> [Ron previously]
> > but even in my most
> > non lingual moments visually I process data in
> terms of understanding
> > the object I'm seeing.
> [SA previously]
> Understand the object, how?
> [Ron]
> recognition, without intellectualizing we recognize
> objects as something
> we experienced before
> or something similar. when I see water I don't think
> the word water yet, I know what water is.
Empty your mind. This is water you have not yet
experienced. This water on this day is water on this
day you have not yet experienced. Open your mind.
> [Ron previously]
> > Carl jung suggests that all experience is based on
> symbols created
> > from the first experiences of when we were
> children that even our
> > perception is entirely based on symbol relation.
[SA previously]
> What symbols? When I stare at a tree, I don't
> stare at symbols in
> my head - I can if I want, but at this moment I'm
> staring at something
> on the biological level, not the intellectual level
> called tree.
> [Ron]
> yes, but you still understand it is a tree
In what way do I understand a tree. Intellectually
or on a biological level where the tree is. Thus, an
effort to get as close to a tree as the tree is to
experience as a tree is. It's not that thoughtful,
yet, the experience can be refreshed and inspirational
as the tree is artfully given a a new page to write
about or draw upon in ones mind.
> [SA previously]
> And I don't have all the answers about myself
> yet let alone where I
> am. I mean in relation to what. I can say I'm on
> the earth, but this
> experience, this direct experience, and each season,
> yeah I know summer
> is hot, but each summer I live I still find the
> woods/where I live, to
> be an experience that offers nothing, but lovely,
> just plain lovely I
> say. I don't walk around in my head with symbols in
> place of trees, I
> can, but at this moment it's these trees, my son
> banging on something,
> the crickets, green leaves, evening light, etc...
> [Ron]
> but you understand what these experiences are, I
> believe you do sort of walk around with symbols
> in your head of trees,
I understand I experience a tree, not a symbol of
a tree. Just cause I understand it is a tree doesn't
take away from me being open-minded about this whole
event between me, tree, the earth, sun, etc...
[Ron]
> that's how you understand
> trees to be trees, only
> you are unaware of it
> because it is a natural funtion of your brain.
Ok, I don't doubt this.
[Ron]
> I believe to understand
> something is to symbolize it.
> intellect takes it a step further with communicating
> it by using metaphors for these symbols.
> which manifest audibly or physically in art or
> visual symbol... draw a
> tree and all understand a
> tree to be a tree whether they call it the english
> word "tree" or not.
> we understand what it is.
Sure, but sometimes I like to relax under a tree
and not be so thought induced by this tree in which it
consumes my thoughts and I'm not hearing the birds
sing.
> [Ron]
> I don't think I'm doing this, I'm saying sort of
> what Kant was saying
> about aproiri experience.
> ie.Pirsigs metaphor of the motorcycle. The data we
> receive is just data until our minds process it and
> identify it as a motorcycle, not the word but the
> understanding of the form.
Ok... this is too heavy for me, but I see what
your trying to understand. Your thinking much about
this trying to understand what has been called the
'strange loop' in which paradoxes form. This has been
discussed before here, remember?
chattin' and tryin' to understand,
sA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
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/
