SA previously: > > You see, as Arlo mentioned, we've all been here > > with Ham. He tries to act as if he is learning > > something about the moq, then bam, he throws in > the same old jargon about essence.
Ham: > SA, I did not mention Essence or Essentialism > anywhere in that post. So > what is your beef? SA: Essence was coming, it eventually was, and it did. I really don't have any beef here, Ham. I don't value your philosophy, but I do value your honesty in letting us know that you are proclaiming another philosophy. You are upfront as to what philosophy you are trying to declare. I was just reclarifying, as Arlo was, were you, Ham, philosophically stand - no beef, but let's see how you commented to the rest of this post... SA previously: > > What experience are we talking about? Ham, > > you limited experience up above here to the > experience > > of pain. Experience can be of many events, not > just pain. Ham: > I suspect you've forgotten the purpose of that > quotation. > It was Pirsig, not Ham, who came up with the hot > stove analogy to illustrate > "pre-intellectual experience" (as opposed to > "experience of events")... Pain is simply a sensation, like an > itch or hunger, that > alerts us to some physiological distress or need. > Since Pirsig's point was > that it doesn't need to be intellectualized, why > does he intellectualize it? > Sort of punctures his argument, doesn't it? SA: The hot stove is an example of a pre-intellectual experience. The experience of a hot stove, the whole event of sitting and jumping off doesn't take any intellect - you just do it (jump off). You could come up with many other events. Pirsig is pointing out how all of life is pre-intellectual and then we eventually intellectualize this pre-intellectual (primary reality). Even to intellectualize about intellect. Intellect is pre-intellectual and then we can philosophy about intellect, even call it intellect and point out myriads of details (thus, intellectualize about intellect). Ham: > Instead of pain, why not choose fear, joy, anger, or > love as an example of > pre-intellectual sensibility? SA: Why not? Go ahead. Pre-intellectual experience (dq) is primary reality (thus everything and nothing, mu, etc...), but once primary reality is intellectualized or defined, then the event is no longer pre-intellectual, now the event is a static pattern. Ham: > These are emotional values which require no > intellection, and they are also more suggestive of > the individual's state of > being which may be said to "color" his experience of > external phenomena. SA: As pointed out above, even intellect is pre-intellect, until we try to intellect. Ham: > Note that I haven't mentioned the objectionable 'E' > word in my reply. Maybe > it's time for another walk in the woods. SA: maybe... I don't know. night still, SA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
