[MD] Reductionism

[Krimel]

> [gav]
> sartre's 'nausea' deals with this when the
> author/protagonist, when looking
> at a tree, sees not a tree but an alien, unique, dynamic
> flux of
> perceptions. the category 'tree', he realises, is abstract;
> the 'real' tree
> is unique, infinite.
> 
> [Krimel]
> That is groovy but not very helpful if one needs a fire for
> warmth or a tree
> for Christmas decoration. All those dynamic alien
> properties are spiffy and
> all, but the whole point of conceptualization is to dismiss
> the irrelevant
> from the relevant in the given moment. The immediate
> present contains system
> within systems and if we are to survive from one moment to
> the next we need
> to focus on our relationships within those systems.
> Concepts are filters
> that we cultivate over time to help us separate what's
> important from what's
> not. In this case we are usually scanning for dynamic
> foreground against a
> static background.

gav:
the immediate present contains no systems; it contains no-thing. it is, by
definition, immediate - given. this is axiomatic in the MOQ.
...and the truth is always helpful, even if it sometimes hurts.

[Krimel]
Huh? 
Is this a response to a post I wrote? 
Oh well...
But by the way, we do not and can not live in the immediate present.