[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[John Carl]

Ham for lunch,


On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi John [Marsha quoted] --
>
>
> I do not regard the "judger" (subject, observer) as absolute, nor do I
> accept your "tripod" theory of experience.  Difference (i.e., number) begins
> with the division of the Prime Source to create a duality, which in
> numerical terms is expressed as '2'.  By the principle of Occam's razor,
> there is no need to extend the differentiation formula to a trinity, a
> tetrad, or any other finite paradigm.
>
>

yeah?  I've got your difference, but where's your meaning?  Without meaning,
difference is the same as non-difference.

Value is a prerequisite.

But thanks for telling me what "2" is.






> In my epistemology, existence is a dichotomy whose primary contingencies
> are Sensibility and Otherness.



Right.  S and O.  I've heard those terms tossed around here, quite a bit.




> Neither of these contingents is independent or "absolute" in itself, but
> together they represent the existential differentiation needed to actualize
> the appearance of a pluralistic universe.



Except none of that makes sense when you try and actually define
"Sensibility" for instance, as an independent entity, and I don't see
"otherness" getting much help either.  However you package it, it's looks
like plain old SOM to me.

Sensibitly, Otherness. Valuation.

To me, Sir Occam would recognize you need the three at least to avoid
ridiculousnesses.

Pirsig give precedence to valuation as generative of sensibility and
otherness, and I could buy that.  Sensibility and otherness getting together
and randomly creative of valuation, however, doesn't make sense to me.  I
see it more in Pirsigian terms as Valuation being fundamental.  But when
people start saying "valuation of what?"  I have to concede the co-existence
of all three in the moment of experience in order for there to BE any moment
of experience.

A trinity.

I think Pirsig went through this phase for a while, muttering the old hymn,
"holy, holy, holy"...  I'll probably grow out of it too, but right now its
fascinating to me.


I could address the rest of your points, but I generally object to the whole
schema in such a way that feel it best to keep it simple, Lord Occam would
approve.

John

 In living creatures, Sensibility is individuated to create proprietary
> awareness (i.e., value-sensibility) which is the "self" or subject of
> experience.  Otherness, the object of experience, is an experiential
> construct of value that involves the space/time integration of sensibility,
> the psycho-organic perception process, and (in man) the intellectual
> apprehension (conceptualization) and valuation of what is perceived.
>
> There is no "direct experience".  All experience is secondary to
> value-sensibility, as is the objective world we construct.  In other words,
> the appearance of physical existence in time and space is a self/other
> manifestation of the fundamental dichotomy.  There is only one absolute that
> transcends difference and encompasses all as One.  It is the primary Source
> which I call Essence.
>
> The MoQ confusion stems from the fact that Pirsig is a "monist", not an
> absolutist.  And, although he did not name or posit an "absolute source",
> his equivalency paradigm "Experience = Quality = Reality" leaves the
> inference that one or more of these equivalents is "absolute", whereas in
> fact all three relate to the finite, existential world.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>
>  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?
>>>
>>
>> I agree the tree, the I, and this act of seeing are built from patterns,
>> yes.
>>
>> But I cannot 'see' how handing the crown of significance to any
>> one part of the trinity of experience is better in any way.
>> All three legs of the tripod depend upon the others to avoid toppling.
>>
>> "The seeing" is not a fact if it's a hallucination
>>
>> The seer is not a fact if there is no seeing.
>>
>> The seen is not a fact if either the seer or the seeing disappears
>> from view,
>>
>> Therefore, they are the three, interdependent in order for
>> experience to occur.
>>
>>  There are grammatical rules, dictionaries and social training
>>> for interpreting the words we use, no?
>>>
>>> yes!  Which influences the conceptual frameworks of meaning
>>> we build.
>>>
>>
>> I agree completely.
>>
>>  > 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?
>>>
>>
>> But as Ham points out, without the judgement there can be no valuation of
>> the event.  However he takes then the judger as absolute whereas I see it
>> as
>> none of the three legs of the tripod can be absolute - you need a subject,
>> an object and a valuation all at once or there is no experience.
>>
>>  > 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
>>>
>>
>> I thought there were no absolutes. :-)
>>
>> John
>>
>
> 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
>