TAs 102-104 (Vimal)


Response 7 (to C6, Müller)




by Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

28 February 2008, posted  8 March 2008

Re {0] :
               My understanding is MDR=‘subject-inclusive reality’ and MIR=‘subject-exclusive reality’: is this correct?
               I do not know what happens in ‘samadhi’ or ‘nirvana’ state because I never been in that state.  May be Dalai Lama can address this state.  My understanding is  samadhi = ‘nirvana’; if this is correct then triad ‘karta’ (subject or observer) = ‘karm’ (object observed) = ‘kriya’ (observation) and the vanishing of structures might be related; when structures vanish then triad will also vanish, so one could argue that ‘karta’ (subject or observer) = ‘karm’ (object observed) = ‘kriya’.  I really do not know if direct perception will lead to MIR = objects in the ‘sea’ of EMR for example; that was my guess.  According to Kant, we will never know MIR: is this correct?
Re {1]-{6], {9], {19], {21]:
               In my view, ‘materialism’ means SEs somehow emerge from non-experiential matter. The PE-SE framework is not materialistic framework; it is non-reductive physicalist framework, where physics is extended to include dual-aspect entities, i.e., irreducible fundamental SEs/PEs are superimposed in elementary particles (and hence they are carriers of SEs/PEs).  PEs are those experiences that are not SEs. SEs are those experiences that occur when essential ingredients of SEs are satisfied.  Irreducible fundamental SEs/PEs are experiences that cannot be reduced further and hence they are basic or fundamental entities, in analogy to ‘string’ cannot be reduced further so it is irreducible fundamental entity, from which elementary particles are created.   The term ‘elemental PEs’ means the irreducible fundamental SEs/PEs which are superimposed in elementary particles that carry them in latent, covert, or unexpressed form; this means they (elementary particles) are not proto-conscious; they are simply carriers (like messengers, or like recessive genes).
Your statement “In 0-D structuring, all matter is structured within subject-inclusive ongoing experience” does not entail that matter is literally created with in SE: is this correct ?  Matter is already there whether we view it or not: car parked in parking lot will be there whether you or I view it or not.  So matter is not created with in SEs (they are subjectively experienced or structured); they are created by physical process; for example, when H and O interact in certain way then water is created.  Water in Atlantic Ocean was not created by me when I saw it; it was already there; when I saw it I have SE of water in Atlantic Ocean.  I think that you will agree on this: right?  
Your statement, “In 0-D structuring, all matter is structured within subject-inclusive ongoing experience” is acceptable.  But from where these ‘ongoing experiences’ come ?  The answer is PE-SE framework :  some of them are derived (such as emotional SEs) from fundamental SEs and some of them (such as redness) are irreducible fundamental SEs.  The irreducible fundamental SEs were present from very beginning.  They were superimposed in dual-aspect fundamental particles (string or fermions and bosons) as mental aspect.  So inert matter is a carrier of SEs/PEs and is not proto-conscious.  This means SEs emerge in our neural-nets during the interaction of feed forward stimulus dependent neural signals and fronto-parietal feedback attentional signal as explained in TA102-104.  Thus your statement, “that excludes the possibility of matter of any kind or size being a ‘carrier’ of ongoing subjective experience (SE).”  needs reconsideration.
I agree that mind-dependent ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ (including ‘ideas’ and ‘matter’) are human constructions, but MIR is NOT human construction.  For example, mind-independent truth and reality such as Atlantic Ocean was there before you and I were born; it is there when both of us view it; and possibly will be there after we merge to Nature and return to our more permanent Home.    
I agree with you: ‘crystallization of matter within mind’, but it needs unpacking as done in TA102-104.
               Please let me know if I understand your terms: 
·         MIR= subjective-exclusive reality; for example objects in the ‘sea’ of EMR.
·         MIR-belief = working-MIR = naïve or explicit MIR-belief = subjective-inclusive reality; ‘The existence of matter is within SE’.
·         as-if-MIR = MIR-belief treated as if it is MIR =  subjective-inclusive reality



Re {23] :

Your statement needs elaboration: ‘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.



Most neuroscientist will say that ‘Neural net’ is material entity.  It is there when we are awake, sleeping, and dreaming.  It is MIR although for us is MDR, i.e., as-if-MIR or MIR-belief because some observer will always be involved in measurements.  But you cannot deny it exists whether we observe it or not although we will never know its MIR aspect.  But it is indeed material entity MIR. If you are stuck with your as-if-MIR or MIR-belief premises then we cannot progress further.  You need to unpack these terms as done in PE-SE framework; that is why I say we are saying the same thing; PE-SE simply explains constructivist framework complementary way; they do not contradict each other once you understand PE-SE framework.  The updated version is located at






Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, Ph.D.

     e-mails: rlpvimal (at) yahoo.co.in  


URLs: <http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/>, <http://www.geocities.com/vri98/>, <http://www.geocities.com/das00m/>