[MD] Uncertainty

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 25 Sep 2009 at 12:19, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Platt]
> Then my cat, UTOE, depends on someone's perceiving him for his existence?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Does a dog have a Buddha-nature? Its the same question... I'd say 
> only "your conceptual awareness of UTOE depends on your perception of him".

Yes, but his existence doesn't depend on my perception or conception of
him. There's a difference in meaning between the phrases "I'm thinking 
of
UTOE the cat" and "UTOE the cat."  The words are not the thing.  

> [Platt]
> I think if you broke your leg you would not treat the experience as 
> an analogy but rather as a directive to seek medical assistance as quickly
> as possible
> 
> [Arlo]
> When did I say the "experience" was an analogy. Just the opposite "I 
> broke my leg" is an analogy for the "experience". That analogies are 
> useful tools in orienting and guiding our behavior is pretty much a 
> given. That is what gives them value. So your second point is just a 
> "well, duh" (I really don't mean that mean-spirited). The 
> "experience" may induce screaming, the "analogy" guides future 
> planning and action.

Well isn't that the point? There's the reality of analogies (the words 
broken leg) and the reality of things (pain). Or, menu/food, pointing 
finger/moon. Thus, the assertion,  "All is analogy" is only half right.     

> [Platt]
> Death is the end of life. I'm sure you'll consider the death of a 
> loved one as something other than an analogy.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Death is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing. Saying "Joe is 
> dead" means that Joe is absent from existence. I've lost loved ones, 
> and it hurts very bad. "Death", by the way, is "an analogy" we use to 
> describe that absence. As an "analogy" it has been understood in a 
> plethora of ways across many, many cultures.

Death is the end of life, what I would call First-Order Reality. Talking 
about death is Second-Order Reality. There is a difference. There's 
nothing illusory about First-Order death. And it's permanent even when 
defined as absence.  

> [Platt]
> Word games?
> 
> [Arlo]
> No, my answer "no" is hardly "permanent", but it is rather "stable" 
> at the moment.
> 
> [Platt]
> In that case, the present is real and permanent (timeless)..
> 
> [Arlo]
> Well, that's just recursion again. Einstein's words, ".. the 
> separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, 
> although a convincing one" is just an analogy. You've conflated all 
> of them into "the present", but this is not what Einstein is saying. 
> Even a concept like "the present" is a illusion. His statement is 
> that "time" itself is value-relation, like "height" or "width". 
> Saying "time" is permanent is akin to saying "length" is permanent. Its not.

Length is permanent in a three-dimensional world as is height and 
depth. But, the present an illusion? Since pure experience occurs in the 
present I would say it is very much not an illusion. You can't have one 
without the other.    

> [Platt]
> I'll buy that ("the concept of "time" drawn from human perception 
> began when such a perception among humans attained value.")
> 
> [Arlo]
> That'll be a nickel, please.

It's in the mail.