[MD] Quick one: causation

Tue Jan 20 12:20:45 PST 2009

Greetings Krimel,

Geez, don't you ever get tired?  I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Marsha

At 03:17 PM 1/20/2009, you wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: MarshaV [mailto:marshalz at charter.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:45 AM
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Quick one: causation
>
>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.
>
>[Krimel]
>If as you seem to claim it's all just a fantasy, how is convention possible?
>A convention is a form of agreement among different individuals. If there is
>nothing external to you, who are you establishing conventions with? What
>would these conventions be about?
>
>Setting that aside there may be societal conventions. But we adopt them as
>individuals to the extent that we agree with them or that they are useful.
>In science such conventions are held to be tentative and provisional. They
>are recognized as being descriptions. They are not accepted or rejected just
>because someone or some collection of individuals claim they are true.
>Remember the motto of the Royal Society: "On the words of no one."
>
> >[Krimel]
> >I could be wrong but I think you have a mistaken
> >idea of what an "illusion" is.
>
>[Marsha]
>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,
>
>[Krimel]
>You can think that a pot is just an idea or a convention and that in the
>absence of the idea there is nothing there if you like. I think that view
>leads to nothing but confusion. I guess that settles it. If you were to say
>that in the absence of a set of ideas and conventions a pot could not exist
>I would agree. But I think of a pot as a collection of inorganic patterns
>transformed by a set of mental patterns into a pot. Today we live in a world
>that is almost entirely composed of such ideas given substance. But you seem
>to want to take this further and say that in the absence of some idea or
>convention nothing whatever exists where the pot was at could be shaped into
>some other idea.
>
> >[Krimel]
> >  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.
>
>[Marsha]
>This may be a conventional and comfortable way for you to understand
>reality.
>
>[Krimel]
>If you are not interested in what I have said or if you just want to dismiss
>it without showing why or without demonstrating any comprehension; why don't
>you just say, "Whatever..."
>
> >[Krimel]
> >An illusion is not a fantasy or a mirage or in any sense unreal.
>
>[Marsha]
>I mean illusion as in mistaken identity, like something having
>independent existence when it does not have independent existence.
>
>[Krimel]
>One more time I think this is a view of illusion that leads to lots of
>misunderstanding and error. I guess you could say that I think your
>understanding of the term "illusion" is an illusion in the sense that you
>define the term.
>
> >[Krimel]
> > 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.
>
>[Marsha]
>Ahhh yes, even emptiness is empty of inherent existence.   Chop wood,
>carry water.
>
>[Krimel]
>Ahhh yes, we can always find a cryptic pseudo-Zen sounding answer for
>everything.
>
> >[Marsha]
> >Subjects and objects are a process not self and thing.
> >
> >[Krimel]
> >When have I ever suggested otherwise?
>
>[Marsha]
>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."
>
>[Krimel]
>I don't think your version is an improvement. For one thing I am puzzled at
>how, from the point of view you express, you could ever find a plural for
>the word subject. I also think that while self and thing are not independent
>they are distinct parts of the process. This is how I can tell my ass from a
>hole in the ground. I didn't used to think I was not unique in this but the
>more I read here the more I question the qualitative nature of that personal
>illusion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.
>.
>.
>
>
>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/
>
>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/

.
.
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.
.
.