TAs 102-104 (Vimal)
Commentary 6 (to R6 by Vimal)

by Herbert FJ Müller

8 February 2008, posted 16 February 2008
Re {0} :  
Your statement that only enlightened subjects can have MIR is puzzling, because quite to the contrary, MIR-belief (naïve metaphysics-ontology) is an aspect of naïve realism and triggers the notion of metaphysics in the first place.  And that ‘enlightened subjects can have MIR by direct inspection’ sounds like Heidegger’s belief in aletheia  -  which I suggest was a mistake.  Color perception, which you mention, is a good demonstration of the impossibility of MIR (another one is tooth-ache, for instance; and there are many more).  Your term mind-dependent reality (MDR) is somewhat ambiguous; ‘subject-inclusive reality’ is clearer, this applies to all reality, and it is the opposite of MIR-belief (subject-exclusive objectivity).  I know nothing about the ‘samadhi’ state, but I was under the impression that in the nirvana state, or close to it, all structures disappear as being illusions or deceptions (‘maya’ ?), and if so that would be quite in agreement with 0-D origin :  we always have to create and constantly re-evaluate working-structures. 
Re {1} :
As I mentioned, ‘dual-aspect views’ are problematic.  They tend to have a materialist ‘aspect’, which is in your case micro-materialist, even ultra-micro-materialist, since you want to go to a ‘sub-quantum’-level (TA104, Abstract).  So why do you claim that your view (the matter aspect of it) is not micro-materialist ?  In 0-D structuring, all matter is structured within subject-inclusive ongoing experience; that excludes the possibility of matter of any kind or size being a ‘carrier’ of ongoing subjective experience (SE).  
Re  {3} :
Naïve metaphysics-ontology (MIR-belief) is not the same as as-if-MIR.  But MIR-belief can be transformed to as-if-metaphysics (working metaphysics-ontology), by acknowledging that ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ (including ‘ideas’ and ‘matter’) are human constructions rather than being found (discovered) somewhere in a ready-made (pre-fabricated) state.  In case that is what you want to say, you may be right that we mean the same thing.  But so far this is not clear to me, and my impression is that we have more or less opposite views.
Re {4} :
‘Crystallization’ is, in my view, subject-inclusive structure-creation.  The ‘mechanisms’ are both biological and intellectual, for instance creation of pain, or redness, or tactile and visual gestalt-formation, word-concept-formation, as well as religion-building, culture-building, and theory-building, etc.etc.
Re {6} :
The self is structured within SE like other structures, and so is for instance the (pragmatic) split between self and others, between self and world, etc.
Re {9} and {21} :
‘The existence of matter is within SE’ :  namely in case of naïve or explicit MIR-belief (as judged from working-MIR).  Naïve MIR-belief can serve as a shortcut for working-MIR; but for some questions, such as the mind-brain relation, the as-if aspect needs to be explicit, in order to avoid stalemate. 
But your statement ‘you cannot get crystallization ...  without interaction [with primary matter]’ implies naïve MIR-belief re. matter, which I submit is an error.  The structures (including ‘matter’) are formed within SE from no structures (0-D).  If you do not want to be a materialist (since you say you are not), the ‘matter’ can only be as-if-MIR, and this rules out the possibility of ‘interaction’ with experience.  
0-D is not ‘idealism’ because idealism implies an (impossible) MIR-reality of ideas.  0-D means that all concepts (of mind-and-world-and-all) are structured within ongoing subjective experience, SE.  Matter does not ‘emerge’ from SE but remains within it, as a working concept (instrument).  An MIR-world, etc., is impossible, but some of it can be treated as-if it were MIR.  
Re {19} :
Your ‘fundamental SEs/PEs’ are not clear to me; in particular what do you mean by ‘elemental protoexperiences’ (PEs) ?  
Re {23} :
Mind = ongoing subject-inclusive experience (SE).  ‘Redness’ is a quale (within SE).  ‘Neural net’ is a gestalt-concept (also within SE), that can be used for explanations (for instance concerning the conditions under which redness occurs), for communication, and handling.  
Herbert FJ Müller
     e-mail <herbert.muller (at) mcgill.ca>