Hi Ham Thanks, that is a useful answer and I think you have indicated this before. That makes sense to me now as long as you recognise a developmental/sense stage before differentiation. I can see why this makes you question the MOQ approach to SOM.
Try this, MOQ recognises the differentiation of experience in the form of the identification of SQ but it rejects SOM which is an essentialist metaphysics of that experience. And I take your essentialist metaphysics as different in form to that of SOM. You have expressed your difference to MOQ, what are your differences to SOM would you say? Thanks David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > > Hi David -- > > >> Ham said: Still, it suggests that Value is the source of intellection, >> which is my thesis, and once something is intellectualized (experienced) >> it is differentiated. > > [DM]: >>Is there no experience before intellectualised experience? Of course >> our eyes/brains interpret and differentiate but we would not usually >> call this intellectual activity, would we? > > I am no expert on this, although I majored in biology and have studied > pedagogy. I think the fetal organism is aware of isolated sensations, > mostly of physiological origin, before its brain is capable of fully > integrating this data. But I am also of the opinion that the "proprietary > nature" of awareness is primary to physiological development. Whether > such > awareness can be called "experience" or not is a matter of semantics and > interpretation. > > For purposes of clarity, I prefer the term "sensibility" where the precise > locus of awareness is questionable, the absolute case being that of no > locus > at all, such as the nature of the primary source (i.e, creator or God). > In > my philosophy of Essence, existence is postulated as a duality in which > sensibility (the negate) is separated from an insensible otherness > (essent). > To refer to the negate as "awareness" would be confusing and > epistemological > incorrect, since in its primary state it is not individuated as a > cognizant > organism. When individuation of the self arises (and we understand it as > a > process in time) it becomes what I call "value-sensibility", which is > always > experienced differentially. > (Incidentally, so is Value, in my opinion.) > > So, in answer to your question, I would say that all proprietary > experience > is an intellectual process. However, I can understand the need for other > interpretations where Value or Quality is considered the primary source. > > Thanks for a thought-provoking question. > > Best regards, > Ham > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
