[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[John Carl]

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> > I agree the tree, the I, and this act of seeing are built from patterns,
> > yes.
> >
> > But I cannot 'see' how handing the crown of significance to any one part
> of
> > the trinity of experience is better in any way.  All three legs of the
> > tripod depend upon the others to avoid toppling.
> >
> > "The seeing" is not a fact if it's a hallucination
>
>
> It seems to me that seeing is experience, maybe comprising many consecutive
> moments,
> but experience/quality, none the less.  Seeing then becomes, 'I am seeing
> tree.'   Why do you say
> seeing is not an experience, but a hallucination?
>
>

I'd never say "seeing is not an experience", but I would say that
hallucinations are facts of a different sort than we call "factual".

If what you call "seeing" is, in fact, a hallucination, then your "seeing'
is not factual as we term "factual".

Does that clear things up?  God I hope not.  I like questions.




>
>
> >
> > The seer is not a fact if there is no seeing.
>
> That's how it seems to me.  From memory the tendency seems to be to
>  imagine an 'I'
> that sees and a tree that been seen.  The seeing is immediate, the I and
> tree come
> later.
>
>
Well, that's one clear place I've always veered away from in distaste from
radical empiricism, I mean, are we talking about the huge significance of a
tiny, tiny slice of time?  Why?  You can't place a great deal of
metaphysical foundation upon any slice of time, time being a subjective
human construct...




> >
> > The seen is not a fact if either the seer or the seeing disappears from
> > view,
>
> Oh, maybe what you are calling a fact, I am calling knowledge.  For me, the
> seeing
> is an immediate fact, the 'I' and tree are knowledge projected onto that
> fact.
>
>

"Fact" is what we mean in the usual way as an objective thing - something
that we would expect to exist in the eyes of others, even if we weren't
there.  That's the normal usage, I'd say.  Never mind now the metaphysics
involved in the S/O universe, and that we are conceptually bound enough to
the "fact" that we cannot utterly know if it is real apart from our
participation in its being, but....

Where was I?  Oh yeah.  Knowledge.

Knowledge in its normal usage is entirely subjective.  It's what "I" possess
for my mind as fact.  The tree as fact lingers after I'm dead.  The tree as
knowledge dies with me.  AND the knowledge of the tree evolves through a
time-bound relationship wherein the more I care about the tree, the more I
know.  The tree of knowledge is capable of infinite growth.  The tree of
fact has genetic and spatial limitation.





> > Therefore, they are the three, interdependent in order for experience to
> > occur.
>
> After the fact, the three become projected, conventional, interdependent
> patterns.
>
>
Hmm.  Yeah.  Well here we go again.  Back to that "fact" and back to that
"after".


I just type a whole bunch of words... sat back and looked at them and
snipped 'em away.

In other words, I wanna think about it some more.  It looks to me that we
are discussing either the preconceptual, or the triadic interpretative as
fundaments of being.   I'll have to do some cogitation there as the triune
absolutisms give me the willies.

But then, so do unitary monisms so what the heck.  A guy can't win in the
long run.  We'll go with what feels good in the moment and I'm sure it'll
all work out in the end.


Happy Vernal Equinox Marsha!

John