Evening, Craig --
For the purposes of increasing my understanding
of your epistemology, I would ask the following
question. At what point does the objective
(experience creating) become the subjective
(experience translation)? I would agree that all
tools are extensions of the mind, and I do not want
to get into semantics concerning the subjective and
objective. If our reality is the experiencing of a
larger world, where does that interface lie?
Valuing, experiencing, and intellectualizing (translating) are all aspects
of a single process called Consciousness, and the entire process is
subjective (meaning proprietary to the individual). I stress this because a
philosopher who denies the subject is compelled to externalize much of what
constitutes conscious awareness, and this is particularly true of the MoQ.
The real "interface" in my epistemology is what links Sensibility to
Otherness.
By "Sensibility" I mean the power (agency) of knowing, perceiving, or
apprehending a reality beyond the self. "Otherness" refers to the essence
of that reality which is sensed as Value. These two contingencies
constitute the primary "dichotomy" from which existential difference and
individuation are actualized.
I'll use your term "interface" for this interconnection, although its
epistemic function is bipolar. That is, the primary contingents are
divided/joined, negated/affirmed, attracted/repulsed with respect to each
other at the interface. This is how difference and contrariety come into
existence. It's also how Value can be essential, whereas the subjective
agent (self) is not. In fact, the split between them is absolute, which
makes the self a virtual nothingness (negate). Ontologically, our
subjective existence is totally dependent on NOT being the otherness we
experience (i.e, value we sense) as Being.
Finally, all references to "reality" above should be understood as connoting
"existence." Obviously a cosmology that is constituted of two mutually
exclusive, yet interdependent, modalities does not qualify as Ultimate
Reality. Nor can a cosmic system of infinite complexity come into existence
by its own power. (Neither can a hierarchy of levels and patterns, for that
matter.) For that we must look to the Source of creation, without which
existence is a metaphysical impossibility.
Thanks for the question, Craig, Now tell me where I've lost you.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On 2/19/2010 at 8:45 PM, Craig writes:
Ham [said]
phenomena and events are better known as Experience.
And the observer of this experience is you or me. In the
absence of observers there would be no experience,
so experience is subjective in nature.
But we can. Perform the following experiment:
Put 3 iron tools out in the rain.
Tool #1 is watched by someone while rust accumulates on it.
Tool #2 is filmed while no one watches, later the film shows
rust accumulating.
Tool #3 is neither filmed nor watched, but is examined later
to have rust accumulated.
So we have shown that rust accumulates on iron tools
in the rain, even while no one is watching.
I disagree. You have shown that empirical knowledge is grounded in
experience, not that things and events have an independent reality. The use
of cameras and other recording devices only supplements the experiential
construct of the observer by a time extension. There is a cogent design to
what we call "objective experience" which is a valuistic representation of
the essential source. As I said before, "most events are relational in
space, periodic or cyclic in time, and familiar (i.e., predictable)
occurrences." From this perceived congruity we deduce that new events
(transformations) are the effect of prior causes. Repetitive experiences
tend to reinforce the precept of causality.
The observation of any phenomenon or event is an experience. Thus, the
change observed (experienced) in Tool #1 is the accumulation of rust on its
surface. From this we conclude that the rust appearing (experienced) on the
iron is the effect of oxidation by the rainwater over time. Photographed
Tool #2 is also observed to rust, based on indirect experience provided by
the camera. Since unobserved Tool #3 is later observed to be rusty, we
deduce that its apparent (experienced) change is also caused by oxidation
over a comparable time interval.
In all three instances our knowledge of the tool's transformation is
experiential, while the "cause" of the tranformation is an intellectual
precept (knowledge) derived from the sequential mode of our experience.
Does this analysis make my epistemology any clearer?
Regards,
Ham
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/
