Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 Greg: Though Dan is admirably capable of speaking for himself here, I couldn't resist jumping in at this point. I don't think Dan is saying that materiality "is just" sensory perception or that it is reducible to sensory perception. I think he's pointing to the interdependency between materiality and sensory perception. We wouldn't think there's such a thing as perception if we didn't think there was a material world to cause it. And we wouldn't think there's a material world if we didn't think we had perception to perceive it. If they are both dependent on the other, neither one can be real. Dan: Well said, sir. Isn't this the crucial "point"? And likewise, the "subject" appears relative to the "object" just as the sensory "bridge" is an arc "between." Yes, these "enfold" into each other. Then disappear. By the way, David Bohm the physicist talked about the "enfolded" and "unfolded" versions of reality - a nice turn of phrase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.