[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[MarshaV]

Good morning!


At 03:38 AM 9/20/2008, you wrote:
>Good morning Marsha
>
>>I would imagine the conceptual pattern of fish 
>>(opposite-from-non-fish), scales, vegetables, have long ago taken 
>>control of the experience of such things.  A fish cannot be 
>>separated from water without major alterations separating it from 
>>interconnect processes.  Or the fact that nature knows nothing 
>>about "fish".  It a name directly given to our 
>>conceptualization.  The system we use to measure weight is 
>>man-made, the idea of weight itself is man-made, etc., etc., 
>>etc.   I cannot see where there would be much direct experience in 
>>that transaction at all.  We conceptualize.  That's what we 
>>do.  There is the experience of analog on analog on analog.
>
>I get kind of sad reading this, it seems you have given up on much 
>of what reality is about and only see it as dead, conceptualized 
>static patterns, as if you're seeing the world through a TV.

Not true.  I am trying to understand the basis of "reality".  I have 
no dog in this fight.   As I begin to see through the illusion of 
reification, it all becomes more beautiful.  Do you get that?


>What I said was that the *scale* is experiencing the weight, not the 
>human user of the scale. The scale itself. It's man made, but so what?

The "scale" is experiencing the weight?  It's all analogy.  Conceptual.

This morning I was wondering what is wrong with conceptual?  Nothing 
really.  What IS wrong is misinterpreting it.  So why the sudden 
silence when I said it's conceptual?   Is it that 'conceptual' is 
translated into 'subjective'?  And therefore less than 'reality'?


>Take another example, when an elephant wants to reach the leaves of 
>a high tree, or it wants to make those leaves reachable for a 
>smaller elephant, it can bend the tree by grabbing a branch by its 
>trunk and use its own weight to bend the tree. The weight of that 
>elephant is quite real, even though the elephant may or may not have 
>conceptualized it. It may even be the difference between life and 
>death for the younger elephant. So don't think for a minute that 
>weight is just a man made concept.
>
>Granted, we may have found out that weight is just a combination of 
>mass and gravity, but for that elephant, none of that matters. To 
>her, it's simply a means to reach those leaves.

ALL CONCEPTUAL.  I am NOT saying that there isn't a phenomenal 
world.  I think there is.  It's that our experience of it is 
conceptualized.  Mostly.



>>>Huh? No phenomenon? Perhaps you would change your mind if you 
>>>tried zero-G? Not that I have, but that way, you could first hand 
>>>compare gravity vs. no gravity. Just an idea.
>>Are you saying gravity is a tactile experience?   Can I touch, see, 
>>smell, hear or taste gravity?  No?  It must not be phenomenal 
>>entity.  I can think it.  It must be a conceptional entity.
>
>What? Is the fact that you can *think* something, proof of it being 
>conceptual?

Yes.


>The experiences you mentioned, touch, see, smell, hear and taste, 
>are just biological value. Are you saying that only biological value 
>are real to you?

No conceptual experiences are real too, empirically real, 
conventionally real.  A real that is dependent on ever-changing, 
collections of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, 
social and intellectual, static patterns of value.


>>See, this is where it gets sticky.
>
>No Marsha, you only need to open your eyes to the possibility that 
>other types of value are just as real as biological value.

Biological experiences are immediately conceptualized.  I do not see 
them as much different than analogs.



>I would, for example, imagine that you would say that it's 
>impossible to conceptualize one your paintings, right? If I 
>conceptualized it, i.e. took a digital photo of it, that photo 
>wouldn't be the painting, right? But since I can take a photo and 
>thereby conceptualize the painting, I can *think* the painting.

There is nothing left to do with my paintings but to perceive them 
which leads directly to conceptualization.  The viewer's 
conceptualization.  As the painter I had the added privilege of 
conceptualizing each individual paint application.  Want to know 
what's on my mind and in my heart when I paint?  Nope.  I'm not telling.



>Turn this around at gravity and we see that gravity is, like your 
>painting, the original experience. We can conceptualize gravity into 
>a "law of gravity", but in doing so, we have also left the original 
>experience of gravity behind, just as we left the original painting 
>behind when we photographed it.

Yes, gravity is an experience, a conceptual experience.


>I hope I didn't send you fleeing now.

No, not at all.


Marsha






.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.