> [Willblake2] > So, it seems we agree that all perception is illusion. > > [Krimel] > I don't know about everyone but I am in. But let's be clear, illusion in > this sense in not a trick or a fantasy. It is a just a particular way of > perceiving. It can be "t"rue or false and its Value is assessed > pragmatically, by how well it works. >
Ok Krimel, I'd like to address your clarification then. When you say illusion is _a_ particular way of perceiving, this implies that there are ways of perception which are not this particular way of perception, but some other way, does it not? Thus not _all_ perception is illusion, just some particular ways of perception. If I'm interpreting correctly, this is a contradiction of the initial premise. Pragmatically assessing the Value of the statement "all perception is illusion" leads me inescapably to "false". I doubt if one could come up with a less useful philosophical statement. Pragmatically, that is. > [Krimel] > > And just a reminder: an illusion is a conceptual construct. Building and > sharing them is among the most fundamental and urgent tasks of every child > who exits the womb. > Ok, I was wrong. Our human task is to build up and share illusion... that's not only unhelpful, it is down right destructive. Destructive like an atom bomb, which is about as pragmatic as one can get. > [Krimel] > An illusion is basically just a particular point of > view. Humans have evolved the ability to see multiple points of view and to > make Gestalt shifts from one point of view to another. It is one of our > superpowers. The only mistake is to see "illusion" as either "T"rue or > "F"alse. Ok then, a little refinement I see. Particular PoV = Perception = Illusion. wherein a "seeing" which defines illusions as true or false is a mistake. Is false, in other words. Seeing falsity is false? Observing an error is an error because there is no error, it is all illusion? Krimel my friend, this philosophy you present is unsound. It is circular logic, tautology and nonsense. And if you try and explain it further, you will only get caught up in more complicated circles that go nowhere. > [Krimel] > Well no, the whole point Pirsig makes via Descartes, Hume and Kant is that > each of us lives in our own inner world all of the time. Pirsig's > description of Quality is 100% subjective. He more or less resolves the > mind/matter duality by rejecting the external world all together or at > least > by claiming that it is always and forever inaccessible to us. > Well this just can't be right. The horns of the great Pirsigian dilemma were "is quality part of the objective universe, or is it only in your head?" You are claiming that Phaedrus just grabbed that subjective horn and impaled Quality upon it. That just doesn't even come close to the facts. Of course, that was just MY perception of ZMM. And we already know that my perception is just an illusion. Tra-la-la. You've got your self-sustaining system working overtime now. > > [Willblake2] > So while we try to explain the subjective world with science, > it will always fail. To think that one is only living in the objective > world of symbols, is missing out on much of the ride. > > [Krimel] > It is really difficult to talk to you because there is not much overlap in > our use of words. Frankly, your history of dialogue so far doesn't suggest > to me that at this point further clarification would produce much more than > amplified sarcasm. But we'll see. > Well you might be right. I have no sense of history with Willblake in the same sense you express, and cannot make a judgement about what comes next, but I do feel a sense of more conflict coming. I am discovering, now that dialogue is making it clearer, that I am an idealist. Two weeks ago, I didn't even know how to define idealism and now I are one. My Idealism is defined for me by J Royce, who stood opposed to W James and his pragmatism. I'm not sure how others define idealism, and I'd like to know, since you mention "idealists" - plural - on this list, who understands the underlying conflict and who is on my side? According to your perception, I mean, illusion. [Krimel] > Accepting them as illusions is one thing but not all illusions are created > equal. I could almost buy your relativity, but we do use language wherein words mean things and the word "illusion" has to have a definition and you haven't drawn any line between "false perception" and "relatively true perception" that would make the term useful. So I'll wait. John the idealist. 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/
