On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: [Krimel] > I do apologize for the frequent references to who said what, when but this > conversation has been going on for a pretty long time and if you follow the > thread at all, you can see the difficulty. Talking with Dave is like trying > to pick up watermelon seeds. > >
> [John] Picking up Watermelon seeds? Easy. Just do one at a time and don't pinch quite so hard when you grasp. > Me previous: > > > So if I sum it up simply as possible: > Value=process arising from enviro-being interaction > > [Krimel] > Kinda of, but Value in more like a feeling; a kind of 'sense' of what's > good > and what's bad. I think it is a bit more like The Way of Virtue. Or what > Kahneman and Tversky identify in prospect theory as an innate ability to > estimate probabilities. > > John} sensed value is what I term "judgement" which is subjective. The Way of Virtue is non-subjective so if you pick which of these you mean, then I'll know what you mean. It sounds to me like "innate ability to estimate probabilities" is definitely what I'd call judgement - so we'll go with that for now. And I'll get rid of the equal sign as that is too conceptually fraught for a philosopher: Judgement IS a process arising from enviro-being interaction There. That sums up your assertion nicely I think. I agree completely. It's not quite a metaphysics because you need to understand how Value relates to judgement, but you've got a complete subject/object metaphysics right there. Congratulations! > > [Krimel] > First, it is not my equation if is yours. I would not say that Value equals > environment plus being. I would say that Value is a function of the > interaction of the individual and the environment. Oh I never said anything about "plus" in my reduction of your equation. "Is a process" which is what I got from you. It's your equation, Krimel. Not mine. I just simplified it a bit like in algebra class. "Is a process" is functionally equal to "is a function", btw. But if you like that terminology better, then you can have it. Judgement is a function of the interaction of individual and environment. That's exactly as you stated except for the disambiguation of your use of "value". > > > But this is where lesser minds would accuse me of SOM as though I am saying > that the individual is somehow separate from the environment. I do not > think > this is the case. The individual is integral to the environment. They are > just aspects of the system in question. Well it's only SOM if you think it explains everything, rather than some things (SOM things? haha) > > > We arise from processes of the environment both individually and > collectively as a species. Sure. I can see that. The key to your assertion though is how you feel about these "processes". If you think of them in terms of mechanistic cause and effect processes, then you're one kind of guy. The kind that gets accused of reductionism. If you think of these processes as guided processes then you're another - a member of an AwGi cult. > [Krimel] > Right but the point is that your sense of Value from moment to moment is > not > the result of some intellectual appraisal. It arises as an emotional > reaction, a gut feeling. If asked you might be able to specify what > "causes" > that feeling but your answer is always a secondary and probably inaccurate > analysis. > > [John] Well I don't know about that Krimel. My judgement is at least heavily influenced by intellectuall appraisal. I would agree that it is not the result of intellect alone. But always the framework of my conceptual system is prejudicially influencing how I'm going to emotionally react, before the event which "causes" my primary emotional reaction, I'm primed by my intellect to feel things a certain way. > > > [Krimel] > I do not always love my beloved. As you point out above, sometimes I fear > her, sometimes I loathe her. The environment is always and continuously > changing. Well if she catches you calling her an "environment", you might need to fear. > One of our greatest superpowers is the ability to make estimates > of what's coming next. Kahneman and Tversky identify this as an innate > ability like our power to estimate distance and time. I suspect what they > are getting at is one of Kant's a prioris, an innate sense of probability > which I think Kant called causality. It comes to us as a sense of the > 'odds' > but can be refined with analytical intellectual tools. > And coincides with what I said about a preconstructed intellectual matrix which influences how you're going to feel. "Estimates of what's coming next" is pre-thought-out reality, and it does determine to an incalculable degree what we're going to see and how we're going to feel about it. [Krimel] > I would almost never claim to be with Plato. Even in this case I think the > charioteer is deluded in thinking he is holding the reins. I see him as > more > of a backseat driver who can lay hands on the emergency break. The only brake on a chariot IS the reins. The reins reign. And this dips into a big problem you and I have, philosophically. You don't believe in free will. Your charioteer, you claim, is deluded. Last we discussed it, you equated free will with ultimate power and refuted that, and never really took up the subject again, but one of my most strident points is that free will = consciousness = Quality apprehension. In order to understand Quality you have to admit judgement, which can only exist in the context of freedom to choose between better and worse. The dynamic choice which equals free will is the dividing line between organic and non-organice reality. So how could you say it doesn't exist? But this is straying way off this topic at this time and perhaps best saved for another day. You seem to have a pretty full plate going as is. Thanks for your time, J 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/
