[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[MarshaV]

On Mar 20, 2010, at 3:54 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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.

Oh dear,  I think you may be bored and disappointed at not having a real 
philosophical brawl with dmb.   I hope I don't have to be a mousie for you 
to swat for satisfaction.  


>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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...

How much awareness do we give to the things we are seeing.  When do
we really pay attention?   I think normally we jump from spov to spov.  



>>> 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.

I considered saying that the 'seeing' was real, but thought that wouldn't work
well either.  Seeing is direct perceptual experience as opposed to the 'seer' and the 
'seen' which are constructed static patterns (memory).


> 
>>> 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.


Squeak, squeak, squeak...   Please don't hurt me Mr. Cool-Kat.   
   
Seriously, language may be a problem, because already I sense a difference 
with how we're using fact and knowledge, and a difference in the way we 
understand experience.  I'll work at it if you think it worth it.    


> 
> Happy Vernal Equinox Marsha!

Thank you, John.  This is my favorite season.  I love the Winter because Spring
follows.  


Marsha