On 3/24 at 1:56 PM Marsha wrote:
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.
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.
OK, everything is a conceptually constructed pattern, including the self.
I assume the self perceives and defines the S/O patterned reality, but
you do not say who or what "constructs" its objects.
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. ...I can find no I and no self, but only ever-flowing
experience. It is ALL quality/value/experience.
So you think, although there is no self to think. You experience, but there
are no objects to experience. "Convention" divides reality into objective
patterns, yet there are no subjects to establish convention. And you wonder
what is troubling me! Does this really make sense to you, Marsha?
At least Krimel's biochemical/neurological/material event offers an
epistemological ground for sensation and experience. Your worldview does
not. There is no 'modus operandi' that I can discern in your theory, nor do
you suggest any means by which proprietary experience arises from insentient
patterns. When I ask what "experience" is, you give me an evasive
equivalency statement:
Experience is experience, value is value, quality is quality,
and all synonyms.
Three hours later, as if you realized that was not an answer, you come back
with a valuistic description:
A second thought... I think the most an experience
might be is pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, as in neutral.
This doesn't pass for a definition, Marsha. I think you realize that it's
impossible to define experience in the absence of subjects and objects,
which you've rejected.
When asked if you disagree with my epistemology, you recite the customary
mantra which provides no additional insight as to what you think cognizant
experience may be:
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.
I don't mean to be critical, Marsha, but your explanation is a
never-changing collection of words relating to RMP's multi-level thesis that
tells me nothing about how you perceive the world or what you think reality
is.
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.
I suspect you know more than you're telling me. But until you're willing to
reveal it, I can only conclude that you haven't yet worked it all out.
That's fine; life is a work in process for all of us. It just disappoints
me that someone as bright as you, who has clung to the MoQ as long as I have
and is also acquainted with my philosophy, is unable to express her belief
system in her own terms.
Thanks for addressing my questions, Marsha.
Kindest regards,
Ham
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/
