On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Greetings, John -- > > > > > Mornin' Ham, >> >> The ambiguity in these statements is easily resolved by regarding >>> experience as "patterned awareness" and sensibility as the >>> emotive state induced by pure (unpatterned) Value. >>> >> >> Unpatterned Value makes as little sense to my thinking as unpatterned >> experience. I guess I have a problem with all "un" patterns. I can't >> conceptualize such a thing and any attempt to analogize it just ends up >> obviating the UN, is my problem. >> > > That's because you are trying to "objectify" Pure Value as analytical > experience, which cannot be done. Oh. Is that what I've been trying to do? I'll concede I'm aware of objectifying Pure Value, with analogies of gravity and magnetic north and all, but I don't see anywhere that I'm objectifying it as analytical experience. Analytical experience is a special kind of experience, that Pure Value does not submit to without losing everything that makes it Pure. But even though the term annoys me, lets postulate a Pure Experience which precedes analytic objectification, and yet remains within the realm of human perception. For all intents and purposes, we can deem this "reality" or at least "reality as we know it" and be home in time for lunch. So why don't we? Sometimes my biggest wonder is why all the fuss around here... > As I just told Marsha, ALL experience is differentiated, objectivized, > patterned. Can I imagine an experience that is not? A mind floating in empty space, without any input, like a patient in a seeming coma on a table, with consciousness, but no differentiation, no patterns outside the cognizant self, no objects to be perceived except the self-as-object; does this count still as experience? Maybe. But certainly not a very high quality experience. And there's the real issue, imho. It ain't the experience of your Quality, but the quality of your Experience that matters. Just kidding. Sometimes these rhetorical flourishes just insert themselves. They're both the same, far as I can tell. > The so-called "pre-intellectual experience" is not an experience at all. Well we diverge here. I firmly believe in pre-intellectuality. So many times the example is brought forth of knowing something is good before you can even put it into words, or have even figured out why. Or knowing its bad, for that matter. I agree with Pirsig here. This pre-intellectual awareness is the most significant Experience there is. > It is the primary value-sensibility which is your essential nature. Oh wait. I see what you're saying then. You're saying this pre-intellectual experience is significant, it is something, it's just something different than experience. You want to call it value-sensibility instead of experience. I fail to see any reason for making that distinction. Sensing value is an experience. Life is experience. Lets go to lunch. > Creatures are not equipped to experience undifferentiated or absolute > Value, but value-sensiblity is intrinsic to the human being. > Well I don't see any reason for that formulation. If I can't experience, it doesn't exist for me. Simple and done. No need for extraneous filigree like I see all over the Victorian mansions around here. > > Our sense of Value is "pre-experiential" in that it provides the ground of > our existence. The minute you sense value, you're in an experience. Whatever your experience, you're sensing values. That's not merely a rhetorical flourish it's rock solid foundational concrete, baby. Give it a slump of say... 3 1/2 inches. That's the ground of our existence and I don't see why you want to separate out and precede one with the other. > It also affords us the autonomy to choose those values with which we are > "in tune" esthetically, morally, and emotionally. This is what I refer to > elsewhere as our "value complement," and it makes each individual unique in > his/her relation to Essence. > > Well this clues me in to your reason for your reasoning, and brings us back to a fundamental difference between your Anthropocentric Essentialism and my Roycean Idealism, the problem of choice in a value-oriented cosmos. So I'll digest this "autonomy to choose those values with which we are "in tune"" for a bit and get back to you. Happy mongering, John 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/
