[MD] The Brujo

[MarshaV]

Or maybe ALL boundaries, definitions and knowledge of static patterns 
are Quality, and as such, like water in water...



At 03:12 AM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>At 01:20 AM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>>>On 3/21/09 and again on 3/22 you wrote to Krimel:
>>>[Marsha:]
>>>I'm repeating a question from a few posts ago because I want you to answer:
>>>    Is there even one thing that is not dependent
>>>    on being conceptually constructed and
>>>    established by conventional agreement?
>>
>>
>>>On 3/22 at 11:24 AM you said:
>>>[Marsha:]
>>>'Sensation' is conceptually constructed and
>>>established by conventional agreement.
>
>
>
>>[Ham:]
>>Krimel corrected this assertion by responding that "sensation is 
>>independent of conceptual construction."
>>
>>But both of your statements are troubling to me.  They suggest that 
>>the empirical world is nothing but a concept adapted by consensus 
>>(if that's what "conventional agreement" is meant to infer).  And 
>>of the three human faculties that can form a concept -- 
>>sensibility, experience, and intellect -- you mention only one 
>>("sensation") which you claim is also "conceptually 
>>constructed".  I'm confused by these statements and am unable to 
>>make sense of the epistemology they describe.
>>
>>How do you create a concept out of thin air?  For if your 
>>sensations are established  by convention, they must originate from 
>>an external source.  Do you think sensations are collectively 
>>shared experience?  Or are you using the word "sensation" to mean 
>>universal sensibility as in "common sense"?
>>
>>When you have an opportunity, I'd be curious to know how you 
>>(personally) believe knowledge is acquired, concepts are 
>>formulated, and value is experienced.
>
>Greetings Ham,
>
>Using Quality/Value/Experience interchangeably, experience is 
>experience sans knowability, divisibility and 
>definition.   Quality(experience) is quality(experience).  What is 
>so troubling?   I am not denying experience, but all the analogues 
>used to define, divide and know it.
>
>I would guess that a new word or concept comes from science, the 
>media, the comics and the artists.  In general I would think that a 
>new word or a new concept comes from a conceptual playfulness.  I am 
>not denying phenomena external to mind, just that it is not the same 
>as the analogues we habitually use to reflect it, analogues like 
>'sensation'.  There are no objects out there, but a continuous flow 
>of experiences, Quality.  There is no duplication, or repeat of 
>experience except through spovs.  I might want to say that Quality 
>is undefinable, unknowable, indivisible, and 'sensation' is a 
>concept used to describe it by chopping it into something isolated, 
>or separate.  See how Krimel turned 'sensation' into a biochemical 
>and neurological, 'material' event?  That is the up-to-date, 
>scientific set of conventional analogues, but not Quality.  It is 
>static quality.  What IS out there we 'cannot say'.  All 'we' have 
>are analogues, of all variety depending on explanatory need, but the 
>analogues are not the experience.  Scientific analogues may be more 
>useful to scientists, but not more real.
>
>What exactly is troubling you?
>
>
>
>
>Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>_____________
>
>Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
>.
>.
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.