Hi Ham Please see my responses below.
David M > 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 just do not think it is true. The child experiences prior to this. First the child recognises others and then it comes to conceptualise itself as also like these others. We act and exist just like animals until we start to become self-conscious and for full individual & human self consciousness you need language. > 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. > Ham> That "experience is experienced" is a meaningless tautology. DM: Of course it is a tautology but one that is the very basis of all meaning. Ham: 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: We are aware and experiencing a long time before we can consider any conceptions like being a perceiving biological organism. > > 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: I'd say that individual differentiated experience is an achievement that emerges from an initial experienced unity, you think this unity is outside of experience & inexperiencable. I disagree. Yet we both see full consciousness in a similar way and value the unity that underlies its emergence. But I see no need for a thing-in-itself and unexperienced unity. Unity can and is experience too, as religious mysticism attests. > > DM: >> Experience is indivisible from value and is prior to all this >> talk of world or perceivers. > Ham> In my epistemology all experience is divided. DM: I say most but not all. Ham 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: I do not reject the individual but I want to look at how the individual emerges and that experience can get underneath what is individual. This is not to devalue the achievement of individuality but to better understand it and see its limits as well as possibilities. > 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. DM: Funny it feels me with insight. Ham: Man > does not live by sheer intellect. DM: Agreed. 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. DM: I base it on describing experience and the history of human culture, I thought you were the great groundless speculator of metaphysics. For me the 4th level versus the 3rd is about how a culture develops in which individuals become possible, emerging fron a conformist and authoritarian culture/society. This new culture emphasises freedom, individuality and reason over tradition. I think you might recognise that the Enlightement happened and is not a speculative fantasy. Ham: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. > DM: Yes there is value before the intellect or the individual so this agrees better with my analysis than yours. With the 4th level there is the opportunity as Nietzsche sets out to re-value our values and I think we are trying to do that here at MOQ discuss. All for creating a better world have no idea why you think you are doing better with this project than me. Thanks for the chat, as usual I think it is you that is confused and out of touch with history, experience and logic as I understand these things. 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/
