David -- I'll try one more stab at your epistemology, but fear it is futile.
DM: > My point is that to create the conception of a perceiver you have to > divide out of experience something that is not a quality of experience > and this is a vain hope. My point is that creating the concept of a perceiver is already done for us. We each perceive our self as the perceiver. Why do you deny the obvious? DM: > I think it is simple logic given the premise that all experience is > experienced, so that isolating a perceiver from the world means > that experience has been dissected to get 'world' on the one > hand and 'perceiver' on the other, experience comes first and > gives us a unity of perceiver-world called experience > that is prior to either world or perceiver which are abstracted > from this. That "experience is experienced" is a meaningless tautology. Experience is the act of perceiving, which is how we are aware of anything, including our biological organism. The sense receptors and brain of this organism perform the act of experience that leaves images of differentiated objects as our memory of the experience. DM: > How do you get from experience to postulate this 'what'? > You have to start with experience which is prior to this postulation. That is intellection, or the integration of sensory data. You actually start with value, which is sensibility, and then convert it intellectually into objects that represent the value perceived. Finitude is a relational system of individuated subjects and differentiated objects. There is no unity in physical existence, and is it vain to pretend that there is. Only a primary source that transcends difference can be conceived as unified. And that source cannot be defined in existential terms. DM: > Experience is indivisible from value and is prior to all this > talk of world or perceivers. In my epistemology all experience is divided. We are finitely differentiated creatures who divide value into the myriad things and events that constitute our experience. DM: > DQ is all about freedom for me. Again, David, how can a philosophy that rejects the individual be "all about freedom"? DM: > Individuality is a great 4th level achievement in the MOQ > made possible by intellectual values overcoming social ones. I see this "great achievement" producing nothing but total confusion. Man does not live by sheer intellect. This power struggle with which the MOQ is obsessed -- that intellectual values must overcome social values which overcome biological values which overcome inorganic values -- is pure speculation based on an arbitrary and euphemistic construction of existential reality. Value is the object of desire and is emotive, rather than intellectual. If we lived by intellect alone, we would be dealing with ciphers, equations, and axioms in an Orwellian regimen instead of being inspired by the values of truth, beauty and compassion to create a better world for mankind. 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/
