[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[David M]

Scott

I almost agree. But I would add that you are focussing
on the re-action of one pattern to another, but there is
also an action prior to re-action. When I experience heat
there is a non-interpretative aspect to this, an exchange of
energy that is changing me without any agency involved.
Such is our embodiment. Agree?

DM




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> David M,
>
> We can only experience a quality like sweetness if we are embedded within 
> a
> system of tastes. That is, there is a biological language of tastes, and
> therefore the particular taste has meaning. Now when you suggest that
> "experience prior to being able to construct objects through thinking as
> unconscious valuation" I agree, as long as one understands "unconscious" 
> as
> referring to being outside normal human awareness. I would say that the 
> body
> has a separate consciousness, since otherwise, the word 'valuation' is
> meaningless. It should also be noted that the object construction you
> mention is also unconscious to the normal awake human. That is, as far as 
> we
> are normally aware, we immediately see a tree, and are unaware of piecing
> together the colors and shapes. BTW, the first stage (picking out the
> particular taste or color in a system of colors) Barfield calls "sensing",
> and the second stage "figuration".  Peirce considers the second stage to 
> be
> a form of abduction (hypothesis formation), which I find interesting. In 
> any
> case, I consider them both to be semiotic processes.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question
>
>
> Scott said:
>
> there is value involved, and that
>> implies triadic relations, not dyadic.
>
> DM: Is that right? Do we not experience a quality first, say a pleasant
> sweeetness, and so we have whole undivided value. Only if we
> go on to construct an object from a number of experiences do
> we form any dualism of an object causing these experiences in a
> subject. What we come to objectify as treacle, first appeared to
> us as fragments of experience, certain colours, certain feels of
> stickiness, a smell, and when we got it in our mouths a certain taste.
> By separation from other experiences and consruction into a pattern
> we create objects to form a dualism consisting of objects that we are
> subjected to. Of course this ability to divide and construct is 
> inseparable
> from thinking and consciousness. Perhaps we should see experience
> prior to being able to construct objects through thinking as unconscious
> valuation.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>