Concerning pre-intellectual value, Ron says:
> 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, I think the most immanent awareness is non-empirical. If that surprises you, it may be because of the imprecise way we use terms. Please understand that, for me at least, empirical relates to experience. This is the scientific meaning of the empirical method, for example, and a scientist will tell you that observation, experimentation, and conclusions about the universe must be independent of subjective influences. While I realize that philosophers and psychologists often talk about the "state of consciousness" as experience, strictly speaking, 'experience' is a transitive verb. To experience presumes an objective referent. Thus, there is no such thing as "pure experience", which is my problem with your "pre-intellectual experience". Now, I do acknowledge proprietary awareness as the "state of mind" in a pure sense. Descartes reduced this to "being" when he asserted "I think, therefore I am". But is "amness" being? If it is, it's a non-empirical being, because it cannot be objectively identified, localized, or quantified. The "state of awareness" itself is what I call Sensibility. And the fact that it is self-awareness makes it proprietary to the individual subject. For me, proprietary sensibility is the essence of man; everything else is an objective add-on. But what are we sensible OF? Being doesn't qualify, because it is the otherness borrowed from the external world to create the physical "Me". Yet, sensibility has a nature which is our reality as a psychic entity. I resolved this enigma for myself several years ago (with the help of Mr. Pirsig) when I realized that the essential nature of self-awareness is Value. Since then, I have defined the individuated self as "value-sensibility". It is this concept to which I relate the MoQ term "pre-intellectual experience". It fits with Pirsig's thesis, it works metaphysically, and it offers a fundamental principle whereby we can understand man as the measure of value. So, when you say ... > 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 > as meaning-less. As matter of fact that's all it is, meaning -full. ... I respond, meaning is what we interpret from Value. Essentially that's what my existence is: Value -full. For your consideration, Ron. Essentially yours, 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/
