[MD] Quick one: causation
MarshaV
marshalz at charter.net
Tue Jan 20 08:45:00 PST 2009
At 09:38 AM 1/20/2009, you wrote:
> >Marsha
> >In this statement there seems to be a strong sense of independent
> >self along with the TiT. Do you not see this or is this independent
> >self also something that you think inherently exists?
> >
> >[Krimel]
> >I really don't even understand the question. What do you mean by
> >"independent"? Would that be something that has no relationship to anything
> >but itself? Nor do I know what you mean by "inherently exists" would that
>be
> >like something that pulled itself up by its own bootstaps? I don't think
> >either of these have anything to do with what Kant was talking about.
> >
> >As Pirsig discusses it, Kant is saying that all we have access to is the
> >evidence of our senses, formatted in such a way as to allow us to create
> >meaning. We do not have direct experience of an external world. I agree but
> >do not think this means that our senses arise independently or that our
> >sense have "inherent existence". I think there is a distinction between my
> >sense impressions and the interplay of physical energies that give rise to
> >them. Experience is a process not a thing. Like most of "reality" it is a
> >verb not a noun.
>
>[Marsha]
>Without all the but, but, buts... Not dependent; not depending or
>contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
>
>[Krimel]
>Ok, I think I get it and I thing the very idea is absurb.
>
>[Marsha]
>When an entity or operation is dependent on other, then it is like
>nested Russian dolls. More so because it spreads like the net of
>jewels. Only mind can artificially make a stop relative to its needs
>or expectations.
>
>[Krimel]
>Nested Russian dolls, billiard balls on a pool table each "thing" or
>"thought" or "process" stands in relationship to other "things", "thoughts"
>or "processes"
>
>[Marsha]
>Mind creates illusionary boundaries. This framing
>may be useful, for science as an example, but is ILLUSION.
>
>[Krimel]
>The mind detects patterns and creates meaning. (Meaning in the sense of
>reduction in uncertainty)
[Marsha]
The spov have conventional ready-made boundaries with ready-made meaning.
>I could be wrong but I think you have a mistaken
>idea of what an "illusion" is.
For the unaware human being a pot is an independent object. I
understand, in spite of acculturation, that there are no independent
objects. And that entities exist by convention and are better
represented as patterns, ever-changing, interrelated, mutually
dependent static patterns of value,
> I would claim that it is a particular way of
>organizing sense data into perception. It is a form of meaning. We are
>beings that do this. We can not stop. We can shift illusions and create a
>different set of meaning out of our sense data. This is what happened as a
>result of the Copernican Revolution. It created a new illusion that called
>for everyone to change the way they organized their perception of the world.
>The sense data was unchanged but the perception was completely different.
This may be a conventional and comfortable way for you to understand reality.
>An illusion is not a fantasy or a mirage or in any sense unreal.
I mean illusion as in mistaken identity, like something having
independent existence when it does not have independent existence.
> It is not trivial. Whatever meaning you derive from the world is
> an illusion. You can
>trade one illusion for another but you can not avoid buying into some
>illusion or another.
Ahhh yes, even emptiness is empty of inherent existence. Chop wood,
carry water.
>
>[Marsha]
>Subjects and objects are a process not self and thing.
>
>[Krimel]
>When have I ever suggested otherwise?
You wrote, "Experience is a process not a thing. Like most of
"reality" it is a verb not a noun." I thought it was clearer to
state, "Subjects and objects are a process not self and thing."
Marsha
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list