[gav] let me say that your point is a very important one - ie how is dq, felt experience, not another form of emotivism.
i'll try and phrase this well: emotivism presumes the subject and object. there is my body in which i feel an emotion which is then registered by consciousness. [Krimel] Come on gav, be serious. The fact that you are typing messages on the internet presumes that you have a body that can type. It implies that you can express the thoughts localized inside your skin. [gav] in pre-intellectual experience there is no distinctions only the experience. there is no body, or mind, or objects of any sort; the subject is absent too, strictly speaking. no observer just ongoing observation. [Krimel] There certainly are states of consciousness that are as you describe. But they require training, drugs or in my case a movie ticket to evoke. Pre-intellectual just means what is going on prior to the ability to verbalize. [gav] this is partly a semantic game, as ludwig would have probably said, before he reneged on himself....but there is something of value here and it is logical. [Krimel] I think an important point that Ludwig missed is that language is code. When we speak, we encode our thoughts and emotions into sound waves. When we listen to others, we decode sound waves into thoughts and emotions. The value we get from listening depends on the signal to noise ratio in our ability to articulate our thoughts. That is to say how "lossy" is the communication channel. [gav] emotivism is SOM. hey all isms are SOM! but that's a cheap shot that explains not much. geez man this is tough stuff: forgive my past transgression, impudence, anger, rancour, etc...it is all borne of frustration at my own discursive impotence and also the immense inertial resistance intrinsic to any paradigm shift. do you see how a body is necessary for emotion? maybe this is the best way to show how emotivism is still SOM - still dualistic - still presumes the separate physical self. [Krimel] I am not espousing any particular "ism". I am talking about emotion. We are, as Jill Bolte-Taylor phrased it, energy beings. We exchange energy with our environment. We are the locus of this exchange. There is a physical self involved. Something is typing. Something is reading. That something responds to the coded messages. See above: you claim to have past transgressions, impudence, anger etc. Isn't that SOM? Shouldn't I be free to label it as such and dismiss anything else you have to say? Among our superpowers is the ability to adopt a variety of points of view. We can see ourselves as subjects or as objects. We can imagine seeing things from the point of view of others people or from the point of view of elementary particles. If we look strictly at the pattern of energy exchange, what we see is that physical energy from the environment impinges on our senses. This energy is converted into electrochemical reactions in the nervous system. These patterns of interaction are encoded and that code interacts with previously encoded experience. And we describe this encoded energy through the symbolic code of language. The language that we use to this end may be characterized by how effectively it reduces uncertainty in our shared meaning. [gav] the MOQ is predicated on mystic truth, on the incontrovertible exclusively mystical nature of truth. period. to fashion a metaphysics from this base is always going to be an essentialy paradoxical affair, why mess with it - you just hide truth surely? but then again some analogues point better than others to the shiny shiny moon. [Krimel] I understand that this is your view but I don't think that it is correct. Pirsig says that both scientists and mystics have objections to metaphysics in general. He says that the mystics' objections are more difficult to overcome but he basically just ignores them both. There are other ways to understand the MoQ than from a purely mystical perspective. If its purpose is to reconcile scientists and mystics then from your point of view it fails before it gets off the ground. [gav] obviously you have some degree of attachment krim: you sense the value in pirsig's schema otheriwse you wouldn't be such an ardent, intelligent poster. all i can say is suspend disbelief: whether its som or moq - they are both fictions: see which you like best. don't worry about which is true cos truth is like a butterfly: pin it down and you kill it and fell like a philistine. [Krimel] Obviously, I am not the only one with attachments. If you think all this business about dead butterflies and philistines is true; why do you suggest that I employ the scientific method towards making a choice? Aren't you suggesting that I should, check it out, mess with it and see what happens? That, my friend, is the essence of science. 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/
