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. Ham: 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: Interesting question, I think this is where pain (most evidently speaking) Has survival value. The most primary value function. It is the most certain Because it has been the most empirically successful in interpretation and response. Evident by our very existence and I think you agree that "being" Is the most certain of experiences. [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. Ham: That's an experience that will teach me something about Morality? Certainty? Value? Do you take me for an idiot, Ron? Ron: No sir! I tried it myself last night, I stepped on some of the kids toys I smacked my head on the door way, I felt around using my other senses All the while trying to "see" it as sensory experiences rather than My stupid self blindly bumping into objects I can't see. I took on A new realm of understanding, by blinding one of my Primary senses, Sight being my dominant sense, I was aware of experience as a whole More consciously, I ask you to be dynamic and try the experiment Yourself and see what you think. [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. Ham: Perhaps, then, we should be looking into anthropic meaning--anthropocentricity, to be specific. Have you dismissed all the arguments for an anthropocentric universe? Ron: Nope, as a matter of fact I've been thinking a lot about this, crafting And developing meaning, direction and purpose gives life an intentionality. Living with a direction and purpose is um.. essential. I have been discussing this with a college who is a proponent of the many Worlds philosophy and uses the concept of connection with past and future Selves to orient his life and direction, He feels it is necessary to live A life of intent. [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. Ham: 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"? Ron: Ham we would never further ourselves if we agreed on everything, I do not think cosmic purpose is an absurd notion in fact Meaning is all we really have, so it is important to develop A proper sense of it. My view may be considered Nihlistic But I don't think that the notion that everything is special And filled with meaning does not imply that I think all of it is meaning-less. As matter of fact that's all it is, meaning -full. 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/
