On May 24, 2009, at 9:14:44 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: From: Krimel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Is it serious? Date: May 24, 2009 9:14:44 AM PDT To: [email protected] [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. [Willblakes again] Yes I agree it is not a trick or fantasy, it is a personal or agreed upon way of percieving. [Willblake2] That is it is a mental construct to enable us to participate in this incredible complex flux of energy (as we like to call it). 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. [Krimel] It is odd that you find the flux of energy incredibly complex but the biochemistry of perception simple. Do enlighten us because I don't think the chemistry of perception is understood at all. The biochemistry of sensation has been studied a great deal and you claim to be the expert but you are the only expert I have ever heard of who dismisses it as "simple." After all our sensory/perceptual systems took more than four billion years to evolve and they are finely tuned to tell us what we need to know to survive. Oh, and are you the guy who not so long ago invited use to check out an Intelligent Design site? Isn't the whole "intellectual" basis of ID that even at the biochemical level life is irreducibly complex? [Willblakes again] I am not a fan of Intelligent Design, never have been, the site was meant to direct to alternate views. Intelligent design and evolution are pretty much the same, anyway. Unless you would say that Nature is not intelligent. To do this you would have to include yourself as you are a product of Nature. Our perception is simple compared to what is possible. Narrow visual field, limited sensing of chemicals, very blunt sense of touch, limited auditory capability. The energy flux goes from very small wavelengths to infinitely large ones, from compressed energy (matter), to the photon, from possible timelessness to a single time. That is what I mean. I am not trying to diminish our senses, just put them in perspective to the possible. I would agree that the chemistry of perception is not well categorized, but it does have narrow limits. [Willblake2] The scientific construct is to give everything names, thus allowing us to manipulate these symbols and further this illusion. [Krimel] There is a Chinese proverb that says, "The beginning of wisdom is calling this be their proper names." Without this there cannot be much in the way of interpersonal communication beyond emotional states. 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. [Willblakes again] I would say that words diminish our sense of reality. It puts reality into neat little separate boxes, rather than the continuum it is. What is more pleasurable skiing down a hill, or walking down step by step. [Willblake2] 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. [Krimel] To the extent that this is true, it is true of any form of conceptual system not just science. But it seems a bit too jaded and cynical to apply to any of them. [Willblakes again] Yes, I agree. I am not singling out science per se, I am a big fan of science. I personally do not see this as jaded or cynical. I think the self and its involvement is quite astonishing. [Willblake2] 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. [Krimel] Right, conceptual systems of every sort succeed or fail to the extent that they reduce uncertainty. They succeed to the extent that they allow us to assimilate incoming data. When incoming data cannot be assimilated, the conceptual system has to change and adapt to accommodate the new data or we have to get a new system. [Willblakes again] Cool. [Willblake2] 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. 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. [Krimel] We or at least I don't agree that symbols are not real. Whatever gave you that idea? For many of the folks here symbols are the only reality. That is what idealism is. >From my own perspective the process of semiotics begins at the sensory level with the encoding of physical energy into patterns of neural impulses. Those patterns of firing are signs that signify the flux of energy from the environment. Language is one of the many layers of encoding and decoding that are involved in communication. [Willblakes again] When I say not real, I am simply saying that they have no physical basis. Of course they are real in our heads. [Willblake2] 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. [Krimel] Living is very powerful. 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. [Willblakes again] Yes, I agree [Willblake2] 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 schizophrenic because these illusions can contradict when trying to explain one illusion with another. [Krimel] Man is capable of constructing illusions that do not conform to any particular set of sensations. We are capable of constructing perceptions that do not conform to any particular conceptual system but not for long. The examples you give are both simplistic and deeply misguided. Newborns even at birth have sensory systems that are predisposed to attend to certain kinds of stimulation and to respond in ways that maximize the potential for having their needs attended to. Up until age six their nervous systems are still in the process of growing and self wiring. The process of mylination continues until about puberty. As much as I find Wilber distasteful even he cautions against making the Pre/Trans fallacy that you seem to embrace. But there is no need to reference pathological examples of alternative conceptual systems. Everyone of us has one that is different from every other and each of us capable of having and holding multiple systems sometimes simultaneously. [Willblakes again] Yes, the reference is unnecessary, simply an extreme example. The point is that other methods of thought are possible, and just as valid. I do not subscribe to the notion that survival denotes better realities. This is an evolutionary notion, where death is negative/failure. So when you say, but not for long, I do not see your argument. [Willblake2] However, we live in various worlds all the time. For example, the objective outer world and the subjective inner world. Mind and matter, as it were. [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. [Willblakes again] I disagree that we do not sense the outer world. Group consciousness can be sensed in a number of way, movie theaters, panic, football games. We can tell the outer world exists by bumping into walls, through sex, by falling of a chair. Perhaps we are talking about different things here. [Willblake2] Often we try to use the outer world of science to explain or deny the inner world of spirituality. Since we find it easier to communicate through the outer world, it is easier to give it more credence, simply through a positive feedback system. The danger is to live solely in that outer world of science, and then try to satisfy an inner spiritual world with it. This can never work, because they are two separate illusions. Believe me, in this country we try to do that, and it is getting extremely complex, only because it fails. A recession comes, and it seemingly destroys our inner peace, because we associate the objective world with the subjective world. [Krimel] Just to reiterate, Science is a conceptual system that individuals can integrate into their own conceptual world. Religion is also such a system. There is no problem with our ability to hold different, even conflicting conceptual systems. "Inner peace" I suspect is effected by the harmony we find among the various conceptual systems that each of us hold but it is not dependant on them. In fact I personally think the reverse is true. It is our individual predisposition toward or away from "inner peace" that shapes our conceptual systems. [Willblakes again] I agree, it is the movement toward or away that we sense. [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. [Willblakes again] Perhaps we should leave science out of it. How about logical thought. If we try to explain the subjective world with logical thought, we will always fail. There is much that will never be logical. We ignore that which isn't, as though it doesn't exist. For example that we are here as individuals (you and I in the personal sense) is not logical. [Willblake2] Oh, by the way, by the fifth century BC most of the Greeks who thought about this kind of thing knew the world was round. http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm In fact around 1000 BC the Indians were already teaching this. Copernicus merely defied the Church to bring back. heliocentricity. This was already being discussed in Athens before Christ. [Krimel] Since you have penchant for historical trivia I suppose you know that the church didn't have much reaction to Copernicus. Eventually, once it sank in, the Pope's objection to Galileo was not about the shape of the planet but his insistence that the Earth moved. That is what defied church dogma and the "common sense." The Ptolemaic system with its epicycles preserved both and until Keppler proposed elliptical planetary orbits the heliocentric view did not offer functional improvements over the older system. But yeah lots of ancient people thought the earth was round that would explain the Greek's whole crystal spheres business. [Willblakes again] I wasn't trying to provide historical trivia, I was simply setting the stage for the statement which followed. It really makes no difference to me if the the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun. Both explain my daily life. I think that was the attitude amongst many people. [Willblake2] And so we have cycles of man, where he turns outward, (Grecian culture, the enlightenment), and then turns inward (early Christianity, and for many years). Rather than try to create a single system which encompasses both, it may be easier to accept both, as equal illusions. [Krimel] Accepting them as illusions is one thing but not all illusions are created equal. [Willblakes again] I would like to find what criteria you would judge an illusion by. If it is simply based on the dogma of evolution and survival, then I would say that you are biased towards your illusion. 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/
