Where to begin. >>( Nor does Platt's assertion that "experience, consciousness, psychic energy, reality, and Quality" are "all names for the same thing" help to clarify the issue. )
That is not an assertion in the conversational sense. That is the truth and a fundamental concept in moq, budhism, etc. There is a lot of confusion here. FOCUS! FOCUS EVEN MORE! If you want, you can understand this RIGHT NOW! The issue requires no clarification. The issue is Quality. Quality is clarity. Quality is. Quality. ________________________________ From: Ham Priday <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:16:52 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism Krimel, John, Craig, Gav, Platt, et al -- This thread has been pecked at repeatedly since at least the end of May when I lost all previous posts in a computer crash. Like many other topics on this forum, the only consistency in the discussion is the general lack of agreement. If reductionism is reducing a concept to its simplest terms, and what we are really talking about is epistemology (how we know), then there must be some understanding of what a "knower" is. As Gav and Craig have pointed out, Krimel's systems analysis clearly doesn't provide any insight here. [Krimel]: > Experience BEGINS with transduction of energy into > neural impulses. [Gav]: > Experience cannot begin with 'transduction of energy into neural > impulses', because 'transduction of energy into neural impulses' is a > concept *derived from experience* as all concepts necessarily are. [Craig]: > I think what Krimel means is that the experience of EACH > INDIVIDUAL "BEGINS with transduction of energy into neural > impulses". 'Transduction of energy into neural impulses' is a concept > derived from experience, but the concept was around before most > of us began experiencing. I don't know why Gav and Craig call "the transduction of energy" a concept, since it is actually a process. But it does demonstrate that a systems approach won't work as an epistemological theory. Nor does Platt's assertion that "experience, consciousness, psychic energy, reality, and Quality" are "all names for the same thing" help to clarify the issue. Still, the beginning of experience is fundamental to understanding "how we know" anything. At the risk of offending the anti-SOMists, I would suggest that experience begins with subjective sensibility which, in temporal terms, occurs at the birth of an individual. All knowledge is sensible in that it is revealed to the subject's conscious (psychic) awareness. Whether concepts are derived from experience (or vice-versa) is immaterial because we are aware of what we experience, and to say that conceptual knowledge is not part of our experience is absurd. Now, John raised an interesting point on 6/13 that appears to have been overlooked. He was challenging dmb's statement that "In the MOQ, there is always a discrepancy between concepts and reality." [John]: > ALWAYS a discrepancy between concepts and reality? ALWAYS??? > How do you know this? What possible proof could you offer to make > such a statement? I mean, if we all, every person on the planet, just > spent all our time conceptualizing every waking moment (in fact, I guess > we do) then wouldn't the bare fact of probability offer the possibility > that every once in a while, somebody got it right? If so, it would be > very difficult to prove, but obversely, it is also impossible to prove > contrary. > How would you know? > > And if we're talking about concepts, well sometimes the reality I'm > conceptualising IS a concept. I'm talking about an emotional state > or a thought pattern which, since I'm referring to my own creation, > I oughta be the best judge on whether the concept of my reality concept > is real enough. > > My concept of reality contains no discrepancy between concept and reality > when the reality I conceptualize is a concept I create. John is on to something of significance to epistemology. In short, there is no difference between the reality we conceptualize and the reality we know. If existential reality is our subjective concept, then the known and experienced reality is derived from conscious (psychic) sensibility. Since the universe is the experiential creation (concept) of the individual, differentiated existence is solipsistic. But inasmuch as individual experience conforms to the laws and principles of nature, it is universal. It should also be understood that neither subjective awareness nor its objective concept is the true Reality. I submit that this S/O epistemology clears up some of the confusion in this discussion without contradicting the MOQ. Krimel can still apply his systems theory to experience, Gav can continue to regard experience as conceptual, and Platt can hold on to his "equivalency principle" of Quality. Are we any closer to Reductionism, or have I just muddied the waters? Respectfully, 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/ 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/
