[MD] David M and DMB clearly disagree -what do others think?

[david buchanan]

David M said to dmb: So you agree for imagination (clearly based on 
possibles) is real?

dmb says:
Sigh. Yes, Dave. That is the whole point. I'm saying that you're at talking 
nonsense because you've confused imagination and expectation with the 
imagined and expected. I'm saying that there is no such thing as "the 
possible" outside of imagination. It hardly matters if we are talking about 
being attacked by a lion or gambling in Vegas....

David M's example:
...Now throw a dice. We see it tumble. We know it it has six possible end 
states. We do not know which will become actual until it stops. All remain 
possible until the dice stops and one state becomes
actual. The dice stops, a six is thrown, it has come to rest and the other 
five possibles have not become actual, for this throw they have been forever 
'withdrawn -this is a metaphor for what is not the given reality, i.e. the 
dice is no longer in the rolling process, take the metaphor how you like or 
suggest another.

dmb says:
A metaphor for what is not the given reality. Exactly. This is what I meant 
in complaining that "the possible" is a sign that refers to nothing. I'm 
saying that "the possibilities" are real (the five sides that did not come 
up when the die stopped rolling) only as a metaphor and do not exist outside 
of the imagination. I'm not saying that metaphors are unreal. I'm saying 
there is a difference between what we can imagine and "the possible". My 
little "thought experiment" was aimed at pointing out that "the possible" 
may sometimes be entirely unimaginable. In that case there is no way to 
confuse "the possible" with imagination because it is unimaginable and yet 
it possible. This kind of unimaginable possibility has no chance of being 
considered real because it is neither actual nor even imagined. It is 
something we cannot anticipate in the imagination and hasn't yet been 
manifest as any kind of experience. So its pretty easy to see how such a 
thing is not part of experience and is therefore unreal. And finally, I'm 
saying that "the possibilites" that we can imagine are not real either. If 
we remove what is imagined, there is nothing left over. If "the possible" 
were real then it wouldn't matter if we could anticipate it or not. We'd 
just say there two categories of "the possible", the imaginable kind and the 
unimaginable kind. But I'm trying to show that this makes no sense.

Remember the consciousness as a train metaphor Pirsig uses in ZAMM? Roughly, 
the idea is that the engine up front is the dynamic, cutting edge of 
experience. The box cars being pulled are the accumulated static patterns 
from the culture and from personal experience. (James and Bergson both offer 
similar ideas about the continuous flow of consciousness too, by the way.) 
In this metaphor, the leading edge of experience is the ever-present now but 
it is understood and interpreted in terms of what is in the static box cars. 
And so the present moment of experience enfolds both memory of the past and 
projections of the future. The now is endowed with what we've learned in the 
past and what it could mean in the future, but of course linear time is one 
of those static bits from the boxcar and most of the time it makes sense to 
think this way. The train moves down the track in one direction, after all. 
But its also important to notice that the so-called past and future are 
really more like memories and projections in the present. There is no past. 
By definition is it gone, no longer with us and the future has not yet 
arrived. What we have is imagination. We think about the past and future in 
the continuous now and that thinking is real, but the past and future per se 
are, by definition, outside of experience. So it is with the possible. You 
can imagine the possible, but then all you have is the hope or dread of 
what's possible, not the possibility itself, not the future itself.

In your conception, it seems, the track out in front of the train splits 
into countless directions and as we move through experience they all 
collaspe and disappear as soon as they are not taken. But the in this 
metaphor, as I understand it, there is nothing out in front of the train and 
the direction of the track is not selected from an array of existing 
choices. That suggests a pre-existing reality that we may choose to visit or 
not. The front edge of experience can change direction but not by switching 
tracks. The track is created as the front edge moves along and that 
direction is effected by what is in the boxcars, by the static patterns that 
are used to interpret experience.

I would also point out we are not free to the extent that we follow those 
static patterns rather than the front edge of experience. The idea of 
freedom in the MOQ is to follow that front edge of experience so that the 
direction of the train is spontaneous, without affectations, anticipations, 
expectations and desires. I think the whole idea of "the possible" is a word 
trap. It signifies nothing.

DM said:
Obviously there is alot of possibles we can imagine and consider that cannot 
be made actual. But we could imagine another world in which they could be. 
What we can't imagine, the unimaginable, certainly lies outside of the 
reality of our experience.

dmb says:
Yes, we can imagne another world. Again, this means imagination is real, not 
the other world. So it is with "the possible". We can actually imagine it, 
but that only makes it real as an image. Its a real thought, but it refers 
to nothing.

I mean, outside of having imagined it, in what sense is "the possible" part 
of experience? We could say that "the possible"  can be imagined and that it 
can be realized, but in both cases its not even correct to call it by that 
name. In that later case, it is not correct to call it "the possible" 
because it has become actual and in the former "the possible" exists as an 
activity of the imagination and so it is also actual rather than just 
possible.

Answer that question, Dave. Outside of our projections and anticipations, 
where is "the possible" to be found in experience? Describe how "the 
possible" presents itself in experience OTHER than that. If the possible 
exists outside of imagination, then unimaginable possibilties must reside 
there too. See, by pointing out that unimaginable possibilities can't be 
known, I'm pointing out that the only thing we can know about "the possible" 
is what we imagine and there is nothing else behind it.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. 
Intro*Terms  
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117