On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM, markhsmit <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, it seems we agree that all perception is illusion. John here, just wondering if you'd mind defining "illusion" for me. it > is a mental construct to enable us to participate in this incredible > complex flux of energy (as we like to call it). Thanks. Let me try and think about it for a minute. First, I'll have to simplify it a bit... perception = Illusion = mental construct enabling the participation in energy flux. No, that's not what you said. You said "us". Enabling us. I'll construe you to mean by "us", you and your known mental constructs that you deem us-ness, and go no further with that at this time. I couldn't say "our" cuz I'm not sure if I can swallow. Just chewing for a moment... The common sense definition of illusion makes a distinction between mental constructs that are real, and mental constructs which are not real. In your re-definition of all mental constructs being illusion, erasing the distinction between real and not real, I find a certain lack of clarity. I have experienced illusions. I have experienced reality. They are very different. It also smacks to me of a mysticism which I reject in the same way Pirsig rejected the idea that Quality could be served by just pretending the whole Hiroshima didn't really happen. As much as we think it'd be cool to unify east and western philosophy, it ought not to be forgotten that Phaedrus did walk away from Eastern Mysticism, and for very good reasons. My subjective experience of reality might very well be illusory. Or, it might be accurate. Or, it might be close or it might be far. I can't tell for sure from inside the system. I have to trust DQ to keep me informed. There are some things you share that trouble me ... I hope you don't mind my criticism. I'll try and keep my words in the realm of the positive, but I do take issue with much of the following... > Since we can > only perceive a very small part of it due to the simple chemical > basis of our perception, this illusion is extremely > simple, separate things, cause-effect, etc. If you think our perception has a simple chemical basis, I'm aghast and wondering if words even mean anything anymore. You make it sound like you could probably whip up a little consciousness in your lab in a half a mo'. No problem. You've got it all mapped out. Even a simple thing like "cause and effect" is a very complicated mess indeed. I don't see this "extremely simple" you see in any of what you describe. > The scientific construct is to give everything names, thus allowing > us to manipulate these symbols and further this illusion. We claim > it works because it makes us feel better about our sense of place. So > we have self involvement as the primary cause for science. Reducing > fear, predicting the next minute etc, making instruments which further > allow the play with these symbols. It is a self sustaining system. We > derive joy from it, the fear of death, a sense of companionship. Self involvement as the primary cause for science? Oh lord, where do I even begin. Let me just ask, where do you get your sense of companionship from your "self sustaining system" How is it going with the predicting the next minute? You claim it works because you feel better about your sense of place, but does it really? And if it does REALLY, then why do you only "claim" it does. Why does it not, in fact? Oh wait. I forgot. In your cosmology, there is no difference between perception and illusion. Thus you can just make yourself believe what makes you happy. A self-sustaining system. And back to my question. From whence flows the sense of companionship? The knowing that companionship is just an illusion? You can keep it my friend. You can keep it. > This makes us content and gives us purpose as we can then manipulate > this illusion and feel we have control over the outcome. Self stimulation > is extremely important for our sense of self. > Oh my. Oh, oh my. I can't even... excuse me for a minute. I have to stop and take a breath and think... Would you mind re-examining that last sentence and tell me you were typing hastily and didn't really mean it? Because otherwise,... no. You can't be serious. Let's just move on. As we have agreed, these symbols are not real, simply a convention > with which people can interact to perpetuate its creation, like a > common language. > Back to definition time! Define real. No. Don't, please. I just have a question about mental constructs. Are they real? And symbols... are they real if they are written down? What if they allow me to do things? In what way are they "not real"? And while I'm at it, what is unreal about conventions that people use? What is unreal about common language? We're speaking it right now, it must be real. At least for me, as a functional definition your reality makes about as much sense as your definition of illusion. Which means at least that the self sustaining system is humming along. Living in this illusion is very powerful, to the point where we do not > realize it is an illusion, or mistake it for the only illusion. Man is > capable of perceiving reality outside this illusion, as is seen with > newborns, and young children. Autistic, and other nonconforming > people who do not accept this reality are other examples. Man is > also capable of perceiving different illusions within. This may > seem rather because these illusions can contradict > when trying to explain one illusion with another. Yes, I see what you mean. It can seem rather schizophrenic when you view it that way. My question then is, why bother? I'd apologize for the snarky tone that has crept in somehow, but then I realized you couldn't possibly take offense at lil old illusory me. 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/
