At 11:47 AM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
Marsha --
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'. ...
I notice that you use the first person to identify the self that
says "I would guess" and "I would think", but experience and
concepts are left without a subject. Does this mean you believe
experience and concepts exist independently of your awareness? The
problem I have with your analysis is that it lacks a locus of
awareness, namely, the sensible 'I' or "self" that apprehends.
Discussing this conventionally, there is a conceptually constructed
self and there are conceptually constructed objects to be experienced
but this is a static patterned way of defining reality, a
subject-object patterned reality. The use of the phrase "I would
guess" and "I would think" reflects this conventional reality, I am
perfectly happy to use this convention because it is the way the
socially constructed world works. Within the MOQ there are no self
and no objects. I have looked into this and I agree with this
view. The self is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. Self and
objects are constructed from this collection of patterns. I can find
no I and no self, but only ever-flowing experience. It is ALL
quality/value/experience.
Perhaps it's the terminology that has me confused. For me, a
"sensation" is what I feel directly, without interpretation, such as
pain, joy, the touch of silk, the sight of color, the smell of
brewing coffee, or the sense of fear. In other words, it's my
"psycho-physical state" of sensibility at any given time.
This is a very conventional (patterned) way to describe
quality/value/experience. But the pattern is not the experience. By
the time the explanation arrives the experience is long
gone. Hindsight explanations are great, but are not the
experience. I am not advocating throwing out conventions, but
acquiring the realization that things are not as they seem to appear.
An "experience" is something that happens to me in my relation with
the external world -- climbing a hill, meeting a friend, reading a
book, watching a storm, etc. Experiences are always "structured" in
that they infer specific objects or phenomena to which my attention is drawn.
Yes, experience seems to be conceptually structured primarily for
social purposes. This may be a good way to describe it.
A "concept" is an idea or conclusion, usually derived from
experience, that I have intellectualized as a theory or
principle. I may seek confirmation from others to "validate" or
support my conclusion, but the concept originates with me and is
proprietary to my conscious awareness in the same way that
sensations and experiences are proprietary to me. Do you disagree
with this epistemology?
Yes I disagree with this point-of-view as an epistemology. I
experience reality as an ever-changing, collection of interrelated
and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic
Quality. Quality/value/experience is a constant flow.
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
All 'we' have are analogues, of all variety depending on
explanatory need, but the analogues are not the
experience.
What exactly is troubling you?
What, then, ARE the experiences? Whose experience is it if not yours?
Experience is experience, value is value, quality is quality, and all
synonyms.
That is what troubles me about your worldview. It has no subjective
foundation. I can't comprehend a sensation, an experience, a
thought or concept, or an assessment of Quality without a cognizant
subject to apprehend it. Even if the apprehensive self is only a
"static point of view", that view must be realized by a sensible
agent -- that is, you or somebody else.
Well, I can always slip into using conventional language where I can
jabber away to my hearts content. But,,, like Socrates, I know I
know nothing.
Now, I know you have bought into Pirsig's thesis that there are no
subjects or objects. But, surely, you don't deny your own self as
the perceiver of your world. Or DO you? If so, I'm even more
curious to learn how you justify that denial.
Sure conventionally there sometime appears to be a self that
experiences moment to moment but when I investigate, it does not
exist. It is just a flow of experience. Quite remarkable, yes?
Thanks, Marsha
Essentially yours,
Ham
Thank you Ham, I appreciate your questions. If I have ignored
something important, please ask again.
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/
