Ron,
I find it interesting how you can jump in start a pissing contest yet
you're no
where to be found in regard to the subject of the thread,
Sorry for the confusion caused by my reply to Platts recent subject/object
logic post but he was making a number of misleading assertions there that
largely referred to issues we were discussing in the thread titled Pirsig's
idea of the individual. Anyway, enough politics, lets try and deal
with one of your substantive points in the subject/object logic thread.
You stated September 17th:
We can only know reality by what the senses (those of sight, smell,
taste, hearing, touch, ad infinitum) express to the brain which is another
complex system of processes to produce awareness.
The MOQ says that is just a high quality idea that our experiences are
produced by the senses. These high quality ideas have only arisen because
experience has shown us that they tend to work very well. However, you and
the people on this planet might actually be part of a sophisticated
computer program (running on some super computer) where the above process
with senses isnt used. Though unlikely this possible scenario still
wouldnt undermine the logic of the MOQ (experience is experience is
experience) but it would undermine the logic of your SOM model.
One can argue that in the process of assembly in the brain, shape, color,
description from memory comes together to form pre-intellectual experience.
Regarding the issue of pre-intellectual experience, subjects and objects,
and the MOQ, you might find the following exchange (I found while digging-up
that tetralemma thread for SA) between Paul Turner and Scott Roberts useful.
Best wishes,
Anthony
==================================
From : Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent : 07 February 2005 16:17:07
To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : RE: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
Hi Scott
Scott said:
There are good reasons (to which a good chunk of ZAMM is addressed) for
saying that value is neither in the subject nor in the object. However,
to go on from this and claim that the value exists prior to the
distinction into subject and object has no empirical basis, as far as I
can see.
Paul:
The newborn baby example is supposed to provide that. Newborn babies do
not grasp for objects until they are several months old and show no
acknowledgement of self until much later than that but cry from birth
and smile and laugh soon after. They are experiencing something and they
communicate it in a way that no human needs an explanation of.
Scott said:
What is the *empirical* basis for making the claim that experience comes
first?
Paul:
What is the basis for saying that anything comes before experience? How
is that basis known if not through experience?
Scott said:
What is the response to my saying that I do not experience myself as
coming second after the experience?
Paul:
Huh? How do you experience yourself as arising prior to experience?
Scott said:
I experience trees, thoughts, and so on, or think I do. I do not
experience Quality, at least not obviously in the way I experience
objects.
Paul:
So you don't "obviously" like or dislike anything?
Regards
Paul
From : Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent : 15 February 2005 16:03:21
Subject : RE: MD Sense experience and the SOM problematic
Scott, all
Scott said:
[W]hat would Wilber think of Pirsig's extending the use of the word
'empirical' beyond the sensory?
Paul:
A brief interjection. As I understand it, it is Pirsig's claim that
value is sense experience.
"The Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical tradition...in saying
that the senses are the starting point of reality, but - all importantly
- it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena. To ignore them is
to misread the world. It says this sense of value, of liking or
disliking, is a primary sense that is a kind of gatekeeper for
everything else an infant learns. At birth this sense of value is
extremely Dynamic but as the infant grows up this sense of value becomes
more and more influenced by accumulated static patterns." [SODV]
"This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any "self" or
any "object" to which it might be later assigned." [LILA, p75]
This is why he claims that art, morality and religious mysticism are
empirically verifiable, because the essence of all of this experience is
a sense of value. It's just that the values sensed aren't subjective or
objective and have therefore been excluded due to the inadequacy of the
prevailing system of metaphysical categorisation.
It seems there may be confusion here between 'empirical' and
'objective'.
Regards
Paul
.
_________________________________________________________________
A place for moms to take a break!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
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/
