[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[David M]

Hi Gav

Of course analogies, metaphors, go back to
already given experiences. For example:
she's hot, this drink is smooth, that formula
is beautiful, etc. All experience has a value,
each colour has a value and emotional impact.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "gav" <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?


> hey
> --- Case <Case at iSpots.com> wrote:
> 
>> [gav]
>> seeing things as composed of discrete parts is a
>> rougher approximation - a poorer analogy - of how
>> things are than seeing things as coherent integrated
>> wholes. the latter view is better supported by the
>> empirical eveidence.
>> simple.
>> 
>> empirical evidence 1.: we experience reality as a
>> coherent whole; not as a piecemeal jigsaw puzzle
>> relative to different constituent parts.
>> 
>> [Case]
>> Where are you getting this from? Clearly we see
>> things as parts and as
>> wholes. First of all our perception is divided in
>> five senses which have to
>> be integrated to make a whole. Secondly even if you
>> only consider the
>> dominant sense of vision were still see pieces that
>> must be assembled into a
>> whole. We perceive parts and create wholes out of
>> them. 
> 
> no. we perceive wholes and create parts out of them.
> the reverse view is SOM. undivided experience comes
> first; then intellect divides it up. you can't know
> you have seen a tree until after you have seen the
> tree.
>> 
>> What analogy are you talking about? Empirical
>> evidence is sensory data.
> 
> everything intellectual (ie utilising abstract
> representation) is an analogy; some analogies are
> really good and we call these true.
> 
> our senses - their putative operation, not the
> phenomena themselves -  are 'concepts by postulation'
> (northrop); they are dependent upon the particular
> cultural mythos which informs the metaphysical
> framework of the intellect; they are culturally
> derived.
> 
> perception is pre-intellectual. the experience of
> seeing the colour green is a different thing to the
> intellectual descriptions of how the senses and
> nervous system operate and interact in 4d space-time
> (eg neurochemical, brainwaves etc).  this is the 'hard
> problem of consciousness' (chalmers).  
> 
> the phenomena of pre-intellectual perception, eg
> 'greenness' are, in northrops words, 'concepts by
> intuition'. concepts by intuition are beyond doubt -
> they are given directly; concepts by postulation are
> relative and provisional.
> 
> immediate experience is, necessarily, ontologically
> prior to intellectualisation of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________ 
> On Yahoo!7
> Check back weekly for  Trixi's new online adventures 
> http://www.trixi.com.au
> 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/
>