>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.
[Marsha] Without all the but, but, buts... Not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc. [Krimel] Ok, I think I get it and I thing the very idea is absurb. [Marsha] When an entity or operation is dependent on other, then it is like nested Russian dolls. More so because it spreads like the net of jewels. Only mind can artificially make a stop relative to its needs or expectations. [Marsha] Nested Russian dolls, billiard balls on a pool table each "thing" or "thought" or "process" stands in relationship to other "things", "thoughts" or "processes" [Marsha] Mind creates illusionary boundaries. This framing may be useful, for science as an example, but is ILLUSION. [Krimel] The mind detects patterns and creates meaning. (Meaning in the sense of reduction in uncertainty) I could be wrong but I think you have a mistaken idea of what an "illusion" is. I would claim that it is a particular way of organizing sense data into perception. It is a form of meaning. We are beings that do this. We can not stop. We can shift illusions and create a different set of meaning out of our sense data. This is what happened as a result of the Copernican Revolution. It created a new illusion that called for everyone to change the way they organized their perception of the world. The sense data was unchanged but the perception was completely different. An illusion is not a fantasy or a mirage or in any sense unreal. It is not trivial. Whatever meaning you derive from the world is an illusion. You can trade one illusion for another but you can not avoid buying into some illusion or another. [Marsha] Subjects and objects are a process not self and thing. [Krimel] When have I ever suggested otherwise? . . The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end. . . 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/
