At 01:20 AM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
On 3/21/09 and again on 3/22 you wrote to Krimel:
[Marsha:]
I'm repeating a question from a few posts ago because I want you to answer:
Is there even one thing that is not dependent
on being conceptually constructed and
established by conventional agreement?
On 3/22 at 11:24 AM you said:
[Marsha:]
'Sensation' is conceptually constructed and
established by conventional agreement.
[Ham:]
Krimel corrected this assertion by responding that "sensation is
independent of conceptual construction."
But both of your statements are troubling to me. They suggest that
the empirical world is nothing but a concept adapted by consensus
(if that's what "conventional agreement" is meant to infer). And of
the three human faculties that can form a concept -- sensibility,
experience, and intellect -- you mention only one ("sensation")
which you claim is also "conceptually constructed". I'm confused by
these statements and am unable to make sense of the epistemology they describe.
How do you create a concept out of thin air? For if your sensations
are established by convention, they must originate from an external
source. Do you think sensations are collectively shared
experience? Or are you using the word "sensation" to mean universal
sensibility as in "common sense"?
When you have an opportunity, I'd be curious to know how you
(personally) believe knowledge is acquired, concepts are formulated,
and value is experienced.
Greetings Ham,
Using Quality/Value/Experience interchangeably, experience is
experience sans knowability, divisibility and
definition. Quality(experience) is quality(experience). What is so
troubling? I am not denying experience, but all the analogues used
to define, divide and know it.
I would guess that a new word or concept comes from science, the
media, the comics and the artists. In general I would think that a
new word or a new concept comes from a conceptual playfulness. I am
not denying phenomena external to mind, just that it is not the same
as the analogues we habitually use to reflect it, analogues like
'sensation'. There are no objects out there, but a continuous flow
of experiences, Quality. There is no duplication, or repeat of
experience except through spovs. I might want to say that Quality is
undefinable, unknowable, indivisible, and 'sensation' is a concept
used to describe it by chopping it into something isolated, or
separate. See how Krimel turned 'sensation' into a biochemical and
neurological, 'material' event? That is the up-to-date, scientific
set of conventional analogues, but not Quality. It is static
quality. What IS out there we 'cannot say'. All 'we' have are
analogues, of all variety depending on explanatory need, but the
analogues are not the experience. Scientific analogues may be more
useful to scientists, but not more real.
What exactly is troubling you?
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
