[MD] The isolated perceiver kills experience

[Ham Priday]

David --

I'll try one more stab at your epistemology, but fear it is futile.

DM:
> My point is that to create the conception of a perceiver you have to
> divide out of experience something that is not a quality of experience
> and this is a vain hope.

My point is that creating the concept of a perceiver is already done for us. 
We each perceive our self as the perceiver.  Why do you deny the obvious?

 DM:
> I think it is simple logic given the premise that all experience is
> experienced, so that isolating a perceiver from the world means
> that experience has been dissected to get 'world' on the one
> hand and 'perceiver' on the other, experience comes first and
> gives us a unity of perceiver-world called experience
> that is prior to either world or perceiver which are abstracted
> from this.

That "experience is experienced" is a meaningless tautology.  Experience is 
the act of perceiving, which is how we are aware of anything, including our 
biological organism.  The sense receptors and brain of this organism perform 
the act of experience that leaves images of differentiated objects as our 
memory of the experience.

 DM:
> How do you get from experience to postulate this 'what'?
> You have to start with experience which is prior to this postulation.

That is intellection, or the integration of sensory data.  You actually 
start with value, which is sensibility, and then convert it intellectually 
into objects that represent the value perceived.  Finitude is a relational 
system of individuated subjects and differentiated objects.  There is no 
unity in physical existence, and is it vain to pretend that there is.  Only 
a primary source that transcends difference can be conceived as unified. 
And that source cannot be defined in existential terms.

DM:
> Experience is indivisible from value and is prior to all this
> talk of world or perceivers.

In my epistemology all experience is divided.  We are finitely 
differentiated creatures who divide value into the myriad things and events 
that constitute our experience.

DM:
> DQ is all about freedom for me.

Again, David, how can a philosophy that rejects the individual be "all about 
freedom"?

DM:
> Individuality is a great 4th level achievement in the MOQ
> made possible by intellectual values overcoming social ones.

I see this "great achievement" producing nothing but total confusion.  Man 
does not live by sheer intellect.  This power struggle with which the MOQ is 
obsessed -- that intellectual values must overcome social values which 
overcome biological values which overcome inorganic values -- is pure 
speculation based on an arbitrary and euphemistic construction of 
existential reality.  Value is the object of desire and is emotive, rather 
than intellectual.  If we lived by intellect alone, we would be dealing with 
ciphers, equations, and axioms in an Orwellian regimen instead of being 
inspired by the values of truth, beauty and compassion to create a better 
world for mankind.

Best regards,
Ham