[MD] Reifying carrots

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Hmm, yes , i was aware of it, please keep in mind the
"Timewindow" William was living in, in that time , he was far ahead of
everyone, in this frame, during that time, it was all state of the art.

At least some of it became , later on, in this timewindow,--indifferent in
the balance.

James planted the seeds , some live on , some not.
The survivors are still cutting edge of insights.

2010/12/4 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>

>
> Such fun...
>
>
>     "The asymmetry in James's view of mind and matter may be due in part to
> his advocacy of a "field theory" of consciousness, in contrast to an
> "atomistic theory," which he vigorously rejects.  I would argue, however,
> that the nature of consciousness does not intrinsically conform either to a
> field theory or an atomistic theory.  Rather, different kinds of conscious
> events become apparent when inspected from the perspective of each of these
> different conceptual frameworks.  Using James's field theory, one may
> ascertain an individual, discrete continuum of awareness; and using the
> atomic theory one may discern within the stream of consciousness discrete
> moments of awareness and individual, constituent mental factors of those
> moments.  Thus, while certain features of consciousness may be perceived
> only within the conceptual framework of a field theory, others may be
> observed only in terms of an atomistic theory.  This complementarity is
> reminiscent of the relation between par
>  ticle and field theories of mass/energy in modern physics.  The crucial
> point here is that neither conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of
> pure experience.  James seems to have fallen into the trap of reifying his
> own concept of a field of consciousness, and this may have prevented him
> from determining, even to his own satisfaction, the way in which
> consciousness does and does not exist.
>
>     "James did not present a practical means of transcending one's familiar
> conceptual framework and entering into the state of pure experience.  On the
> contrary, he declared, "Only new-born babes, or men in semi-coma from sleep,
> drugs, illnesses, or blows, may be assumed to have an experience pure in the
> literal sense of a that which is not yet any definite what."  Given his keen
> interest in and appreciation for mystical experience, it is strange that he
> apparently did not consider that advanced contemplatives may have gained
> access to conceptually unmediated consciousness that would have a strong
> bearing on his notion of pure experience."
>
>  Wallace, B. Alan, 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of
> Consciousness',pp.114-115)
>
>
>
> p.s.  Please not how the word 'reifying' is being used at the bottom of the
> first paragraph.
>
>
>
> __
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser