Hi Ron --
> 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.
Hmmm, interesting. The word qualia (for values) is akin to desiderata
(for
desires). I suppose a case could be made for such epistemic
specificity,
although I think Value is understood by most people as psycho-emotional
sensibility. Not sure what you mean by "meaningful for survival", but I
like the concept.
Ron:
By "meaningful for survival" I mean that "value"s core is its ability
To maintain being, based on the way it interprets stimuli. If it does
This poorly it ceases to be. When I say that human experience has
verifiability I mean that our interpretation of stimuli (value)
Has sustained our being. Successfully enough to be considered a
Relatively accurate interpretation.
> 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.
Ham:
The sensibility/otherness dualism is primary to self-awareness and
intellection, so I guess one might say that it "exists". However, for
consistency, I try to hold to the definition of existence as "that which
is
experienced in space/time".
Ron:
This is the conundrum, existence relies on the illusion of space/time
To I which I take to mean that existence itself is an illusion. Hmm.
Ham:
So in that sense there is no existence prior to
experience. Moreover, I regard experience as an active (effective)
function
of the subjective self, while it is commonly thought to be passively
receptive.
Ron:
It certainly seems to be a an alternating current that builds upon
itself.
To say that it is either /or I think would be making a mistake.
Ham:
If I have "contrived" anything in my epistemology, it's the
concept that experience creates existential reality rather than simply
responding to external stimuli. I suspect Mr. Pirsig was also heading
in
this direction, although, as far as I know, he never specifically
defined
experience as a creator.
Ron:
I agree, but as I stated previously it seems to be a matter of mutual
creation, there must be outside stimuli to value but by interpreting
qualia we create it. Qualia supplies the pieces and we build experience.
[Ron]:
> How about we all respond to the same stimuli but
> interpret qualia differently?
Ham
I can accept that idea in principle, but "stimuli" is problematic
because it
suggests specificity where there is yet no specificity. For example,
the
actual stimulus for pain may be pressure in the intestinal tract. The
value
(qualia) of pain is sensed as a negative -- Pirsig would say it is "low
quality" -- but the experience of pain as a "stomach ache" requires
some
intellectualization. And if the stimulus is a hot iron or a sharp
point, it
must be objectivized experientially.
[Ron]:
The experience of pain being intellectualized places it in league with
self
Being aware of otherness doesn't it?
Ham, I appreciate your time and patience, you always provide an
interesting
Debate. you bring about food for thought. Thanks again.
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/
