Greetings Krimel,
Geez, don't you ever get tired? I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Marsha
At 03:17 PM 1/20/2009, you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: MarshaV [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Quick one: causation
At 09:38 AM 1/20/2009, you wrote:
> >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.
>
>[Krimel]
>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)
[Marsha]
The spov have conventional ready-made boundaries with ready-made meaning.
[Krimel]
If as you seem to claim it's all just a fantasy, how is convention possible?
A convention is a form of agreement among different individuals. If there is
nothing external to you, who are you establishing conventions with? What
would these conventions be about?
Setting that aside there may be societal conventions. But we adopt them as
individuals to the extent that we agree with them or that they are useful.
In science such conventions are held to be tentative and provisional. They
are recognized as being descriptions. They are not accepted or rejected just
because someone or some collection of individuals claim they are true.
Remember the motto of the Royal Society: "On the words of no one."
>[Krimel]
>I could be wrong but I think you have a mistaken
>idea of what an "illusion" is.
[Marsha]
For the unaware human being a pot is an independent object. I
understand, in spite of acculturation, that there are no independent
objects. And that entities exist by convention and are better
represented as patterns, ever-changing, interrelated, mutually
dependent static patterns of value,
[Krimel]
You can think that a pot is just an idea or a convention and that in the
absence of the idea there is nothing there if you like. I think that view
leads to nothing but confusion. I guess that settles it. If you were to say
that in the absence of a set of ideas and conventions a pot could not exist
I would agree. But I think of a pot as a collection of inorganic patterns
transformed by a set of mental patterns into a pot. Today we live in a world
that is almost entirely composed of such ideas given substance. But you seem
to want to take this further and say that in the absence of some idea or
convention nothing whatever exists where the pot was at could be shaped into
some other idea.
>[Krimel]
> 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.
[Marsha]
This may be a conventional and comfortable way for you to understand
reality.
[Krimel]
If you are not interested in what I have said or if you just want to dismiss
it without showing why or without demonstrating any comprehension; why don't
you just say, "Whatever..."
>[Krimel]
>An illusion is not a fantasy or a mirage or in any sense unreal.
[Marsha]
I mean illusion as in mistaken identity, like something having
independent existence when it does not have independent existence.
[Krimel]
One more time I think this is a view of illusion that leads to lots of
misunderstanding and error. I guess you could say that I think your
understanding of the term "illusion" is an illusion in the sense that you
define the term.
>[Krimel]
> 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]
Ahhh yes, even emptiness is empty of inherent existence. Chop wood,
carry water.
[Krimel]
Ahhh yes, we can always find a cryptic pseudo-Zen sounding answer for
everything.
>[Marsha]
>Subjects and objects are a process not self and thing.
>
>[Krimel]
>When have I ever suggested otherwise?
[Marsha]
You wrote, "Experience is a process not a thing. Like most of
"reality" it is a verb not a noun." I thought it was clearer to
state, "Subjects and objects are a process not self and thing."
[Krimel]
I don't think your version is an improvement. For one thing I am puzzled at
how, from the point of view you express, you could ever find a plural for
the word subject. I also think that while self and thing are not independent
they are distinct parts of the process. This is how I can tell my ass from a
hole in the ground. I didn't used to think I was not unique in this but the
more I read here the more I question the qualitative nature of that personal
illusion.
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/
.
.
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/
