[MD] Seriously, Dan

[Dan Glover]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>> Dan:
>> This is all true. So. Do you believe that reality as you understand it
>> to be is something solid and separate from you as an individual?
>>
>> [Krimel]
>> "Reality as I understand it" is a set of concepts I have acquire over the
>> course of a lifetime of "being in the world". It _is_ me and I _am_ it. My
>> conceptual self changes movement to moment as I assimilate new experience
>> or accommodate my conceptual self to account for new experiences.
>>
>> Do you really believe there is nothing separate from yourself?
>
> [Dan]
> If the world is you and you are it, then why the question?
>
> [Krimel]
> I think you misunderstand. "Reality as I understand it" is almost certainly
> not all there is to "Reality". My understanding arises from the interaction
> of my social and biological patterns with a whole bunch of inorganic
> patterns that at least for the most part seem utterly apart from me.

Dan:
If I understood I wouldn't bother. If reality as you understand it
isn't all there is, what else is there?

My understanding seems to arise from culture, a mixture of social and
intellectual patterns of value. Biologically, I know very little
intellectually. My body does though. I cut it and it knows to heal. I
break it and it knows to mend.

Krimel:
I think
> James' distinction between precepts and concepts sums it up nicely. I
> recommend to your attention his chapters on the matter in Some Problems of
> Philosophy, especially Chapters 4, 5 and 6.

Dan:
We're talking past each other. I see a lot of James in Pirsig's work.
But percepts and concepts don't correlate to Dynamic and static
quality. I think James is discussing biological level function, how we
form memories and construct a sense of self.

>Krimel:
> I repeat my question because I am curious: Do you really believe there is
> nothing separate from yourself?

Dan:
Intellectually, I know that when I look at the world, I'm encountering
a mental representation, not the world itself. When I see the light of
the day star, intellectually I know I'm not really seeing the light of
the day star... I'm seeing a mental representation of the light. The
warmth I feel on my skin isn't really warmth on my skin. I know
intellectually that it's a mental representation of warmth on my skin
that I'm feeling.

When I realized that the intense pain I felt in my left leg during
extending sittings corresponded not to my left leg but to the part of
the brain controlling the internal dialogue, I just sat through it.
The pain was real. And as the internal dialogue faded gradually away
so did it.

So. If everything I see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and think about are
mental representations, what is it that I'm supposed to be separate
from?

Dan