[MD] The Brujo

[MarshaV]

At 11:47 AM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha --
>
>
>
>>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'. ...
>
>I notice that you use the first person to identify the self that 
>says "I would guess" and "I would think", but experience and 
>concepts are left without a subject.  Does this mean you believe 
>experience and concepts exist independently of your awareness?  The 
>problem I have with your analysis is that it lacks a locus of 
>awareness, namely, the sensible 'I' or "self" that apprehends.

Discussing this conventionally, there is a conceptually constructed 
self and there are conceptually constructed objects to be experienced 
but this is a static patterned way of defining reality, a 
subject-object patterned reality.  The use of the phrase "I would 
guess" and "I would think" reflects this conventional reality,  I am 
perfectly happy to use this convention because it is the way the 
socially constructed world works.  Within the MOQ there are no self 
and no objects. I have looked into this and I agree with this 
view.  The self is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.  Self and 
objects are constructed from this collection of patterns.  I can find 
no I and no self, but only ever-flowing experience.  It is ALL 
quality/value/experience.




>Perhaps it's the terminology that has me confused.  For me, a 
>"sensation" is what I feel directly, without interpretation, such as 
>pain, joy, the touch of silk, the sight of color, the smell of 
>brewing coffee, or the sense of fear.  In other words, it's my 
>"psycho-physical state" of sensibility at any given time.

This is a very conventional (patterned) way to describe 
quality/value/experience.  But the pattern is not the experience.  By 
the time the explanation arrives the experience is long 
gone.  Hindsight explanations are great, but are not the 
experience.  I am not advocating throwing out conventions, but 
acquiring the realization that things are not as they seem to appear.



>An "experience" is something that happens to me in my relation with 
>the external world -- climbing a hill, meeting a friend, reading a 
>book, watching a storm, etc.  Experiences are always "structured" in 
>that they infer specific objects or phenomena to which my attention is drawn.

Yes, experience seems to be conceptually structured primarily for 
social purposes.  This may be a good way to describe it.



>A "concept" is an idea or conclusion, usually derived from 
>experience, that I have intellectualized as a theory or 
>principle.  I may seek confirmation from others to "validate" or 
>support my conclusion, but the concept originates with me and is 
>proprietary to my conscious awareness in the same way that 
>sensations and experiences are proprietary to me.  Do you disagree 
>with this epistemology?

Yes I disagree with this point-of-view as an epistemology.  I 
experience reality as an ever-changing, collection of interrelated 
and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic 
Quality.  Quality/value/experience is a constant flow.



>>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
>>All 'we' have are analogues, of all variety depending on
>>explanatory need, but the analogues are not the
>>experience.
>>
>>What exactly is troubling you?
>
>What, then, ARE the experiences?  Whose experience is it if not yours?

Experience is experience, value is value, quality is quality, and all 
synonyms.


>That is what troubles me about your worldview.  It has no subjective 
>foundation.  I can't comprehend a sensation, an experience, a 
>thought or concept, or an assessment of Quality without a cognizant 
>subject to apprehend it.  Even if the apprehensive self is only a 
>"static point of view", that view must be realized by a sensible 
>agent -- that is, you or somebody else.

Well, I can always slip into using conventional language where I can 
jabber away to my hearts content.  But,,, like Socrates, I know I 
know nothing.



>Now, I know you have bought into Pirsig's thesis that there are no 
>subjects or objects.  But, surely, you don't deny your own self as 
>the perceiver of your world.  Or DO you?  If so, I'm even more 
>curious to learn how you justify that denial.

Sure conventionally there sometime appears to be a self that 
experiences moment to moment but when I investigate, it does not 
exist.  It is just a flow of experience.  Quite remarkable, yes?



>Thanks, Marsha
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham


Thank you Ham, I appreciate your questions.  If I have ignored 
something important, please ask again.


Marsha







.
_____________

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