From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 03:31:28 BST
> [Platt wrote]
>> Since the beginning of the MD there's been lots of references to
>> experience, awareness, sensation, perception, feeling, consciousness,
>> etc.
>> -- words that as far as I know have never been agreed upon as to their
>> meaning. Something the individuals in this group might constructively do
>> would be to agree on the precise meaning of such terms. By doing so,
>> better mutual understanding would likely result.
>>
>> I'll start by defining "pure experience" as Pirsig does:"The Metaphysics
>> of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience which is not valued
>> is not experienced. The two are the same." (Lila, 29)
>>
>> The question for all is: Shall we accept the definition of "experience"
>> the same as Pirsig's definition of "pure experience, i.e., "experience is
>> value?" I vote Yes.
>
> [Case replies}
> Excellent suggestion Platt. I would vote yes to the first one just to have
> us move on to defining Value. But I suspect that finding agreement on
> those
> terms would be impossible. They all have different meanings in different
> fields and some have resisted definition for about the last 2300 years. I
> would suggest rather that we just thrown them all out. They generate more
> heat than light.
>
> Scott:
> Bad suggestion, because unfulfillable. In the case of 'experience', as
> Case
> points out, one is left with defining 'value', which the MOQ considers
> undefinable. Moreover, to equate experience with value is to beg the
> question with someone who disagrees with the MOQ. Which is only ok if MD
> is
> not going to allow dissenters from posting.
>
> The thing is, on all these words, the differing ways in which we use them
> is
> what drives our differing points of view, so it is impossible to agree on
> definitions. Rather, we should get used to the idea of seeing all our
> posts
> as demonstrating how we each think of them. And so I disagree with Case
> that
> they should be thrown out. Philosophy just is fighting over the usage of
> these and other terms. So to want to throw them out just is putting
> forward
> a materialist philosophy.
>
> My own view is that all these terms (plus intellect) are ultimately
> undefinable because, like Quality, they each point to different shades of
> basic reality. Everything else needs to be defined in terms of them,
> rather
> than attempting to define them in other terms.
[Case replies]
Scott you are cracking me up. If we strip away the exess verbage we will be
left with a materialist philosophy rooted in Taoism and Zen?
As for the possible end of senseless argumentation you reminded me of the
sages Vroomfondel and Majikthise who when confronted with the possibility
that a computer could calculate an end to their philosophical disputes
offered up this:
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the
problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned
Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very
much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the
Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of
your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and
we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our
sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if
this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next
morning?"
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of
doubt and uncertainty!"
-Douglas Adams, HHGG
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 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 04:04:10 BST