Re: MF Discussion Topic for February 2005

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 05:55:39 GMT

  • Next message: Matt poot: "Re: MF Discussion Topic for February 2005"

    Dear David B. & others participating,

    You wrote 27 Feb 2005 13:20:07 -0700:
    'I think two different ideas are getting squished together here. When we say
    that DQ is the primary empirical reality, it is an assertion about the MOQ's
    epistemology and not about the relative value or worth of DQ. When we say DQ
    is the primary empirical reality, the word "primary" means first in a
    sequence, the most basic kind, the starting point. It does not mean DQ is
    better than sq, more important than sq or anything like that. I think we all
    can recall Pirsig's repeated insistence that both are vital and necessary.
    Seen this way, there is no conflict between the idea that DQ is primary and
    the idea that DQ and sq are "a contradictory identity".'

    For me personally DQ is higher in my value hierarchy than sq, but that's a
    matter of SOMish 'value' attributed by a subject (me) to objectified
    concepts. DQ and sq are indeed equally essential to the MoQ.

    Quality experience (or Quality or experience) is primary to the experience
    of objects and subjects, as distinguishing objects and subjects requires
    making a metaphysical split in one's experience.
    Quality experience (or Quality or experience) is primary to the experience
    of DQ and sq, as distinguishing DQ and sq requires making a metaphysical
    split in one's experience.
    One needs experience before one can classify it.
    I don't see why DQ should be primary to sq.
    So I don't see why associating "feeling" with a branch of sq (biological
    quality) AND with "primary experience" would present us with a problem. When
    we use the concept "feeling" (or "emotion") we simply use a different way of
    classifying Quality experience, that doesn't need to fit specific categories
    in the MoQ. Sometimes a feeling will correspond with a bits of sq from
    several levels, at other times it will also contain some DQ. Sometimes only
    biological quality will be included, at other times also other types of sq.
    So what? That only illustrates that "feeling" (and "emotion") won't serve us
    well to define DQ, sq and the several types of sq.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    __________________________________________________________________
    Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
    As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

    Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

    New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
    Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
    Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
    MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 18:43:14 GMT