Ivan/senses/philosophy

[Guest guest]

At 10:22 AM 9/28/99 , Ivan wrote:

>

>ivan: Hi Greg. Of course Dan can speak for himself, and admirably

>well i agree. He even sang some old Beattles song through the net

>....something like "...dis is lis, das is lat...obla di obla da..." <;;;;>

>But that doesn't mean we can't talk of this matter also.

>All we see, hear, smell, touch, taste and even think, comes to

>us through the senses....right? Our manifested world is sensorial.

>Senses are our windows and doors to humanity. So one may say...

>..look, that stone is just in your mind, because it's materiality comes

>through the senses to the brain. So there is a real stone out there,

>and the senses transmit some input to the brain that interprets it

>as solidity. Isn't this what you are saying/implying? Let's forget Dan here.

 

 

Yes, we sure can talk about this matter of what the senses and materiality

are. The story about the world coming through the senses is familiar, it's

the normal, everyday view of the world. This story serves our everyday

purposes quite well. We can have families, raise children, pay bills, go to

the doctor, read books, and enjoy life. Only philosophers, psychologists

and spiritual aspirants question this view.

 

The more we think about this view, the less it makes sense upon close

analysis. There are two problems.

 

This common-sense view,

 

(S) The material world is known through the senses

 

has two problems.

 

1. (S) depends on an unsupportable distinction between subject and

object. For example, the senses themselves eyes, ears, nose etc., there

are two possibilities -- are they senses subject or object?

 

(i) The senses are part of the material world that is sensed (the objects)

 

or

 

(ii) The senses are part of the sensing faculty (the subject)?

 

If (i) is true, then it is obvious that information about these objects is

not coming through the senses, so (S) is false. If (ii) is true, then this

leads to the un-intuitive conclusion that the nose and eyes are not

material, even though flowers and trucks are material. If both (i) and

(ii) are true, then we have both problems, plus the additional problem that

we'd have to say the nose smells itself, the eye sees itself.

 

2. The claim (S) has a worse problem, for purposes of non-dual

understanding. That is, (S) is just not our experience! Our experience is

that arisings happen arise all together, inseparable. There is no

experience of the flower, independent of the smell or sight (etc.) of the

flower. To defend (S), you would have to point to the flower AND THEN SHOW

how our senses perceive it. No one has ever shown this. This is

Berkeley's point in THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS.

 

For purposes of non-dualism, we can speak in terms of (S) in everyday

terms, but we don't have to believe it.

 

Love,

 

--Greg