Re: [-empyre-] the symbolic and the real

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

In which case, what does one do with hallucinations, dreams,
misrecognitions etc.? What does one do with the multiple-worlds theory of
the universe for that matter - either the many-worlds or inflationary
universe approach? Certainly vr < pr, physical reality - but where does
that take us? The idea of worlds, worlding, has been with us for a long
time - for example, the world of the novel. To say such a world is the
same as physical reality cuts out a lot of cognitive psychology or even
comprehension.

- Alan

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Henry Warwick wrote:

> The Voices in my Head tell me that on 10/7/03 9:55 PM, Alan Sondheim at
> sondheim@panix.com wrote:
>
> > Again I'd like to argue that there is no difference between vr and pr
> > except for ontology -
>
> forgive my opacity. I find this level of discussion incredibly interesting,
> but not something I am always very good at. Especially after dealing with
> this stupid election. I'd be more upset if I weren't so heavily sedated.
>
>
> I would argue that there is no VR. There is just R. Any evidence for a (V) R
> is in R, therefore there is no VR. R is just very "strange". (It has a set
> of features and some of those features can't be known, and everything sits
> in that space between known features and unknown features, with unknowable
> features forming a kind of black box. The appearance, arrangement,
> configuration and composition of these features are variable and complex,
> the complexity permitting the emotive response of "strange")
>
> Hence there is no "other world" : there is just this world. All evidence for
> another world is in this world, therefore there is no other world. This
> world is just very "strange" (Haldane)
>
> Saul typed:
>
> >can we truly imagine something that has no corresponding physical
> >attributes in the material world  --
>
> No, because of above. There is only the physical world. It's just a very
> strange world.
>
> Therefore: there is no Enlightenment. There is nothing to enlighten. (Prima
> Facie)
>
> No Enlightenment : No Modernity (False consciousness of culture in time)
>
> No Modernity : No Post Modernity (False Refutation of False Consciousness)
>
> No PostModernity : The Permanent Contemporary :
>
> The Permanent Contemporary : (Now) Forever. (The logical result)
>
> Time? No: Barbour.
>
> Reduction? No : Planck, Brown
>
> Apply Copernicus to time.
>
> No choice : only choice
>
> one step forward : (Forever)
>
> the Contemporary : Permanent
>
> (The Real (symbolic))
>
> (The Present (The past inside the future))
>
> Sorry if that's too abstruse.
>
> This is all very interesting.
>
>
> HW
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com