> > > Perhaps "realization" is not the right term for what we sense intuitively > (subconsciously?). But I think this is where experience deceives us.
Why would experience deceive us? What is its motive? Perhaps you rather meant, "we are deceived in our relationship with experience". But still Ham, deception on a metaphysical level is a rather serious charge and usually implies some sort of agency. The only agency that could be responsible for the deception you posit, is the self itself. Which gets kinda gnarly, don't you think? > When we reflect on value, we do it intellectually and conclude (from > recalled experience) that Beauty is in the thing or person experienced. > Yet, at the moment of rapture (which I maintain precedes objectivized > experience) we are feeling (sensing) pure, undifferentiated Value. Because > this feeling is always associated with the thing, person or event observed, > we attribute value or beauty to that object. This selective differentiation > is the "act of experience" whereby we bring value-sensibility into finite > beingness. "Reflect" on value. Yes, that is intellectual. But the apprehension of Value/Beauty in the moment is pre-intellectual. We like to play this analytic game, and it is valuable no doubt. But I certainly don't have to conclude from recalled experience that my daughter's unguarded smile or a rose is beautiful. And I can't call that preintellectual apprehension "undifferentiated value" because by god, I sure am differentiating in the moment. This moment of artistic revelation is different from all other moments by its unique call on my soul from a more harmonious dimension. And finally, the selective differentiation is not any act of my experience, it resides not in the act but the experience of my experience. It is what comes to me, presents to me, inspires me and makes me respond in some way. When I'm very happy with my response, I call it "art". Doesn't happen often, let me tell you. > I know this "subjective" epistemology is strange and illogical as compared > with the common notion of emotional value as reactive rather than > "effective". (This is due to the intellectual precept of cause-and-effect > which we instinctively apply to all experience.) But if you believe, as I > do, that Value (i.e, Quality) is primary to objects, and forget about the > time sequence of human perception, it is clear that Value -- at least our > sense of it -- must actualize (create) our objective reality. Doesn't this > also explain why "the quality of the modern world is no good"? I don't quite follow you there Ham, except strange and illogical is a pretty good descriptor. After that I get lost in stranger and illogicaler. "Reactive rather than effective" fer instance. Whew. I don't even think I wanna know. I sorta react ineffectively to statements like that. And then there's: " forget about the time sequence of human perception" Why? How? I agree that our objective reality is created by Value, but I don't see how that explains the quality of the modern world is no good. You'd think the quality of the modern world would be a subset of the value of objective reality and thus no disconnect at all. I do see different. I don't see an explanation for the phenomena. The first line of John Keats' memorable poem reads, "A thing of beauty is a > joy forever." But midway through it, he departs from daffodils and trees > and seems to be talking about something grander and more transcendent: > > They always must be with us, or we die." > > Now I ask you, did he really mean "things", or was the message of this poem > "The VALUE of Beauty is a Joy Forever"? Back in my community college days, I was taking the romantic poets while studying the philosophy of deep ecology and the juxtaposition was enlightening to me. I was immensely attracted to Wordsworth for his critique of intellectual values and ever since thinking through the lens: "To me the meanest flower that blows, brings thoughts to deep for tears" focuses upon the idea that Nature is our ultimate teacher of Value - it is in natural relations we can contemplate the truly pre-intellectual Quality in all objective reality. appreciatevely, John Carl > > > > 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/ > -- ------------ Doing Good IS Being ------------ 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/
