[Ham] Your mention of phenomenalism was with reference to physicists. [Case] I brought this up in response to your post and its confused account of the origins of the term. I have no interest in exploring the positions of various physicist in this regard.
[Ham] I don't wear a "stripe" and dislike the phenomenalist connotation. I'm an Essentialist who believes in a primary absolute source which negates all nothingness to cause the appearance of differentiated existence. If this smacks of idealism or phenomenalism to you, so be it. [Case] Really my only question was whether or not you deny the existence of an external world however you chose to characterize it. [Case]: > There is the world of private experience that is not separated from us. [Ham] All experience is proprietary awareness of something other than ourselves. I call this object of awareness the "essent" to distinguish it from absolute Essence. We sense it pre-intellectually as Value and intellectualize it differentially as the discreet phenomena of experience. [Case] This is not a metaphysical question. All experience is subjective to the experiencer. Experience comes to use through the senses we do not have direct access to objects in the world. We have sense impressions these are recorded into memory and organized into perceptions. But all we have access to directly is nervous impulses. [Ham] "Us" -- you and I -- are nothing without the objectivized reality that we experience. Otherwise, I agree with your statement. [Case] Objectivity comes through intersubjective sharing of subjective experience. [Ham] Value is directly sensible. Perception is the differentiation of value into relational existents (things and events). [Case] If you regard Values are biologically determined emotional responds perhaps your first sentence here makes sense but this is pretty shakey. Perception is a process of classifying direct sensation into memory. [Ham] Every experienced phemomenon is separated from otherness by our own nothingness -- even "similar" things. This is a metaphysical principle, not mathematics. What you call an "error" is the illusion of finite multiplicity. [Case] Experience is the process of integrating otherness. As I have mentioned may times constructing a metaphysics that ignores the principles of mathematics and reason is just fantasy. If there are no rules I can construct a metaphysics that centers on the activities of invisible unicorns. [Ham] Memory recalls experience as divided things and events; that's how the brain records them. Sliding back and forth in time is a function of memory, not imagination. Imagination is the creative conjuring up of events in a way that we have not experienced them. [Case] Sliding back and forth is time is much more than a function of memory. We can not after all remember the future. We can access memory to construct models of the future or to indulge in fantasy. See above. 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/
