But doesn't it mean that, since no experience will ever *fully prove out*, that a fully proved out experience is something we will "never truly grasp"? Doesn't the provisionality imply that *all* experience is illusory? And, then, if there is such a thing as a "fully proved out experience", then you're back to 2 things not fully proved out vs. fully proved out?
Of course, my point goes back to scale ... again ... there's a little proved out, a medium amount of proved out, and a lot proved out. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. 8^) On 12/6/19 11:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: > */both equally illusory./* > > I think “illusory” is used here, in your way, not in the way I would use it, > but to refer to the world that truly is but which we an never truly grasp. > I.e., dualistically. For me, an illusion is just an experience that does not > prove out. I arrive at my coffee house three days in a row and there is a > “day old” old-fashioned plain donut available for purchase at half price. I > experience that “donut at 4” is something I can count on. That turns out not > to be the case because, another customer starts coming in at 3.59 and > commandeering all the donuts. My experience was illusory. Or, think flips > of a coin. You flip a coin 7 times heads and you come to the conclusion that > the coin is biased. However, you flip it a thousand times more and its > behavior over the 1007 flips is consistent with randomness. You come to the > conclusion that the bias was probably an illusion. > > My understanding of illusory is probabilistic and provisional. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
