Experience versus Reality
Posted: Sun May 16, 2021 10:23 am
I had the following thoughts and would much appreciate and feedback:
Pain is an experience, as well as rage and hallucination (daydreaming).
The three-dimensional room/sphere I am now aware of sitting in – is not an experience.
Q: Isn’t the phrase ‘I am now aware of’ from the previous proposition another way of saying ‘perceive’? And if so, isn’t the object/qualia/nature of perceiving an experience?
A: No. a ‘picture’ is a two-dimensional object, whether a photo, a drawing, or a painting. Tere is, however, the picture and there is the content of the picture. The content may be two-dimensional (a certain drawing) and it can be three-dimensional (a photo, a painting of landscape). What accounts for the difference? A photo or painting is an attempt to reflect, recreate or mimic (and maybe also to signify or suggest) something. We can of course try and design a room, which will be an attempt to recreate upon a three-dimensional “plateau”. But when we shoot [a picture] or paint [a painting], we reflect/recreate a three-dimensional form of being (reality) upon a two-dimensional plateau. Truly recreate; namely, we [consequently] perceive a three-dimensional “reality” (form of being) on (within) a two-dimensional plateau (the canvas is only metaphorically a “window”). We manage to move to and fro these two different kinds of sphere because of our innate capacity of visual perspective, namely the ability to “see” the dynamic three-dimensional sphere we are a part of (the ‘world’). Now, one might argue that we ‘experience’ both, namely an experience of a two-dimensional sphere and that of a three-dimensional sphere, wherefore there is nothing here besides two separate experiences. But then, while the only common denominator of such two separate experiences is ‘I’, the only difference between them is [eo ipso] World and [eo ipso] Object (the landscape being a world and the photo/painting an object). What is stronger (or more essential/consequential) – the common or the difference? It seems to me that the common (designating the ‘I’ for that purpose) is actually an empty box while the difference is very conclusive and possibly impeccable. Is there anything I miss or misconceive here?
Pain is an experience, as well as rage and hallucination (daydreaming).
The three-dimensional room/sphere I am now aware of sitting in – is not an experience.
Q: Isn’t the phrase ‘I am now aware of’ from the previous proposition another way of saying ‘perceive’? And if so, isn’t the object/qualia/nature of perceiving an experience?
A: No. a ‘picture’ is a two-dimensional object, whether a photo, a drawing, or a painting. Tere is, however, the picture and there is the content of the picture. The content may be two-dimensional (a certain drawing) and it can be three-dimensional (a photo, a painting of landscape). What accounts for the difference? A photo or painting is an attempt to reflect, recreate or mimic (and maybe also to signify or suggest) something. We can of course try and design a room, which will be an attempt to recreate upon a three-dimensional “plateau”. But when we shoot [a picture] or paint [a painting], we reflect/recreate a three-dimensional form of being (reality) upon a two-dimensional plateau. Truly recreate; namely, we [consequently] perceive a three-dimensional “reality” (form of being) on (within) a two-dimensional plateau (the canvas is only metaphorically a “window”). We manage to move to and fro these two different kinds of sphere because of our innate capacity of visual perspective, namely the ability to “see” the dynamic three-dimensional sphere we are a part of (the ‘world’). Now, one might argue that we ‘experience’ both, namely an experience of a two-dimensional sphere and that of a three-dimensional sphere, wherefore there is nothing here besides two separate experiences. But then, while the only common denominator of such two separate experiences is ‘I’, the only difference between them is [eo ipso] World and [eo ipso] Object (the landscape being a world and the photo/painting an object). What is stronger (or more essential/consequential) – the common or the difference? It seems to me that the common (designating the ‘I’ for that purpose) is actually an empty box while the difference is very conclusive and possibly impeccable. Is there anything I miss or misconceive here?