________________________________
Krimel]
All I can add is that you are doing nothing more to solve the problem than
inverting it. Instead of saying that internal ideas are not "real" you want
to say that any external reality is not "real". You are trading one extreme
position for another. I do not think this is what James is after.
Ron:
I agree, I think what james is after IS THE PRIMACY OF A SHARED INTERPRETATION
, therefore shared perception, in order for this to happen
(using trans-experiential concepts) there must be a continuose framework, a
stream
of collection which is primary (rationally speaking) . It's that illusionary
quality defined
by concept, (which is primary in percept). In otherwords, indefinable Dynamic
quality.
James says its there but he can't really say what it is because one CAN"T
really say
what it is. we are it. To be sure Krimel you are correct but also know that a
reduction
of expereince to sensory data is a mistake also, so saying James feels percepts
are primary to concept is'nt quite grasping the meaning either. He recognizes a
necessity
for some dynamic imputus but he states there is no way to actually "know" it.
in a
knowledge way, we "are " it and in that way we know it but in the "knowledge way
we may not. If you can follow me.
I think since no one is able to really interpret James meaning and most see the
side they want to, I'd say thats a dead ringer for dynamic quality.
-Ron
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/
