xchcxzwzsd.... Houston... we have a problem...
(still perplexed...and wondering...)
Keith wrote:
>That's the central question for me. How do you *know* something exists?
--When it has value. A thing which has no value does not exist. This seems
quite suspicious when I think of Unicorns. They have value - little kids
really dig them - so they exist, right? hmm... From what sensory experience
comes this knowledge? Pictures. The sounds of storytelling voices... which
are all valued...
>James' empircism takes as its starting point "the immediate flux of life
>which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual
>categories." (*Lila*, Ch.29)
>So what we can truly know is not just experience but immediate experience.
--Other than "immediate" experience, what kinds are there? I find this
ridiculous. Do we have "past" experience?
>If we look at this 'immediate flux', this "cutting edge of reality"
>(*ZMM*,Ch.20, *Lila*, Ch.9,11) closely enough we find some startling
>things. First, we note that it is completely devoid of the subjects and
>objects we normally talk about in everyday conversation. These 'objects',
>like chairs and books and trees, Pirsig argues, are concepts that appear
>*after* the primary perception. They are not *in* the perception we have,
>but rather are *inferred* from the perception. This is the key point and
>deserves attention. His whole metaphysics is built around the 'Copernican
>Revolution' presented here. Subjects and objects don't create experience,
>rather they are *deduced* from experience.
--Appear "after" TO whom/what? Do intellectual patterns self-reflect?
Inferred BY whom? Deduced BY whom? What? Static patterns of intellectual
value mediated through socially and biologically valuable filters? I don't
get it.
>What's going on? Well, I (subject) am seeing a tree (object) against a blue
>sky (object). Sounds good. But how do I know that's a tree? How do I know
>this is 'me'? Because I experience it. But what do I experience? I don't
>experience 'a tree' in its entirety. I experience some brown and some green
>and so on and deduce both the tree and myself from that.
--No...Quality (experience) has YOU, according to Phaedrus. So who are you?
>But do I know any of that with certainty? All I know with certainty is my
>direct experience in the present moment. Have I experienced any of that
>other stuff?
--Here is what I propose. That the term "subject" is misleading, or misused.
My answer so far to my own questions is this...and I'd really love feedback
on this...
YOU ARE NOT your THOUGHTS
YOU ARE NOT your SOCIAL STATUS
YOU ARE NOT your BODY
YOU ARE NOT your SPACETIME LOCATION
--So what the dilly are YOU?
you are "THAT" which EXPERIENCES your thoughts, relationships,
body and spacetime location.
--This puts a different spin on the term "subject". "you" the "subject"
experience a stable set of Dynamically evolving patterns of intellectual,
social, biological and inorganic value. I believe this is the exact opposite
of Phaedrus/Pirsig's explanation... writing that "I" don't "real"ly exist,
am just a collection of patterns... well what is the glue which makes them
"cohere"?
--I think the key to this rests on the answer to this question: Did you
exist before you started thinking? I get the feeling that we (?) are
confused, thinking that we are our thoughts. Nope.
---So, OBJECTS - i, s, b and o patterns, are
Experienced BY
SUBJECTS - Dynamically Unique Qualitative Selves
Keith...Every"ONE" else?...
Am I way out in left field?
Did I leave "MY" 'mind' up on the fertile mountain?
If I "have" a body, and "have" thoughts, "I" must not BE those cells and
ideas...
How about "you?"
--Any insight will be highly valued..
xxczdfdscxd... Roger,... out.
r
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:44 GMT