OK, now explain "different order". It would seem that such a sorting channel would only reinforce my view that consciousness of experience is constructed. WC
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 11:21 AM > William: "I believe" .. that considerable > controversy on this list can be > traced to differing definitions of terms. Language evolves. > I accept that > there can be no term which is "defined in stone". > However, if ambiguous > terms are employed, or relatively clear terms are employed > in novel usages, > we may anticipate confusion or discord. > For me, whether Snow White's existence is noumenal or > fictional is > secondary. I assume we all accept that her existence is of > another order > than Paul Newman's (former) existence. As that > different order is > recognized, discord/misunderstanding is reduced. > Yes, our perceptions are constructions - but the > construction Snow White is > of a different order than the construction Paul Newman. > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 4:47 PM > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > > > > No, I can't agree with your improvement of my > statement. Why? Because we > > can't separate fiction from non-fiction when it > comes to examining > > consciousness and how we express what we choose. > I'm insisting that ALL > > consciousness is a selected stream of events happening > in real time or > > recollected in past time or projected into future > time. We can't possibly > > be conscious of each and every instance of actuality > we experience. We > > select and reconstruct. That's why I also insist > that vision is active, a > > reconstruction of optical and chemical/electrical > stimuli and since that > > is so, it too is a reinvention, an amalgam, a > fictional proposition, a > > make believe, that may or may not be > "workable" in the continuing stream > > of consciousness. > > > > I have to stick to this. All memory is fiction > because it is a > > reinvention, and as such it is partial, missing many > experiential > > memories, and thus distorted by the way in which we > "fill in the gaps". > > Every day we find ourselves correcting our memories of > past experience and > > tentatively projecting a make believe narrative -- > fiction -- for the next > > moment or day or year, etc. This takes us back to that > book Lehrer re > > Proust, and especially to Proust's own art. > > > > I will say that all memories are fiction. But not all > fiction is wholly > > false, (that is without evidence) most of it is > partially false even with > > evidence. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- On Wed, 12/31/08, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:19 PM > >> Here is what you "actually say", > William: > >> > >> > "there are numerous factual histories of > the > >> American Revolution". . . each > >> > one is fictional to some degree" > >> > > >> Please tell us what your word is for those > portions that > >> are NOT fictional to > >> any degree. > >> > >> This is also what you "actually said": > >> > >> "All stories are based on memory. All > memories are > >> fiction." > >> > >> It is that universal that caught my interest. Do > you now > >> want to modify it to > >> put it this way?: "All stories are based on > memory to > >> some degree. All > >> memories are fiction to some degree." > >> > >> > >> ************** > >> New year...new news. Be the > >> first to know what is making headlines. > >> (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
