LS: Why is my moving architrave any less real to you than the notions of Woman and a woman?
Should I necessarily value conclusions about women more than I should value those about solid architraves?
DvR: I meant real in the sense of true or (therefore?) important to you. Surely you are not saying that understanding Woman and your moving architrave are equally true and important to you?
I think it would be more accurate to ask me whether understanding Woman and a woman is as equally real (true and important) to me as understanding an architrave and Illusion.
Whatever causal factors preceded both my observation of the moving architrave and the consequent conclusion, required both the fact of its moving appearance and the conclusion that it was an optical illusion. Is the truth that the architrave moved, or that it did not move -- and on what basis?
I can only conclude that the moving architrave was in fact an optical illusion if I make the assumption (premise) that all things that appear are illusory. If, on the other hand, I start with the premise that solid objects are real (true, important), then I would end up with an entirely different conclusion. Namely, that I was hallucinating -- since, by definition, a solid object does not move in the manner through which I observed one moving.
Similarly, I can only conclude that this thing called Woman and its relationship to a woman is dependent upon the same process.
Whatever causal factors precede both the observation of a woman
as (the notion comprising) Woman and the consequent conclusion, require both the fact of the appearance of same and the conclusion that it is
not an illusion. In other words, the solid object identified as woman encapsulates Woman (a solid, unmoving architrave) completely, necessarily, inherently and in an ultimately real (true, important) way. This is something we can, apparently, be certain about because there have been no great female philosophers -- and probably never will be. But, what -- exactly -- is a great philosopher? Does the great philosopher manifest only in lengthy materials he might produce?
Whilst this conclusion about women might possess the truth of a particular appearance on some basis of evidence such as “great philosophy,†that truth is in no way of comparable magnitude to ultimate truth (a truth that is true in all
possible worlds) -- which is fundamental to it and, thus, of more significance. One could hardly dispute the lack of such evidence and remain credible -- just as would be the case with proclaiming architraves can, in fact, be seen to move through the eyes. Indeed, for anyone to be wise then -- man or woman alike -- it would be
necessary to produce great works of philosophy in a manner deemed to be “great philosophy.†And so, until then, we are -- each one of us -- a woman, and probably always will be. And (taken down to its bare bones) the point of this, really, is what?
DvR: If your aim is to become wise, of course you necessarily value certain things above others. Above all truth.
Yes. But I reckon once one is wise, one no longer necessarily and/or obsessively values any thing. Instead, one simply becomes Truth (so to speak), and deftly manifests it by whatever means necessary to it -- which, when it comes to appearances, will always be determined by exactly what it is that appears.
DvR: There's nothing more real and it won't disappear like the next optical illusion, or ourselves.
Precisely. In fact, I think I’d even venture to say that the only things which
appear to exist with any great deal of zeal and fervor are lies.
