[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <squonkmuse at talktalk.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiment 1.


>
> Squonk --?
> ?
>> I should like to know how you deny it Ham, not simply read a?
>> statement that you do so. This is the third time i have had to ask you,?
>> which seems a little unfair. Hume, following John Locke, argues that?
>> finite experience can be extrapolated to infinite proportion.?
> ?
> I'm sorry, Squonk, but I do not see that "infinite proportion" relates 
> either by logic or analogy to a "cosmic principle". You are challenging me 
> with apples-and-pears analogies. Frankly, I don't even know what "infinite 
> proportion" is supposed to mean. You imply that the experience of 
> Excellence and "intellectual discourse" are both extendable to a cosmic 
> principle. What, pray tell, would that principle be? Does it mean that the 
> universe is infinitely excellent or absolutely discursive?
>
> Hi Ham,
> I have problems with this also.
> But it does seem to be behind the moq in some sense. I used to accept this 
> uncritically.
>
> Ham:?
> You talk about the experience of total darkness being extrapolated to 
> infinity. Does this lead to the logical principle that ultimate reality is 
> undifferentiated? You then quote Hume who has categorically rejected the 
> possibility of reasoning to a uniformity principle, thus refuting the 
> argument you seem to be making by inference.
>
> s: Yes!?That's it. It's a problem for the moq Ham.
> Nietzsche did the same thing before his mental collapse.
>
> Ham:?
> Hume states that "All inferences from experience ... are effects of custom 
> [habit], not of reasoning. ...Without the influence of custom, we should 
> be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately 
> present to our memory and senses. ...There is no uniformity principle, 
> there is no good argument of any kind for uniformity." These statements 
> would appear to contradict your claim that "Hume, following John Locke, 
> argues that finite experience of any kind may be extrapolated." You have 
> me totally confused. I'm not all that acquainted with Hume or Locke, but 
> these arguments seem to be pointing in opposing directions.
>
> s: There is only a contradiction if you assume i am defending the moq. I'm 
> not.
> What i'm arguing for is the problem associated with?extrapolation, and 
> this is what the moq seems to do.
> I sincerely believe we all experience quality events, but i am not at all 
> sure anymore that this indicates a source of experience; i think it 
> describes some experiences,?which is not the same thing.
> ?
> Ham:?
> Inference is only an assumption that one proposition is analogous to 
> another. No philosopher would claim it is something we can base a cosmic 
> principle on. Since this entire discussion was headed off by your 
> inferences, you're forcing me to deal with abstractions. Speaking of 
> what's "fair", why should I have to guess how this all relates to the MoQ 
> and Essentialism? I suggest that we start talking in real terms about real 
> claims. Precisely, what is the point (or complaint) you are trying to 
> make? Once I know that, I can provide the kind of response that addresses 
> your question.?
> ?
> Thanks, Squonk.?
> --Ham
>
> s: Hume argues that our idea of God is an extrapolation.
> I think Quality is similarly derived, even though it is clearly 
> experienced on many occasions, sometimes many times in a day. But i think 
> each occasion is unique and situational.

Squonk,

"Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will 
verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an 
undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is 
negative. This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed, 
crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a 
judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The 
value itself is an experience. As such it is completely predictable. It is 
verifiable by anyone who cares to do so. It is reproducible. Of all 
experience it is the least ambiguous, least mistakable there is. Later the 
person may generate some oaths to describe this low value, but the value 
will always come first, the oaths second. Without the primary low valuation, 
the secondary oaths will not follow."
(LILA, Chapter 5)

The essential point, "The value itself is an experience."   They are 
synonyms.  At least that is my understanding.

But now, I would like to read your paper comparing Nietzsche and Pirsig. 
Please make it available.

Marsha








> My problem with your Essentialism is that some of your axioms are not 
> experienced at all. But it's a fine piece of logical reasoning.
>
> squonk
>
>
> 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/