[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]
I don't think The Way is any less "subjective" than "judgment". Both apply
to these patterns at this place in time. It is not universal harmony I
strive for but harmony here in this place, now.
Innate ability means capacities we acquire as a result of the experience of
our ancestors. Perhaps that is why Confucius enjoined us to revere them.
> [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.
> [Krimel]
> 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.
[John]
Well it's only SOM if you think it explains everything, rather than some
things (SOM things? haha)
[Krimel]
I think subject and objects are useful ways of describing things but I think
reality is fundamentally about the dynamic relationships among static
patterns.
> [Krimel]
> We arise from processes of the environment both individually and
> collectively as a species.
[John]
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]
But I have said, loud, proud and often that these processes are organic,
dynamic and probabilistic. The Am Gis don't even understand the meaning of
the terms.
> [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]
Ok in answer to the question you posit above them judgment must involve the
application of rational processes to instant perception. This is
conceptualization. But it is also an evolutionary characteristic of our
species. I seriously recommend that Ape Genius video from Nova. It takes
about an hour of your time but it should stimulate your thinking.
What you do moment to moment is almost entirely the result of "unconscious"
processes. How you explain what you just did is almost entirely the result
of "conscious" rational processes. The big mistake comes from mixing the
two.
> [Krimel]
> 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.
>
[John]
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]
No it does not. You are correct. But that is not what is required. The task
of childhood is to construct a conceptual schema. Our parents and the people
of our community help us in this process. We estimate probable futures based
immediate experience filtered through the lens of our personal history.
[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.
[John]
The only brake on a chariot IS the reins. The reins reign. And this dips
into a big problem you and I have, philosophically.
[Krimel]
Sorry I was updating and ancient myth with analogs from the fertile modern
Mythos. It have a problem with failure to do this, philosophically.
[John]
You don't believe in free will.
[Krimel]
I am agnostic on the subject but remain convince that to the extent that it
exists it is very, very, very limited.
{John]
Your charioteer, you claim, is deluded.
[Krimel]
I think the charioteer is a rookie in this whole race.
[John]
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.
[Krimel]
I don't recall the specifics but I think that in a purely mathematical sense
consciousness = awareness. Free will? IDK...
[John]
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.
[Krimel]
IDK, again.
I feel like I am drinking from terms thrown into a blender. I think dynamic
means change/uncertainty. Dave says DQ = the sense of this or the ability to
sense this in terms of value (which I would reduce to "good" and "bad" or
"greater than"" and "less than" or "equal to".
I think the dividing line is feedback looping where past outcomes influence
present circumstances. Or, the present is a function of past outcomes. I am
agnostic on free will because I think the present is in fact determined by
the past. But I want to make it clear that present outcomes and past
determinants are often separated by infinitesimally small units of time.
I seriously think the flaw in Dave's understanding is that is cuts him off
from the astounding changes and advancements in consciousness that have
occurred during the past 150 years our so. Our current conceptual systems
are so much more advanced, at a higher lever, that those of our grandparents
that it is easy to confuse what philosophers of the past are were talking
about.
I don't think for example, that Pirsig, writing 20 years ago, had any idea
of what it would be like to instantly have access to the "intellectual
level" via Google. I don't think that James had a clue to the significance
of being able to see his house from the God's eye view of a satellite in
Earth orbit.
I don't think Hegel or Kant or Locke or Hume or Descartes even suspected
what sort of cosmic revelation comes from being able to rewind a video tape,
watch it in slow-mo, freeze frame it or watch an instant replay. Those
abilities radically change a person's conception of time; just as, for
example, a yardstick changes one's perception of space.
More importantly, the ability to experience time in this way obscures our
ability to understand the thinking of people who couldn't.
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/
