12/26 Phenomenology Workshop #2 - The Kira Institute
Starting from a scientific world view - we ask the question, what else is true
HomeAbout the InstituteCurrent InitiativesPast InitiativesPublicationsContact
Home arrow Current Initiatives arrow 12/26 Phenomenology Workshop #2
12/26 Phenomenology Workshop #2

Pema Pera: As you may know, we now have a Google email group:
Storm Nordwind has switched on the ON AIR sign. Touch it for information
Pema Pera: http://groups.google.com/group/kira-phenomenology-workshop
Pema Pera: which is openly readable by the whole world
Pema Pera: but only writeable by the members of the group -- if you like to be added, send me an IM or write me an email at
Pema Pera: We will record our conversations, and publish them on the Kira web site:
Pema Pera: http://www.kira.org/
Pema Pera: so by being here during this hour, you give us your consent to be quoted in our public transcript
Pema Pera: Storm, can you describe our new sign system?
Gilles Kuhn: hello all
Storm Nordwind: Yes
Fefonz Quan: hi tarmel, gilles
Alfred Kelberry: hi, gilles (he's back! :)
Transcriptionist Writer: hi
Storm Nordwind: When the ON AIR signs are on, we are recording
Storm Nordwind: If you touch any sign you will get a note n English and Japanese
Gilles Kuhn jump to check if hiks mic is unplug.....;-)
Storm Nordwind: By staying present when the signs are on, you are consenting...
Alfred Kelberry: nice sign, storm. makes me feel in a studio a bit :)
Storm Nordwind: to your avatar name being mentioned
Storm Nordwind: and your chat being published
Gilles Kuhn: gosh storm i was not suspecting you had a law degree....
Storm Nordwind: That's basically what the notecard says
Pema Pera: Hi Gilles, glad you are joining us too!
Storm Nordwind: No. Gilles. I just work in an LL sim!
Gilles Kuhn: yes pema as an empiricist i wanted to see pheno at work if possible...
Pema Pera: This is the second time that we have our Kira Phenomenology Workshop. We started a week ago, and we will continue this once a week, as long as there is interest
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, only see it? how about participating! :)
Gilles Kuhn: (sorry last week i cannot come rl...)
Pema Pera: To attend this series there is no need for you to join any group, SL or Google, but if you like to join the Google group, you're welcome; just let me know
Pema Pera: We have 16 members now, and to my delight, 10 of them sent us their report of the experiment we decided upon a week ago
Pema Pera: http://groups.google.com/group/kira-phenomenology-workshop
Storm Nordwind applauds
Gilles Kuhn: (alfred observation impeach participation at a certain degree well its a old anthropology and physic problem...;-) )
Pema Pera: Does anyone want to pick up where we left off, either a way ago, or in the email discussion?
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, you did promise to give it a try
Gilles Kuhn: to observe it alfred to obsere it
Wester Kiranov: I thought the way the experiments was conducted was very creative - maybe a bit much
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, what kind of empiricist you are then? :)
Wester Kiranov: *were
Pema Pera: how so, Wester?
Wester Kiranov: there were a lot of experiments that were imagining how the object would feel, which i thought was not our point
Gilles Kuhn: (thats another debate alfred but when you wish out of these session at your serveice) )
Wester Kiranov: and some others were also very interesting, but I think it's better to try a simple version first
Pema Pera: yes, and it was interesting to notice that -- and my description was not unique
Wester Kiranov: then eleaborate
Pema Pera: yes, I agree
stevenaia Michinaga: unfortunately I must catch a bus, thanks
Pema Pera: perhaps we can all agree on a very simple and more specific version, for the coming week?
Wester Kiranov: I would like that
Alfred Kelberry: enjoy the ride, steve :)
Pema Pera: do you have a suggestion?
Pema Pera: bye Steve!
Maxine Walden: bye Steve
Wester Kiranov: bye steve
Wester Kiranov: I would like to know a bit more about why people chose to do the experiment as they did
Alfred Kelberry: pema, i think it'd be good if you explain in a few worlds distinction that occured during the experiments as in "be an object" and "let an object be active", to give the audience a context.
Pema Pera: yes, that's an important distinction
Pema Pera: There are two main ways to reserve the roles of subject and object
Fefonz Quan: reverse?
Pema Pera: if I look at a cup, first I can really feel clearly what it is like to be me-as-subject and cup-as-object
Pema Pera: and then I can try to switch roles
Storm Nordwind gave you Catchup pheno transcript for gen!.
Pema Pera: letting me be more passive, more object like
Pema Pera: and letting the cup be more active, more subject like
Pema Pera: letting the cup look at me, while I remain me, associated with my bodily present
Pema Pera: that is how I did it
Pema Pera: but an alternative is to try to shift your own awareness to the cup
Pema Pera: as many of you did
Pema Pera: trying to image what it would be like to be the cup, and watch your own bodily presence from that vantage point
Pema Pera: I realize that both are compatible with the original suggestion, made by Caledonia, and the phrased more specifically by me
Storm Nordwind: Shifting your own awareness to the cup - That's good for practising being a novelist or a sympathetic person!
Pila Mulligan accepted your inventory offer.
Pila Mulligan: excuse me, avi out of contorl
Alfred Kelberry: storm, i do feel sympathy for my object now :)
Wester Kiranov: Thank you Pema, that clarifies a lot for me
Pema Pera: Wester suggested to concentrate on a most simple version, for the exploration next week
Pema Pera: do you have an example, Wester?
Pema Pera: (there is a lot to say for keeping it very simple first and then branch out)
Maxine Walden: sorry I missed getting on the email list this last week, but part of my experience was like an SL camera shifting around and then seeing me as part of the whole landscape, not as the subject...and this was interesting as well
Alfred Kelberry: pema, i think the second approach is a good beginning. and it let us distinctly see it and experience. then farther on we can compare them and be more aware of this reversal process as a whole.
Lia Rikugun: the second where we try to see what the object sees?
Wester Kiranov: I would actually prefer the first one. or we can do both and see what the difference is.
Alfred Kelberry: where we try to be an object
Lia Rikugun: i somehow experienced both
Alfred Kelberry: wes, the first is the goal, yes
Lia Rikugun: maybe
Alfred Kelberry: it's just not that easy for everyone :)
Pema Pera: What I like about the first one is that it is more radical . . . surprisingly so
Wester Kiranov: would it help to choose a specific object, so we don't get all creative with that?
Tarmel Udimo: perhaps it would be good to choose simliar types of 'objects'
Pema Pera: in the sense that in the second one, trying to imagine being a cup, you don't let loose of being the active dominating subject!
Alfred Kelberry: wes, let's try it this time
Pema Pera: fine, Wester and Tarmel!
Tarmel Udimo: there's a great deal of difference doing the exercise with a tree than with a pen
Pema Pera: from the reports, it seems to be easier to switch your bodily present than to give up playing the subject role -- fascinating observation!
Pema Pera: yes
Pema Pera: shall we pick a single object then?
Alfred Kelberry: although, i did enjoy the diversity, it was very interesting :)
Pema Pera: we could have both -- one experiment with our "standard" object; one with free-for-all
Lia Rikugun: :)
Pema Pera: but at least having everyone doing also teh standard one
Pema Pera: which one shall we pick?
Lia Rikugun: the cup?
Alfred Kelberry: a bit more original maybe? :)
Fefonz Quan: a book?
Aurora Kitaj accepted your inventory offer.
Wester Kiranov: let's keep it simple - a cup, a pencil, or a white sheet of paper
Maxine Walden: a keyring or something we use a lot?
Tarmel Udimo: man made or nature made :-)
Alfred Kelberry: a book is good. then later we could share stories about the content :)
Fefonz Quan: a closed book :)
Wester Kiranov: We should choose something of which we all have a similar one
Aurora Kitaj: Sorry I'm so late
Alfred Kelberry: hi, aurora :)
Wester Kiranov: hi aurora
Pema Pera: welcome, Aurora!
Storm Nordwind: A keyboard?
Alfred Kelberry: we're picking up an object for the next experiment- join us :)
Lia Rikugun: everybody has one of those
Wester Kiranov: a key on the keyboard?
Alfred Kelberry: wester is a radical reductionist :)
Aurora Kitaj: ok
Wester Kiranov: i just try to keep things simple :)
Lia Rikugun: the "enter" key
Alfred Kelberry: i know, wes, just kidding :)
Pema Pera: it may be important to really keep it simple
Pema Pera: a cup may be the most ordinary
Pema Pera: our exploration is an exploration of the ordinary . . . which is extraordinary enough already :-)
Alfred Kelberry: oh! let's pick a keyboard and let everyone choose their own key?
Tarmel Udimo: a shoe
Alfred Kelberry: i think it'd be interesting to see selected keys distribution as well :)
Wester Kiranov: don't make me say "shoestring" :)
Alfred Kelberry: haha
Tarmel Udimo: hehehehe
Storm Nordwind laughs
Alfred Kelberry: wes, you're just a few steps from the string theory :)
Wester Kiranov: :)
Wester Kiranov: a spoon
Pema Pera: how many objects do you want, Wester :-) ?
Fefonz Quan: so there is one? :)
Lia Rikugun: wonderful
Fefonz Quan: (spoon)
Lia Rikugun: spoon
Alfred Kelberry: well.. i liked a keyboard key (collective mind)
Alfred Kelberry: so, spoon?
Maxine Walden: Pema, would it be interesting to pick something which we relate to rather intensely, such as a personal cup or article of clothing, because we would have a lot of thoughts etc toward that object which then we could try to become free of when roles are reversed; it is possible that would be too complex for early experiementation, but might be worth a thought at some point
Fefonz Quan: one more for the spoon
Pema Pera: How about letting everybody do two kinds of experiments: one with a standard object, and one with whatever however you like
Alfred Kelberry: maxine, yes.. this association clutter may be an obstacle. but a good idea.
Pema Pera: and since Wester had the idea, why don't you choose our standard object, at least for this coming week, Wester?
Alfred Kelberry: i like pema's "open source" nature :)
Pema Pera: and yes, Maxine, that would be for the second experiment
Pema Pera: I think it is essential to go slow, and not rush into too many new variations, much as that would be interesting too
Alfred Kelberry: go ahead, wes
Wester Kiranov: I actually think the spoon would be OK. It's simple, we all have them, it's not too emotionally charged
Alfred Kelberry: alright
Pema Pera: but for me the main interest of all this is to see more and more depth in what we normally consider the most ordinary . . . .
Pema Pera: Okay, spoon it is!
Alfred Kelberry writes down: spoon
Pema Pera: and free from too
Pema Pera: so now we have double home work, this week!
Pema Pera: I wanted to bring up one more question:
Fefonz Quan: and we go with the "not being the spoon" version, are we?
Pema Pera: ah, good point, Fefonz, yes, let's do the first version, with the spoon at least
Alfred Kelberry: yes, fef
Pema Pera: remaining where we are, bodily
Pema Pera: and mentally
Pema Pera: as objects
Storm Nordwind would like clarification which version is which please!
Pema Pera: let ourselves be seen by the spoon
Pema Pera: I just gave, Storm, is that clear?
Storm Nordwind: Yes
Pema Pera: sorry for numbering confusion :)
Pema Pera: shall we pick names?
Pema Pera: for the two?
Wester Kiranov: Got any suggestions, pema?
Pema Pera: body-centered vs object-centered?
Pema Pera: (but that will not cover everything)
Wester Kiranov: not immediately clear.
Fefonz Quan: kopernican vs. ptolmey?
Pema Pera: becoming the object versus becoming a different subject?
Wester Kiranov: that's better
Alfred Kelberry: one word, please :)
Fefonz Quan: egocentric, other
Pema Pera: objectifying :-) -- nonono
Pila Mulligan: seeing -- seen?
Storm Nordwind: nice
Tarmel Udimo: like that
Pema Pera: yes
Alfred Kelberry: good one, pila
Transcriptionist Writer: just wearing it. And I'm not sure I understand what is going on, however I don't want to be rude and just up and leave so just sitting in. lol
Pema Pera: so we will do the "seen" experiment with the spoon then, right, and a free form besides that
Storm Nordwind nods
Pema Pera: sorry Trans, this is part of an ongoing conversation :)
Transcriptionist Writer: excuse me,
Wester Kiranov: just to sure: seen = 1, seeing = 2?
Fefonz Quan: so "seen by the spoon"?
Alfred Kelberry: trans, go through our logs and group posts - it should help :)
Pema Pera: yes
Fefonz Quan: but from our point of view
Pema Pera: seen by the spoon, letting the spoon take the subject role, and me taking a more passive object role
Pema Pera: that is "seen"
Pema Pera: as in "me being seen"
Pema Pera: One question I wanted to raise: Gilles IMed me, asking whether he could be in the google group, which means writing emails to us (reading emails anyone can, also outside the group)
Alfred Kelberry: although, the ordering should be different :) by difficulty :)
Pema Pera: but unlike the rest of us, Gilles prefers to observe not participate
Pema Pera: I don't want to decide yes or now
Alfred Kelberry: sadly..
Pema Pera: yes or no
Pema Pera: we should decide as a group
Pema Pera: how do we feel about that?
Fefonz Quan: so are we "seen" by Gilles?
Fefonz Quan: :)
Pema Pera: (Gilles agreed with me to bring the question from IM to the group, before I did so)
Pila Mulligan: I'd be happy for Giles to particpate however he wishes
Storm Nordwind: Anyone can observe without participating. Group membership is not required for that surely?
Pema Pera: correct
Alfred Kelberry: it's an open group, i think :)
Wester Kiranov: I don't have a problem with that.
Fefonz Quan: no problem too
Pema Pera: open for being seen, yes, not open for writing
Maxine Walden: but there is some symmetry about participating as well as observing
Storm Nordwind: "Not participate" = "not writing" doesn't it?
Maxine Walden: I would be happy to give it a try, but if some tension arose to revisit the 'agreement'
Pema Pera: that's the question, Storm
Maxine Walden: ah, he would just read and not write?
Gilles Kuhn: the point is that anybody can observe at the end of the debate with pema sme wanted me to participate in the pema proposition to try pheno as a external critical observer so my request
Pema Pera: no, Maxine, for that he does not have to become a group member, he wants to write
Aurora Kitaj: I'm happy to participate, but usually prefer to wait until I know a little more what I'm talking about before wading in. The spoons have it.
Alfred Kelberry: i'd be really glad to see gilles experiment some time (no pressure, just curious)
Gilles Kuhn: as i said during the pema/me debate i have done epoche long ago : result were nihil
Pema Pera: So to be a fly on the wall, anyone can do that -- Gilles wants to be a talking fly on the wall :)
Alfred Kelberry: i've seen one from pema, and since you had a long debate, it'd be interesting to compare the two
Alfred Kelberry: haha
Alfred Kelberry: cal's example :)
Pila Mulligan: being examined and critiqued by an external critical observer is fine with me
Lia Rikugun: for me it is ok too for gilles to write to the group
Maxine Walden: I have some reservations, based on group dynamics as I understand them, but will go along with the group and speak up if I become concerned
Alfred Kelberry: gilles, are there any experiment notes i could read online?
Pema Pera: if there are no definite objections, I am happy to add Gilles to the group, is that the general feeling?
Lia Rikugun: yes
Storm Nordwind: I am not convinced, but am happy to go with the majority
Pema Pera: I feel the same as Maxine and Storm, and happy to give it a try
Aurora Kitaj: i'm happy
Pema Pera: like inviting Galileo's cardinal into a lab or observatory, an interesting move :-)
Pema Pera: (the one who refused to look through the telescope)
Storm Nordwind: What I do not want is for anyone to have to explain themselves to anyone else.
Pila Mulligan: so be nice Gileles
Tarmel Udimo: I'm confused I'm not sure what Giles wants to do - sorry?
Pema Pera: write to us
Tarmel Udimo: about what we're doing and saying?
Scathach Rhiadra: critiquing our experiments?
Alfred Kelberry: i should grep the logs for the gilles promise to participate in the experiment and torture him :)
Tarmel Udimo: hummmmmm
Gilles Kuhn: to be not Bellarmino but Socrates the electrical fish.....
Storm Nordwind: I do not feel critique is helpful at this stage
Tarmel Udimo: and to be honest not sure why?
Wester Kiranov: storm has got a point there
Pema Pera: perhaps Gilles can say more about why he wants to write to us?
Storm Nordwind reminds everyone that the hour is up
Pema Pera: but let's finish this discussion
Gilles Kuhn: well i dont see why its a problem to have the possibility to read me.....
Pema Pera: about participation, Storm
Pema Pera: we can't leave this dangling
Pema Pera: that is not an answer, Gilles
Pema Pera: what do you want to write to us?
Gilles Kuhn: i have already stated the answer i was offering that because asked to be in a critical position at the end of our debate
Pema Pera: many expressed being comfortable being critiqued in the email group, but also some stated that they don't feel the group is for that goal, so we have two kinds of opinions
Pema Pera: it would be great if we can find a way to accommodate everyone
Pema Pera: if possible
Gilles Kuhn: so it was an offering to me to help your endeavour by a external critical point of view
Pema Pera: perhaps when you say more about what you intend to do, everybody may be comfortable -- or not?
Tarmel Udimo: okay that's a litle clearer
Maxine Walden: can we consider these options on the email list this week and perhaps come to a consensus by next week?
Pema Pera: to clarify, I mean
TR Amat: Put the critiques on a web page that people don't have to look at? :)
Gilles Kuhn: and as anyway the reading is public i dont see where is the problem but its yours call evidently
Pema Pera: that is a good idea, Maxine
Storm Nordwind: I like that TR
Pema Pera: not to rush to a conclusion
Maxine Walden: right, not to rush
Wester Kiranov: i like maxines idea too
Tarmel Udimo: me too
Pema Pera: Perhaps, Gilles, you can write me an email with a description of the role you would like to play
genesis Zhangsun: I think your critique would be welcomed in this forum Gilles here, in the workshop time
Pema Pera: I can forward that to the group, we can discuss it (and you can read that discussion, and respond to the group via me), and a week from now we can decide
Gaya Ethaniel is Online
Gilles Kuhn: i have done it already and eventually i can alway make public my criticism in a blog for me it was not a priori any problem and i quite dont understand why that can be one
Alfred Kelberry: maybe we as a group should mature a bit, before the high profile critic steps in? :)
Pema Pera: thank you all for joining us here!
TR Amat: An expanded critique might be interesting, too. In particular if people could post responses to it.
Alfred Kelberry: but an alternative opinion is always welcomed
Maxine Walden: nice discussion and interestingly with a possible twist of 'being seen' in unanticipated ways
Tarmel Udimo: everyone's opinion is always welcomed
genesis Zhangsun: perhaps this is the forum here for opinions and the google group for lab reports
Pema Pera: we'll continue our discussion on the email group, and gather again a week from now!
Maxine Walden: difficult for us to leave...I will go and join others in the email exchange durieng the week
Alfred Kelberry: oh, pema..
Pema Pera: and we'll discuss this last point in the email group.
Alfred Kelberry: one more question
Pema Pera: yes, Alf?
Gilles Kuhn: well i will not have this chance maxine apparently
Pema Pera: you do, Giles
Pema Pera: I just wrote above
Wester Kiranov: Is the experiment clear to everyone?
Pema Pera: you can write me and I will convey that to the group
Pema Pera: for this week
Alfred Kelberry: you said "no spam" about the group. what exactly do you mean by that?
Pema Pera: when did I say that?
TR Amat: No viagra adverts? :)
Pema Pera: in what context (if I did)?
Alfred Kelberry: is discussion on the matter allowed?
Pema Pera: Wester, good question!
Alfred Kelberry: in the "going public" post
Pema Pera: everybody clear about the experiment?
Maxine Walden: yes
Lia Rikugun: yes
Alfred Kelberry: yes
Pema Pera: you have to say more, Alf
Tarmel Udimo: yes
Storm Nordwind nods
Alfred Kelberry: spoon and one free object
Pema Pera: yes, those two
Aurora Kitaj: yes
Lia Rikugun: spoon seen and then free
Fefonz Quan: as clear as it can be (quite)
Alfred Kelberry: pema, http://groups.google.com/group/kira-phenomenology-workshop/browse_thread/thread/c2a35b9274d9d3c5?hl=en
Pema Pera: :)
TR Amat: Mind bending, not spoon bending? :)

Home | About the Institute | Current Initiatives | Past Initiatives | Publications | Contact Site designed and developed by Josh Bergman
Copyright © Kira Institute. All rights reserved.