<1>
ABSTRACT
I feel that it is time to eliminate objective reality (MIR) entirely within the discussion of ISSUES RELATED TO THE EXISTENCE OF MIND-INDEPENDENT REALITY, MIR. I had been bothered about having no solely objective reality. Now I feel that keeping a vestige of it at an asymptotic distance is objectionable. I would like to go through my "phrasings" in C12 and "clean them up." I will respond to paragraphs in Muller's R11 post, MIR WEIRDNESS AND ITS CORRECTION.

<2>
In his [3], Muller suggests that I "get off the fence," [Henkel modifies <2> the label MIR to MCR (mind-contingent reality),' with the connotation of a 'form of dependence' but retaining a 'hint of separateness'. I must confess that I have difficulties with these terms; I would think that reality either is or is not mind-independent, or am I too naive here ?] I agree. Mind-contingent reality is completely subjective/objective, binding the two into an inseparable union. I would like to refrain from any 'as-if' qualification. It seems very fuzzy to me.

<3>
In [4] Muller brings up the question of the 'availability' of potentiality, [What is and what is not 'available' for such actualization, and which results are 'potential', is decided on the basis of previously formed experiential structure and ways of handling experience, which had been accepted as reliable, and was formulated (in extrapolations from previous ongoing experience) in terms of theory and methodology. One might then say that 'availability' roughly means 'unstructured' but with theoretical limitations, and that 'actualization' means structured experience as expected in accordance with theory.]

In an attempt to pin down the experiential structure of potentiality, consider its reality status, which brings up the specific context of quantum mechanics. The reality status of quantum mechanical potentiality or availability is a very interesting question. Within the constraints of the usual quantum mechanics, potentiality is well described as the set of potential states (eigenstates of a Hamiltonian) of a single quantum system before observation. The reality status of the state of a system between observations remains a deep problem for quantum mechanics. The latest consensus seems to favor the view that there is no continuous existence or trajectory of a quantum particle, but that it 'pops into existence' at definite punctuated intervals when its position is measured. However, nothing is said to give details about the reality status between measurements. The reality status of the 'quantum system itself' is hidden in the Cartesian belief system of physics. This is rarely brought up in discussion, but, if it is, a broad statement is made about the 'objective reality of matter'.

When an extraCartesian view is considered, it shifts the context of potentiality from quantum mechanical observation to experience in general. Now the question of the reality status of potentiality becomes unavoidable. Human experience is accumulated as individual memory and collective Logos. Together, these provide a guide for interpreting an individual's present experience. However, the open-ended character of individual potential experience---'what comes next'---must be accounted for. Giving it a name helps. Cosmos is the label used to name the experiential structure of potentiality. The reality status of both Cosmos and Logos is subjective/objective. A further description of Cosmos uses the context of the Bateson experiential loop. Bateson territory plays the role of the Cosmos, i.e. available potentiality.

<4>
In [5], Muller couples the notion of quantum weirdness, ['In the Copenhagen interpretation, an electron has no continuous existence in between observations, it just 'springs into being' when observed, and this 'is the basic 'quantum weirdness' phenomenon that so troubles physicists'], with the moment-to-moment limitation of organism experience, [I never have a 'complete present sensory knowledge' about my hand, nor about anything else.]

These two notions can be combined in terms of Bateson's experiential loop. Bateson, holding a piece of chalk in his lecture on FORM, SUBSTANCE AND DIFFERENCE, in *Steps to an Ecology of Mind*, talks about the infinite number of POTENTIAL facts in the piece of chalk, "I suggest to you, now, that the word "idea" in its most elementary sense, is synonymous with "difference." Kant in the Critique of Judgment---if I understand him correctly---asserts that the most elementary aesthetic act is the selection of a fact. He argues that in a piece of chalk there are an infinite number of potential facts. The Ding an Sich, the piece of chalk, can never enter into communication or mental process because of this infinitude. The sensory receptors cannot accept it; they filter it out. What they do is to select certain facts out of the piece of chalk; which then become, in modern terminology, information.
"I suggest that Kant's statement can be modified to say that there is an infinite number of *differences* around and within a piece of chalk. There a differences between the chalk and the rest of the universe, between the chalk and the sun or the moon. And within the piece of chalk there is for every molecule an infinite number of differences between its location and the locations in which it might have been. Of this infinitude, we select a very limited number, which become information. In fact, what we mean by information---the elementary unit of information---is a *difference which makes a difference*, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continually transformed are themselves provided with energy. The pathways are ready to be triggered. We may even say that the question is already implicit in them."
Particular 'facts' about the chalk 'spring into existence' much as in the quantum observation of an electron, its position 'springs into existence.'

<5>
In [5] and [6] Muller refers to MIR. In 'getting off the fence' I would like to renounce any use of the term MIR, both qualified and unqualified. Cosmos and Logos, both being subjective/objective describe my position on existence, reality, objectivity and subjectivity.

<6>
Unstructured/structured experience is an important notion is our dialogue. Let me describe my position on it. I consider unstructured experience to be associated with Batesonian territory and Cosmos. Let me comment on Muller's individual references to it. In [4], in the context of availability, [' [One might then say that 'availability' roughly means 'unstructured' but with theoretical limitations, and that 'actualization' means structured experience as expected in accordance with theory.] Potentiality is unstructured, actuality is structured. In [10], in the context of bare existence, [The idea of 'bare existence' is close to the one of 'unstructured experience', for which, however, there is no claim for objectivity, since it is by definition pre-objective and pre-MIR]. I would like to eliminate the notion of bare existence as too difficult to characterize. In [13], in the context of observation. ['There can be no unobserved world, if this means unobservable' <13>. This too needs clarification. World, or nature, is part of undivided mind-nature experience. Ongoing experience, with its unstructured center, is very limited compared to its extrapolated and stored aspects. There can be no unobservable mind nor unobservable nature, which is the same as saying that there can be no unqualified MIR. On the other hand the stored experience stems, in one way or another, from earlier ongoing experience, thus from observed mind or nature. Thus all world is world which has been 'observed'. 'Not-yet-observed world' I guess simply means lack of structure, but why should that be called 'world', even if it is qualified as 'shadow world' ? Or does it mean 'expected world', according to theory ? In any case, the term 'observation' usually implies MIR; does it here ?] Indeed, world or nature is subjective/objective. Ongoing individual experience is very limited. The Cosmos symmetry breaking process yields an elementary actuality, momentary organism experience. Extrapolated, stored experience, both individual and collective cultural generates structured Logos. Logos evolves from its earlier stages. Not-yet-observed-world is Cosmos. Expected only in the sense of 'continuing to live and experience. Observation is free from banished MIR.

<7>
In closing, I would like to clarify my introduction of degrees of reality. I would like to modify them from Degrees of Reality to Types of Physical Models of Reality.
* First Type of Reality Model: The classical physics model, where things and events have absolute objective reality.
* Second Type of Reality Model: The quantum mechanical physics model, where subjective/objective, yet-to-be-observed potential quanta await conversion to subjective/objective actuality through quantum measurement. But also, where quantum systems themselves are considered to have absolute objective reality.
* Third Type of Reality Model: The extra-Cartesian or Organism Experience model, where everything potential---in the subjective/objective Cosmos---awaits conversion to subjective/objective actuality through individual organism experience, and eventually gets incorporated into the subjective/objective collective cultural Logos. Organism experience as a process is then subjective/objective.

These are referred to by Muller in [11]. Rather than answer his objections to my unmodified form, I await reaction to the modified form.

I hope I have clarified the experience-centered orientation of my concepts.
Joel Henkel
jhenkel@juno.com

_____________________________________________________________________


You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]