Hi Ron, sorry about the delay
> Ron:
> This is a good start. Why are we discussing this in terms of subjects
> and objects? When we shift to patterns of value things come around.
> If you concede that physical reality is patterns of value then it stands
> To reason that it is the human mind which interprets these patterns
> As rocks and amoebas.
No! A human mind is *not* required to make a rock work as a rock and an amoeba
to work as an amoeba. The only difference humans make is that we give names to
such patterns, nothing else.
> When Pirsig explains that everything is an analogy
> I take this to include all human perception as well, not simply
> language.
Where did he say that? I don't agree. Analogies are level 4 stuff. Only level 4
has the capability to represent anything else. Every pattern below level 4 is
*not* an analogy, it just is in itself and there's no pattern just like it,
it's
unique.
> You seem to distinguish between immediate experience and intellect as if
> They are separate and unrelated functions. I feel they are separate
> process but of a single system that of the human mind the interpreter of
> patterns.
Oh yes, I really do distinguish them very clearly. Immediate experience is the
unique experience you get every day by hearing, seeing, feeling etc. Then you
sort those experiences intellectually to be able to make sense of them, but in
that process, you lose the immediate experience, it's gone forever.
Magnus
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/
