Ron replies to Ham's assertion: > It is impossible to describe an experience without > distinguishing its relations.
[Ron]: > Exactly, he's not talking about describing experience > he talking about feeling it. Ever been "sucker punched" > or been given a "hot foot"? > I can tell you from experience that intellect does not > factor into immediate painful experience. Only after you > recover does intellect put an understanding on it. So, is raw pain what you define as "pre-intellectual experience"? If so, how is it "the most certain of experiences - ones in which meaning holds the most value"? [Ron]: > Aw come on Ham, you never took your mothers advice? > When she told you to stop crossing your eyes because > they might stay that way did you believe her? Did you > believe in santa clause without actually meeting him? [Ham, previously]: > I don't see that any single value assessment I make is > "more certain" than any other. Value realization has nothing > to do with Truth but everything to so with Sensibility, > which is man's essence. [Ron]: > So having sex and watching someone having sex > is the same to you? How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? [Ham, previously]: > Again, I do not acknowledge "pre-intellectual experiences". > Can you provide an example of one? [Ron]: > Blindfold yourself and run around your house. > Really give it a shot. See what surprises you as far as > experience. Careful with the stairs though, I don't want > you killin yourself. That's an experience that will teach me something about Morality? Certainty? Value? Do you take me for an idiot, Ron? [Ham, previously]: > I strongly suspect that Pirsig has contrived this multi-level > hierarchy mainly to avoid acknowledging a "supernatural" source. [Ron]: > Probably because there is no evidence of such, > other than anthropic meaning. Perhaps, then, we should be looking into anthropic meaning--anthropocentricity, to be specific. Have you dismissed all the arguments for an anthropocentric universe? [Ron]: > All in all that is probably a good way of looking at it, > mysticism. Cognizant awareness is not necessarily limited > to intellectual Interpretation. Ever have intuition or a gut feeling? Yes, but it proved unreliable I'm not impressed with your examples of "pre-intellectual experiences," Ron, nor with your exaggerated belief in their certainty. [Ron]: > [Y]ou are ever an interesting dialectic partner, you are > well spoken and highly intelligent. Opinions differ, but I > do have fun discussing them with you. You teach me a > great deal. I thank you for that. Stop; you're making me blush, Ron! There is no evidence of what I've "taught" you so far in this discussion. Indeed, it would appear that we've locked heads. I might ask this, just for the record. Do you agree with Krimel that "cosmic purpose is an absurd notion"? 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/
