[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[MarshaV]

On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:40 PM, John Carl wrote:

> interesting question, Marsha,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hello John,
>> 
>> How would you break this down to address: the experiencer, the experience
>> and
>> the experienced?
>> 
>> 
> 
> because undoubtedly they are descriptions of the same thing, the event, the
> experience, no?

They are not the same in the conventional use of English.  _I am seeing a tree._
'I' is the seer.  The experience is seeing.  The tree is the seen.  Experience has 
become a trinity.  What I have been saying is that only the seeing is a fact in 
that moment.  The seer, 'I' , and the seen, 'tree' are surmised from the experience 
of seeing.  They are built from patterns, no?      


> 
> And yet we assign to the terms differing meanings, differing povs, for
> differing pragmatic purposes.  And we pretty much do understand each other
> when we use those differing terms of the experience-event.  hmm... cool name
> for a rock band, no?

There are grammatical rules, dictionaries and social training for interpreting the 
words we use, no?     
     

> 
> 
> but to address the experience of the hot stove, it depends.  It can be good,
> or it can be bad.  When a child learns to listen carefully to its mother's
> warnings, that is an overall good.  If the child is so badly injured that
> she dies, it's an overall bad.

Judgements based on individual static pattern histories and dynamic context.  
I've always wondered if RMP would say there is a difference between the
value/experience and the judgements made subsequent to the experience.
I would think there is a big difference, no?


> 
> Thus the value or Quality of the event is not in the immediate,
> experience, but in the overall context - an interpretation between the
> subject and object AND some third overarching principle of valuation.
> Interpretation is triadic in nature and thus more inherently stable than
> the diadic relationship of S/O.
> 
> As you know,

I know Absolutely nothing, how about you?   

Marsha





> 
> John

>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:41 AM, John Carl wrote:
>> 
>>> The hot stove method of truth transferal is probably the oldest and most
>>> common experience in human history.  It goes like this,  the infant
>> wanders
>>> near the hot stove and its mother warns it "Don't go near the stove,
>> Johnny,
>>> you'll get burned".
>>> 
>>> Almost inevitably though, Johhny, out of accident or curiousity touches
>> the
>>> hot stove and mother goes "see? I told you so."
>>> 
>>> Even though mothers are being protective in this situation, you can hear
>> a
>>> little satisfaction in their tones of comfort.  Sometimes laughter hidden
>> in
>>> their words - their warnings and admonitions have been empirically
>> proven,
>>> Their truth, transferred.  I've seen the drama enacted enough times to
>>> understand the pattern, and if mommy was really concerned with preventing
>>> the hot stove reaction, there'd be some kind of fence around the stove.
>>> 
>>> In some homes, there are such fences,
>>> 
>>> Those kids grow up rebellious usually.
>>> 
>>> Other homes, nothing is said at all about the danger of the stove and the
>>> child is left to its own stumbling explorations to figure out
>>> which parts of reality is hot, which is not.
>>> 
>>> Those kids grow up cautious.
>>> 
>>> Other houses, kids are whipped for touching hot stoves.
>>> 
>>> Those kids grow up self-hating, self-destructive and prone to
>>> self-mutilation.
>>> 
>>> And in every single case, any hot stove experience in the future is going
>> to
>>> be interpreted in the light of past experience, and the personality
>>> development that's occurred so far.  Every hot stove experience is
>> unique,
>>> because every person experiencing the stove is unique, with a
>> predisposed,
>>> preprogrammed reaction and interpretation of the experience.  The bare
>>> empirical facts of metal and flesh can be identical, but the experience
>> is
>>> not of empirical facts.  The experience is of empirical facts being
>>> interpreted by a unique individual, every time generating a unique
>>> experience.   There is nothing pure or immediate to any of this.  It's
>> all a
>>> vastly complicated interpretive dance, dependent upon so many factors
>> that
>>> are impossible to isolate but one thing is certain beyond argument -
>> without
>>> an experiencer, there is no experience,
>>> 
>>> And without a social process of experiencer  creation, there is no
>>> experiencer.
>>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___