Hello everyone
Richard Budd wrote:
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> > > RICK:
> > > Very tricky indeed Dan.... "value(Quality) is (equals) real
> (reality)".....
> > > You have equivocated between "real" and "reality". Let me explain...
> When I
> > > ask if Santa Claus is real I am not asking if Santa Claus = Reality.
> > > Rather, I am asking whether Santa Claus is actually a part of reality.
> >
> DAN:
> > Let's examine your Santa question for a minute. Santa belongs to a very
> > specific part of reality and yet if one really believes in Santa that
> > specific reality is all there is, for that individual and any others who
> > also believe in Santa.
>
> RICK:
> Is a tree a forest??? The forest does NOT = a single tree. The forest =
> the sum total of all trees.
> Is a real thing Reality? Reality does NOT = a single real thing. Reality =
> the sum total of all real things.
> Do we disagree on this?
Hi Rick
My reality does not make up the sum total of all real things; my reality
is what's real to me. Phaedrus talks of William James and the debate
concerning whether the squirrel going around the tree went around the
man circling the tree as he was watching the squirrel watch him back. Is
that tree really the forest? No, but unless I perceive tree as being a
tree I will fail to perceive forest as being a forest. They are not
mutually exclusive. The Quality of the tree is such that it transcends
being merely tree as the Quality of money transcends being merely money.
>
> DAN:
> So when we assert to ourselves that something is
> > real we are not only asserting the realness of the object in question
> > but the realness of our reality in its entirety.
>
> RICK:
> I really had to take this one apart... try it like this...
> "So when we assert to ourselves that [something we think we perceive] is [a
> PART of reality] we are not only asserting [the object in question is a PART
> of reality] but [also asserting] that [our respective perception of] reality
> in its entirety [is also a PART of reality].
> Is this an accurate claification?
Dan:
I don't think that I perceive. I perceive and then I think about what it
was. Often times I find the thinking that I do is actually an impediment
to my perception of Universe. That is Phaedrus' point with his hot stove
example and Robert Pirsig's point with his money analogy. We perceive
value and therefore perception of value is not part of reality; it is
reality.
> If so, then I don't object, I agree. But it doesn't refute the notion that
> our respective perceptions of reality are merely parts of whole of
> reality... they are just more trees in the forest.
Our respective perceptions of reality are not just parts of the whole of
reality; they are the whole of our reality. Without our respective
perception of trees in the forest there would be no trees and no forest.
Not for us...
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST