Dear Marty, Peter and all,
MARTY
I believe that perception is so closely connected to thinking that the
two
may be impossible to separate. Our brain / thinking processes filter,
categorize and associate our perceptions so entirely that it may be
impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.
PETER
I have been looking at this question for some years, and honestly
believe
that there is actually no such thing (for humans) as 'direct' (i.e.
without
intervening cognition) perception.
I agree with both of the above. They say that actual "direct" experience
is the MAP we have been talking about, but not necessarily the TERRAIN.
We never experience see the terrain "directly" - it is always imaged
from a distance or surveyed through instruments. Furthermore, even the
most detailed map ignores the huge majority of bumps and details that
might be recorded!
I will repeat what I said in the "Maps & Metaphors" thread of long ago.
Reality is the map itself, not some "absolute" terrain. Reality is the
world of experiences that have been REALised and mapped. Rather than one
map, it is a series of joining maps. When we look carefully at the
joints, we may see contradictions, necessitating some corrections to be
made. This revision of the map is a revision of reality. Whereas we once
accepted the reality of the earth occupying the centre of the universe,
the reality of today is different.
SO WILL THE REAL REALITY PLEASE STAND UP!
The prevailing Western philosophy has been to map things into material
and non-material realms, giving precedence to the former. For example,
when someone's abnormal behaviour is attributed to material cause (e.g.
chemical imbalance) it is regarded as "more real" and considered a
genuine illness. Pirsig identifies as "platypi" patterns like Newton's
Law of Gravity that are non-material, yet highly valued. However,
non-material things are also real. The story of Little Red Riding Hood
is a REAL story (it exists), but the story of "XYERSBXTLFIX" is not real
(to the best of my knowledge it doesn't exist as a story).
The problem in SOM is that the material/non-material thing is mistaken
for an ontology. This ontology is useless if we are to value
non-material things. In MoQ, the ontology is based on the value itself,
which precedes the division between material and non-material.
This thread got going with a heavy dose of memetics (from Kenneth) that
I think marks a very significant departure in science. The way the
memetic idea has been introduced, it makes not one iota of difference
whether memes themselves are material or non-material. Their value
TRANSCENDS this difference - which is exactly why I find the idea useful
to the MoQ.
Jonathan
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