JOHN:
"A thing that has no value does not exist" or "The Value has created the
thing" (Lila Ch 8). This is an important insight, but difficult to test in
terms of experience as by definition what is without value will not be
experienced. Again there is a way of understanding such assertions from the
perspective of organisms, but by doing so the sweep of the original
statements is greatly reduced. The organismic statement would run somewhat
as
follows "Organisms encounter the world through experiences of positive and
negative value, and what does not have value for them is not experienced,
hence is not encountered."
ROGER:
"A thing that has no value does not exist" is locally consistent within the
basic assumptions of empiricism. On the other hand, your "Organisms
encounter
the world through experiences of positive and negative value, and what does
not have value for them is not experienced, hence is not encountered" is
pure
SOM. It starts with an objective organism and (seems to me) then references
encounters with other objects. You have followed Robert's path and used
misunderstandings of the MOQ to recreate the world of Aristotle and
Descartes.
Avid:
Again Roger I have to agree with you.
but I would like to correct [a bit] RMP statement in John's way:
"what does not have value is not experienced,
hence is not encountered, and therefore we have no idea of it's existence or
non existence".
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST