Ham, Arlo, If I may have this dance?
Ham: 3. Experience, in turn, is derived from Value which is sensed incrementally and converted to the experience of finitude (i.e., relational objects and events). This is how difference is manifested as existence. In other words, existential reality (being-aware) is unique for each organism. Ron: Experience is derived from qualia which is a value response to stimuli. Value exists in meaning. qualia is meaningful to survival therefore It has value directly related to experiential existence. Ham: 4. There is no "before" or "after", "here" or "there", prior to this intellectualization of experience. All such dualisms are valuistic representations of the primary self/other dichotomy. 5. All experience has the same fundamental referent -- value-sensibility that links self to other, subject to object, awareness to beingness. Thus, objective knowledge has universality which relates all observers within the space/time system. At the same time, the value-sensibility of each observing subject is unique to that individual. Ron: You seem to contradict yourself, how can dualisms not exist prior to Intellection yet be supported by a valuistic representation of them. Sounds like some creative supposition to support a greater body of theory Used only to your own convenience of meaning of terms. Arlo > ""Before" and "after" are time-related precepts to which > we are all habituated as SOMists." > > So until "man" appears, there is no "time"? No "before" and > no "after"? Does this mean that everything which we parse into > "past-present-future" existed "simultaneously"? Ham: Forget about how "man appears". That's biological evolution which you can explain as well as I can. I'm talking about primary reality, the fundamental ontogeny. Time and space are the mode of experience. Difference and dimensions begin as the self becomes aware of otherness, and they frame all experience. Ron: Isn't the self becoming aware of otherness also known as intellection By your reasoning above? Ham: I'm saying that experience "creates" existence. This isolated "representation" IS existence, but we communicate and interact with other individuals who are objects of our being-aware. It's the universality of existence that makes cooperation and social interaction possible. Ron: How about we all respond to the same stimuli but interpret qualia Differently. Arlo: > In other words, saying "our awareness creates our experience > of the world" is quite different (in my book) from saying "our > awareness creates the world", which you had seemed to > propose in your last posts, suggesting that until something is > gazed upon by "man" it does not exist. Pragmatically, it may not > "exist" for us, I give you that. > But again that's quite different from proposing it simply does not > exist "at all" until man's observations somehow pull it into being. Ham: All we know is what we experience. All knowledge is proprietary. I see no difference between our experience of the world and the world we experience. If it doesn't exist for us, it doesn't exist --period, end of discussion. Ron: What is this "world we experience" if you posit that it Only exists as intellectual dualism? Self / other is an Intellectual concept. Being/nothingness is also an Intellectual concept as you well stated in your argument Against Arlo. Or as in contrarian style, intellectual Conceptions of dualism only exist when they are convenient To explain your ontology. Thanks 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/ 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/
