RE: MF Discussion Topic for January 2004

Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:10:51 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MF Discussion Topic for January 2004"

    Jay and Group

    8 Jan. Jay wrote:

    > I'm new at discussions on Persig, but I've re-read Zen at least five
    > times and Lila twice. I hope that makes me qualified to comment.

    We have become so lax that we don't greet people (at least this
    old hans) but warmly welcome Jay, yes, this qualifies you.

    > My interpretation of this discussion on the senses and quality is that
    > when Persig illustrates a similarity between the five senses and the
    > ability to discern quality, his intent was to establish that quality
    > exists before, with and after all of our senses.

    Yes, that's my interpretation too and it's the correct one, but there
    are those who hold that everything begins with the senses and to
    postulate anything "before" senses (before human senses, or
    better, before human mind started to monitor sense data) is pure
    speculation. Just to introduce yousome of the (SOMish)
    objections. ;-) .

    > For instance, your
    > eyes turn from the sun, your ears shriek at a loud sound, and your
    > hand moves from the stove when it feels heat, your nose doesn't like a
    > skunk, and your mouth will spit out bitter food. In contrast, a
    > flower is easy to look at, soft green grass feels good to your feet,
    > Beethoven's music makes your ears smile, Apple Pie makes your nose
    > open just before you gobble a large bite of it.

    Good points. The sense organs are refined bilogy, but even
    organisms without such organs sense their environment (ref. the
    amoeba example in ZMM) SENSING is what characterize biology
    - as I see it.

    > Any description I can fathom of our use of the five senses seems to me
    > to be an immediate quality response. The senses seem to be a sort of
    > "quality radar" for all things that we don't "think" about.

    OK about senses, but then the sensitive thinking issue - at these
    fora at least. On top of biology (in the Quality system) is the
    social level (not intellect if that is your "thinking"?) and if senses
    are biology's character ("expression" I call) there is a social
    expression, and this is Emotion. Above that is the intellectual
    level with Reason as its expression.

    > So, I'm not sure that he does or does not adequately support his
    > notion, but to me the notion was accurate without being stated. By
    > their nature the senses are quality yes/no determiners.

    Regarding biology. Yes.

    > In short, I agree with the last line of Wim's email.

    > It's merely an analytical tool for describing how these five senses are
    > through them we only experience what has value

    "What has biological value" yes.

    As always in my opinion.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MF Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 23:20:41 GMT