Hey Erin,
> ERIN:
> My email was far from "hear, hear". It was defending reasoning about
> dharmakaya light.
RICK
Oops... my bad. I knew you wouldn't agree with a comment like that.
Sometimes these posts can get confusing (who's saying what, when they said
it...etc). I didn't mean to 'bad mouth' Bo either. His ideas have often
contributed to my understanding of the MOQ. I just resent it when he tries
to set himself up as some dispositive 'defender of the MOQ orthodoxy'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ERIN
> From the studies that went after the Whorfian idea. The cultures didn't
seem
> to distinguish colors but when pushed by selecting from color chips they
> showed they could perceptually see the difference. They went from cultures
> that had only two color words all the way to English. Every culture was
able
> to distinguish the color chips even if they only had two names for the set
of
> chips.
RICK
I wish you hadn't snipped out this part of my post to you, "The question is
whether the light SHOWS UP in our field of vision and is THEN ignored
because of cultural definitions of what is real and unreal... or whether
cultural definitions of what is real and unreal filter out the light BEFORE
it shows up in our field of vision."
I'm not sure why you think the research that you mentioned answers this
question.
Also, the fact that they could distinguish between the chips is
irrelevant to whether they see two different colors or not. There are many
shades of any given color. A Natchez who distinguishes between the 'blue'
and 'green' chips may just be distinguishing between what he sees as 2
shades of the same color. The question above remains unanswered because we
still don't know if the Natchez sees 2 different colors (blue and green) or
merely 2 different of the same color ('bleen' or 'glue').
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> ERIN: If it's color I say distinguish, if it's dharmakaya light I am not
sure
> that was this thread was trying to figure out.
RICK
But Pirsig seems to think that both are 'unseen' for the same reason....
PIRSIG
...But nobody sees it because the cultural definition of what is real and
what is unreal filters out the Dharmakaya light from twentieth-century
American "reality" just as surely as time is filtered out of Hopi reality,
and green-yellow differences mean nothing to the Natchez.
ERIN
> Example: Let's say one culture has only two color words. Every color was
> either black or white. If you asked a person from this culture whether
they
> could see a color difference of a blue crayon and a black crayon and they
> would say no. To them they are both "black". But when given a bunch of
crayons
> and forced to divy them up to a certain number of groups you see they do
> perceptually see the difference by how they group them.
RICK
Correction: ...you see they do perceptually see A difference. But not
necessarily the one we see. A member of your hypothetical culture would
likely tell you that he sees several shades of black and white because his
cultural definition of what is real and not real tells him that that's all
there is. The question at hand is whether the cultural filter works pre or
post visualization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- > >RICK: Either way, Whorf was about LANGUAGE, which is but one single kind of > social pattern. We talking here of the effect of an entire mythos. > > ERIN: I'm not sure what you mean here.RICK As far I recall, Whorf's theory was about how language influences perception A 'mythos' is far larger than a 'language'. ---------------------------------------------------------
> >ERIN > >So then difference between subjective and objective would be majority vote. > > > >RICK > >According to Pirsig, what is subject and objective depends on CULTURAL > >definitions of what is real and unreal. This is not say 'majority vote' > >determines what is subjective and objective. Rather, 'majority vote' > >determines what the culture defines as real and unreal. > > ERIN: ... I still don't know if the > subtle difference Pirsig sees in dharmakaya light is cognitive or perceptive. > That was what this thread was trying to figure out.
RICK Right.... Is it cognitive (the filter works post visualization) or perceptive (the filter works pre visualization). That is the question.
ERIN If it sounded like I was > not interested in this thread I am sorry I gave that impression-- I thought I > was defending it.
RICK Again... that was my bad. Your help in decoding the passage has been invaluable and is much appreciated. ---------------------------------------- ERIN My guess is that Pirsig is > saying that distinguishing dharmakaya light is "understand" not a "see". But > it is only my guess, i think it is very worthwhile if you want to pursue the > "see" with Glenn. I am an no way tied to the difference being cognitive.
RICK I'm right there with you. I think the passage seems to allow for both interpretations.
So now where do we go?
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:57 BST