----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiment 1.
Squonk --?
?
I should like to know how you deny it Ham, not simply read a?
statement that you do so. This is the third time i have had to ask you,?
which seems a little unfair. Hume, following John Locke, argues that?
finite experience can be extrapolated to infinite proportion.?
?
I'm sorry, Squonk, but I do not see that "infinite proportion" relates
either by logic or analogy to a "cosmic principle". You are challenging me
with apples-and-pears analogies. Frankly, I don't even know what "infinite
proportion" is supposed to mean. You imply that the experience of
Excellence and "intellectual discourse" are both extendable to a cosmic
principle. What, pray tell, would that principle be? Does it mean that the
universe is infinitely excellent or absolutely discursive?
Hi Ham,
I have problems with this also.
But it does seem to be behind the moq in some sense. I used to accept this
uncritically.
Ham:?
You talk about the experience of total darkness being extrapolated to
infinity. Does this lead to the logical principle that ultimate reality is
undifferentiated? You then quote Hume who has categorically rejected the
possibility of reasoning to a uniformity principle, thus refuting the
argument you seem to be making by inference.
s: Yes!?That's it. It's a problem for the moq Ham.
Nietzsche did the same thing before his mental collapse.
Ham:?
Hume states that "All inferences from experience ... are effects of custom
[habit], not of reasoning. ...Without the influence of custom, we should
be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately
present to our memory and senses. ...There is no uniformity principle,
there is no good argument of any kind for uniformity." These statements
would appear to contradict your claim that "Hume, following John Locke,
argues that finite experience of any kind may be extrapolated." You have
me totally confused. I'm not all that acquainted with Hume or Locke, but
these arguments seem to be pointing in opposing directions.
s: There is only a contradiction if you assume i am defending the moq. I'm
not.
What i'm arguing for is the problem associated with?extrapolation, and
this is what the moq seems to do.
I sincerely believe we all experience quality events, but i am not at all
sure anymore that this indicates a source of experience; i think it
describes some experiences,?which is not the same thing.
?
Ham:?
Inference is only an assumption that one proposition is analogous to
another. No philosopher would claim it is something we can base a cosmic
principle on. Since this entire discussion was headed off by your
inferences, you're forcing me to deal with abstractions. Speaking of
what's "fair", why should I have to guess how this all relates to the MoQ
and Essentialism? I suggest that we start talking in real terms about real
claims. Precisely, what is the point (or complaint) you are trying to
make? Once I know that, I can provide the kind of response that addresses
your question.?
?
Thanks, Squonk.?
--Ham
s: Hume argues that our idea of God is an extrapolation.
I think Quality is similarly derived, even though it is clearly
experienced on many occasions, sometimes many times in a day. But i think
each occasion is unique and situational.
Squonk,
"Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will
verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an
undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is
negative. This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed,
crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a
judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The
value itself is an experience. As such it is completely predictable. It is
verifiable by anyone who cares to do so. It is reproducible. Of all
experience it is the least ambiguous, least mistakable there is. Later the
person may generate some oaths to describe this low value, but the value
will always come first, the oaths second. Without the primary low valuation,
the secondary oaths will not follow."
(LILA, Chapter 5)
The essential point, "The value itself is an experience." They are
synonyms. At least that is my understanding.
But now, I would like to read your paper comparing Nietzsche and Pirsig.
Please make it available.
Marsha
My problem with your Essentialism is that some of your axioms are not
experienced at all. But it's a fine piece of logical reasoning.
squonk
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/
