[Ham] Did you mean "precepts" and concepts? (I don't know what a percept is -- slang for perception, I guess.)
[Krimel] A percept is the byproduct of perception, something perceived; sense data. [Krimel]: > But the problem with your approach is that you seem to think > that Value is "out there" waiting to be realized. Well that and you > think that emotion is a response to value. It is not. Emotion is the > value. Emotion tells us immediately whether something is good, > bad or neutral. It motivates us to act. [Ham] Value is neither "out there" (the MoQ thesis) nor "in here". It is the individual's primary sensibility of otherness -- that which is other to the self. Because we are dependent on the brain and proprioceptive neural system for sensory information, we are never aware of "Pure Value" which is the metaphysical source of sensibility. Instead we realize value relationally as our attachment, desire or affinity for that which transcends us. Value colors our experience of differentiated things and events, which is why we tend to attribute value to objects. [Krimel] Not all sense data is of "otherness". When I am hungry or stub my toe for example. I have no idea why you think there is a "metaphysical" necessity for anything beyond a lack of food or a brick in the path to account for my perceptions. [Ham] Emotion IS a response to value but not Value itself. The response mechanism is tricky to analyze, and the fact that semantics are largely subjective compounds the problem. For example, Pirsig describes "experience" as primary apprehension, whereas I define experience as the actualization of objective phenomena, which is secondary to value-sensibility and often involves the intellect. Also, "emotional responses" generally connotes behavioral manifestations due to hormonal secretions, heart rate, blood pressure variations, etc. Speaking as a reductionist, the fundamental human interaction with Value is Sensibility. [Krimel] No comment, you are taking relatively simple stuff and erecting complex unintelligible verbiage out of it. [Ham] Then you agree with me that the realization of Value is subjective, and that Value is the subject's connection to metaphysical reality (we'll call it "the environment" for the present). [Krimel] Kind of, but I think the term subject is a bad one. If we take this whole s/o business seriously it makes no sense at all to talk about "subjects". And I certainly do not think the environment has much to do with metaphysics. [Ham] Fine. Experiential existence is the world of appearances. I'm a phenomenalist, too, so I can buy that. But Pirsig's thesis is confined to this experiential world. He offers no metaphysical foundation for evolution's "moving to betterness", and he reduces the human being to a "collection of interacting patterns". If Quality or Value is fundamental reality, and its experience is primary, why does he reject man, the "experiencer", as its agent? [Krimel] I think phenomenology is a useful point of view until it becomes solipsism. I think Pirsig's account of "betterness" is just creative writing nothing more. I think humans ARE a "collection of interacting patterns." I think Pirsig is saying that "reality" is fundamentally undefined and you are chasing your tail trying to "define" what that might be in any fundamental sense, beyond static and dynamic; things that hold still and things that wiggle. [Ham] If "percept" is James's special terminology, could you kindly explain its meaning? Otherwise, I will confuse it with "precept", which is defined as "a principle intended as a general rule of action." (I see that "percept" is defined in Webster's as "an impression of an object obtained by use of the senses." Is that how James defines it?) [Krimel] This is not a special term in any sense. It's in the dictionary. You looked it up; that's what it means. > [Krimel] > The distinction between them is important. A percept arises from the > physical interaction of an organism with the world. Energy is converted > to neural impulses. In this direct interaction we come as close to contact > with an external world as it is possible to come. This kind of interaction > is common to all living things and we can see it spread across the realm > of biology as a variety of strategies that have evolved to capitalize in > it. > > Any biological creature sufficiently complex enough to move, develops at > its front end, sensors that detect physical stimuli. They also have the > ability to discriminate whether those stimuli have Value in terms of > should I move toward or move away from this. [Ham] You say "they" have the ability to discriminate; what does "they" refer to? The way your sentence is constructed, it appears to be the sensors themselves. If that's your intention, the behavior you're describing is no more than a simple reflexive response, as in Pirsig's hot stove analogy. It reduces "value" stimuli to pain, fear, and the survival instinct, hardly examples of subjective value discrimination. [Krimel] "They" would be any "biological creature sufficiently complex enough to move." But reflex responses are not all the simple. When first discovered it was though that they could actually account for all of human behavior. That was in the 1800s and it turn out not to be true but they do explain a great deal of our behavior including the hot stove example. Value is what we make of stimulation. From one especially fertile point of view we are input/output systems. Sensation provides input. Output is behavior. [Ham] The rest of your lengthy post is a neuro-physiological analysis of feelings and emotions which is a bit too specious for my taste. [Krimel] So it seems clear but you just don't get it? [Ham] Possibly it was meant for David, who seems to have an aversion to concepts. But inasmuch as I don't view Value or its realization as an organic or synaptic process, I see little point in commenting on it. Besides, the philosophical ground is covered in the discussion above. [Krimel] Right you don't seem to have an aversion to the supernatural. Dave does. He wants to keep the supernatural baby by renaming it and drinking its bath water. [Ham] Thanks for your thoughtful response, Krimel, and Happy Independence Day. [Krimel] Backacha. I plan to spend the 4th watching our local fireworks. We go to the show and walk toward the blastoff site until a fireman tells us we are too close and makes us back-up a few feet. Then we spread our blankets, lay on the ground and watch the sky flowers bloom... or I guess that's boom. 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/
