[MD] The Trouble With DMB on perception

[David M]

> dmb says:
> Dave, that makes no sense. If reality is interpreted we have to add
> interpretation? Thus we transcend the given? No, that's exactly wrong. The
> idea is that there is no "given" reality and that reality already comes
> packaged in interpretations. And DQ is transcendent by definition? Wrong 
> on
> both counts. DQ is known in experience and does not transcend it. DQ has 
> no
> definition. I would also point out that your so-called explanation 
> consists
> of a single, wildly convoluted sentence. Its kind of hard to believe that
> you're sincerely interested in explaining this idea.
>

DM: This time I agree, I did not put that well. Look qualities as we 
experience
them are an interpretation. But we do not rest with this. Life and evolution 
goes
on and interpretation changes or is added to. We can cut things up 
differently, we
find new descriptions and uncover new realities.
We move from myth to SOM to MOQ. How do we do this? Do we not overcome
the prior reality with the new one? Does not evolution involve the emergence 
of new
SQ? If so, does this not mean that we are always overcoming the present 
situation
to enter new ones, this is process, this is dynamic reality as opposed to a 
spectoral
and static one. The present is transcended by the future. DQ surprises, it 
is
unpredictable, it isnot the same again, it transcends what has gone before.
I cannot see any other meaning for transcendent than this one, of course it
appears in experience-reality, otherwise it would be some sort of 
other-world
sphere that we had no contact with, another-world-in-itself. The concept
of transcendence is the other side of the reality of openness. Our reality 
is open,
new form continuously emerges,as if from nothing. This Nothing is the source
of everything, therefore, to look at it another way, this Nothing has the 
potential
of everything, everything that is possible.The Nothing is a fullness, the 
sphere
of the possible, of all that is possible. Only a fraction of which will ever 
become
actual.

dmb says:
Huh? The world transcends experience? I thought the MOQ asserts
approximately the opposite. It equates experience with reality. Anything
outside of experience is pure fiction. Isn't that the basic idea of
radical empiricism; reality is limited to experience and no experience is 
excluded
from reality. You can't ignore anything nor make anything up. I find this
to be exceedingly reasonable.
A transcendent world? I think Krimel was right to conjure up Kant's
things-in-themselves.

DM: Do we experience the world Dave? No, we experience rooms, a bit of sky,
a bit of sea, some ground. There is no world here. The world is a fiction we 
add to
experience to make sense of it. The world as a whole  is something beyond 
what we
can experience (even space men cannot experience the front and back at the 
same time).
Experience is full of gaps we fill in, as confirmed by the science of 
perception, so we fill
it in, we add to it, we create wholes to make sense of the very limited 
experiences we
have. So we make loads of it up, interpretation requires this adding and 
filtering. Your idealogy
of reality is a static one, incapable of explaining how we perceive and 
experience. It is
an incorrect interpretation of Pirsig because DQ can explain how we both 
filter and
add/embellish what we experience to create an experience that expands as we 
climb
up the different levels. Only with man does the world as we experience it 
emerge, this
is not simply a diccovery but a created achievement. This is not made up but 
it is made.
You don't make anything you don't get out of the slime.