🚀 go-pugleaf

In his article, Jim Baumbach says:

>I find it odd to refer to this "experience itself" as a map and wonder why
>you do so?

Simply because we don't experience the world-in-itself directly (if there *is*
such a thing as a world-in-itself).  Whatever we experience has been
pre-filtered.  Is there a kind of experience that isn't pre-filtered?  Maybe:
it might be what has been called "intuition".  But the perennial search for a
raw "sense datum" has not, to my knowledge, been successful.  Of course,
experience itself exists and can therefore be mapped.  In other words, we can
have maps of maps.  But is there an end to the indefinite series of maps of
maps?  I don't know.

>But if we need something to argue about, I either don't understand or don't
>agree with your view of emotions (though I agree they are "related" to
>wants).

I'd be delighted to argue with you!  But I'd have to know, first, what you
disagree with.
-- 
"The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge