> [SA previously] > These Tits... and Maya, think of this, too, as > follows: Who are we to say what is illusion, what is objective, > [Krimel] > We generate the illusion or the illusion is > generated in us. It is ours and > we can call it what we will.
[SA] I agree. This is what was hinted to me when I read your post that had me respond this way. Maya is truly an illusion in one culture, but I say an illusion of what? For according to science this illusion can be known and understood in certain ways, so how can these repeated knowings found in science be an illusion? These perspectives are in accord with a premise founded in a way in which we are to view the world and then certain cultures or ways of knowing go from there. Maya is true. Science is true. It is, as what has been discussed here before, depending on the context. [Krimel] Maya, at least as I understand it, is not a cultural phenomenon. It is each individual's representation of reality. The illusion is that my representation is in a one to one correspondence with reality. Culture may support Maya it may even promote it but the illusion is peculiar to each individual. Science is a technique for penetrating Maya, for testing our beliefs about reality against reality itself. Science is not true it is a method for investigating truth. > [SA previously] > and just because something is not readily > pumped through our heart, such as a tree branch, how > does this make a tree branch isolated and barbaric? > > [Krimel] > If a tree branch got pumped through my heart I don't > reckon I would be calling it anything past, "Oh crap, how'ed that > happ..." [SA] This is, I guess, in reference to how can we know anything independent of our individual self. In this context, the only way to allow a tree branch to be part of a reality that does not depend upon our individual self would be to pumped a tree branch through our heart, and that's impossible and live through it, so, a tree branch would easily be unreal in that context. [Krimel] There are many ways to understand the branch of a tree. Most do not involve pumping it through the heart. The meaning of a tree branch is enhanced by all of the different associations and connections it acquires through our experience with forests and trees and branches. [SA] So, what your saying here, is that some, and maybe for you, not sure though, 'fact of a tree' v. 'understanding of tree' are in conflict. Maybe? The conflict would be how well are we suited to accept change, such as changing perspective. I could very well perceive from both of these 'kinds of tree' fact v. understanding, and whichever one of these perspectives is real and not real doesn't really have to disrupt my life. At least I don't think so, unless as I'm venturing along using one of these perspective's I find one of these perspectives leading me along a path that is full of danger (the intellect enacting the duties of society, biology, etc...) and such a perspective, if dangerous, would I notice the danger and find a way to veer out of such a perspective? Hope so, and thus, an exercise in intellect is helpful. [Krimel] More or less, yes. I am saying that there is not single way to understand TiTs or trees. There is no definitive description. Whatever understanding one has at any particular moment may or may not be appropriate; that is an interior judgment that can be validate as events play out. One of our strengths as organisms is the ability to see patterns, to put things into context and to respond based on the totality of the moment. Our ability to adopt different perspectives, to hold multiple associations and to instantly assess the totality of our immediate circumstances is what keeps us alive and helps us avoid taking a stake through the heart. 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/
