[MD] Value and the Individual

[Heather Perella]

SA previously:
> > You see, as Arlo mentioned, we've all been here
> > with Ham.  He tries to act as if he is learning
> > something about the moq, then bam, he throws in
> the same old jargon about essence.


Ham: 
> SA, I did not mention Essence or Essentialism
> anywhere in that post.  So 
> what is your beef?

SA:  Essence was coming, it eventually was, and it
did.  I really don't have any beef here, Ham.  I don't
value your philosophy, but I do value your honesty in
letting us know that you are proclaiming another
philosophy.  You are upfront as to what philosophy you
are trying to declare.  I was just reclarifying, as
Arlo was, were you, Ham, philosophically stand - no
beef, but let's see how you commented to the rest of
this post...


SA previously: 
> > What experience are we talking about?  Ham,
> > you limited experience up above here to the
> experience
> > of pain.  Experience can be of many events, not
> just pain.

Ham: 
> I suspect you've forgotten the purpose of that
> quotation.
> It was Pirsig, not Ham, who came up with the hot
> stove analogy to illustrate 
> "pre-intellectual experience" (as opposed to
> "experience of events")... Pain is simply a
sensation, like an
> itch or hunger, that 
> alerts us to some physiological distress or need. 
> Since Pirsig's point was 
> that it doesn't need to be intellectualized, why
> does he intellectualize it? 
> Sort of punctures his argument, doesn't it?

SA:  The hot stove is an example of a pre-intellectual
experience.  The experience of a hot stove, the whole
event of sitting and jumping off doesn't take any
intellect - you just do it (jump off).  You could come
up with many other events.  Pirsig is pointing out how
all of life is pre-intellectual and then we eventually
intellectualize this pre-intellectual (primary
reality).  Even to intellectualize about intellect. 
Intellect is pre-intellectual and then we can
philosophy about intellect, even call it intellect and
point out myriads of details (thus, intellectualize
about intellect).

 Ham:
> Instead of pain, why not choose fear, joy, anger, or
> love as an example of 
> pre-intellectual sensibility?

SA:  Why not?  Go ahead.  Pre-intellectual experience
(dq) is primary reality (thus everything and nothing,
mu, etc...), but once primary reality is
intellectualized or defined, then the event is no
longer pre-intellectual, now the event is a static
pattern.

Ham:
> These are emotional values which require no 
> intellection, and they are also more suggestive of
> the individual's state of 
> being which may be said to "color" his experience of
> external phenomena.

SA:  As pointed out above, even intellect is
pre-intellect, until we try to intellect.   

Ham: 
> Note that I haven't mentioned the objectionable 'E'
> word in my reply.  Maybe 
> it's time for another walk in the woods.

SA:  maybe... I don't know.


night still,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com