direct experience of an external world. I agree but do not think this means that our senses arise independently or that our sense have "inherent existence". I think there is a distinction between my sense impressions and the interplay of physical energies that give rise to them. Experience is a process not a thing. Like most of "reality" it is a verb not a noun. 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/
