RE: MD Empiricism

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 17:32:23 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "RE: MD Evil & Buddhism, or Politics & Buddhism"

    Simon,

    > The first "realisation" of the proof was a moment of high intellectual
    > quality. High intellectual quality is sensed.

    Then reason is being treated as a sense. If you want to call it that, then
    are you now going to call Spinoza an empiricist?

    >
    > >I stand corrected, that is, I see that Pirsig treats value as phenomenal.
    > >So now my question is: what is not phenomenal? What I am getting at is
    that
    > >what SOM divided, Pirsig is reuniting by ignoring one side of the
    division,
    > >as materialists do, by relabelling, rather than finding common ground.
    >
    > Nonsense. The material and mental division of SOM has a common ground in
    > value.

    The MOQ states that 'subject' is social and intellectual SQ. So now my
    question is: what observes SQ? That is, what is it that has no property
    other than it observes SQ? If you say it is other SQ, then I ask how do you
    observe this observing SQ? If you say that observation is nothing other
    than SQ/SQ interaction, then I would reply that you are sweeping the
    problem under the rug (as materialists do), not addressing the question.

    >
    > >Thus, he extends empirical to cover what used to be rational *as distinct
    > >from* empirical, and objective to what used to be subjective.
    >
    > I agree that he extends, and blurs with the philosophic meaning of
    rational,
    > the term "empirical", but he doesn't extend the meaning of "objective".
    > Phenomenal just means "known through the senses" and quality is known
    > through sense experience.

    But it is known differently. I sense trees, the smell of coffee, etc. I do
    not sense something I label value. All these things I sense have value, but
    I do not sense it in the way I sense things and events. This puts value in
    a category like space or time. Nothing that I sense is space or time, but I
    know space and time as properties of what I do sense. As Kant pointed out,
    space and time are the conditions for our sensing things and events, and I
    would argue that value should be treated similarly.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 20 2004 - 17:47:25 GMT