Eddo said to dmb:
...How does a person "strip every bit of information from every emotion"? The
use of the word "every" emotion implies that there are more than one and that
there are differences between those emotions. Consciously you can only be aware
of those differences in terms of information. But the word emotion also implies
a feeling. If I see somebody cry I assume that this person is overwelmed with
feelings because i am when i cry. To me those feelings are sensation.
Sensations produced by our sixth "value" sense organ. read essay "subject's,
object's data and values. True! It's an effort to build an abstract
meta-physical/mathematical system. If scientific Physics can use Mathematics as
it's language why not Metaphysics?
dmb says:
I don't think you answered the question. In fact, your answer only raises more
questions. (It also raises the hairs on the back of my neck.) Some parts of it
only state the obvious, as when you say there is more than one emotion or that
crying people have feelings. But what part of your answer is relevant to the
question? What does it mean to strip information from feelings? How would you
do that? Why would you do that? And how is it even possible to use math as a
language for metaphysics?
Eddo continued:
What does it mean to say that "pure sensation" is "what we ..are at the most
fundamental level"? It's an assumption I made after twenty years of thinking.
Long ago i accedently saw this movie At First Sight (1999) - [...] This gave me
the idea that the human eye acts more like a mirror than like a camera. A
mirror that likes a balance between the information on both sides of this
mirror and dislikes an unbalance. This kind of mirror is mathematically
expressable with the wave equations of resonance. I generalize this priciple to
all five sense organs. The conscious mind i see as the sixth sense organ as
Pirsig called that the value sense organ. I see this as an aggeregation of our
five senses. same principle. Mathematicians like symmetry ;-)
dmb says:
I think Kant is usually given credit for the idea that perception is always
shaped or mediated by the mind. The transcendental categories of mind, as he
called them, always prevent us from directly seeing the world-in-itself. For
Kant, these categories of the mind were innate, a built-in structure. Your
movie-inspired idea is a case of re-inventing the wheel and, I think, quite
badly too. Pirsig rejects the SOM premise behind Kant's view and Pirsig rejects
the notion that the categories of the mind are innate too. Instead we get a
picture of concepts as an evolving system of humanly constructed analogies.
They grow as we grow.
I just don't see how your wheel turns. Sure, mathematical symmetry is nice and
neat but how is it reasonable to infer that eyeballs (or any sense organs) like
to be so balanced? And how would one quantify sensations or otherwise make them
expressible in "wave equations of resonance"? Seems to me that you are imposing
order and symmetry is a way that is not only inappropriate and ill-fitting but
also wildly incoherent. The mathematics of feelings, thoughts and sensations?
Even if it were possible, why would you want to? What's the point?
Eddo continued:
If you want i can walk you through the mathematical details but i'd rather do
that in another editor because i can only use plain text on this forum. The
reason I chose to understand this in Mathemathics is because i think that
mathematics can be seen as the most cultural independent language there is.
Just to avoid cultural sensitivities.
dmb says:
Again, that doesn't answer my question. I don't want to scrutinize the details
of anything until sometime AFTER it makes sense on a much more basic level. And
justifying the use of mathematics as a way to address cultural sensitivities
sounds nice and reasonable as a presentation style but that's not what I'm
asking about. There seems to be a fundamental disconnection between your tools
of choice (math) and the subject matter that you're working on (sensations,
feelings, emotions). I don't see how those things can be quantified at all?
Ever heard the saying, "If all you have is a hammer then every problem looks
like a nail"? I'm saying that sensations and feelings are not nails and so it
makes no sense to be hammering them. How do I love thee, let me express that in
an algebraic equation? It's like using a ruler to measure my patience.
I don't see how any of this clarifies or illuminate the MOQ in any way. Do you
think it does and if so, how so?
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/md/archives.html
