Greetings,
Jonathan:
">No, No, No. If there is no good, bad, morality, value or (if I may) meaning,
how can you even say that there is anything experienced, or even that
anything exists. The experience is an evaluation - process, not thing. Each
experience is a metaphysical big bang that continues to reverberate . . ."
Of course. But it was the way that you wrote. . . .
Jonathan:
"This confuses primal meaning (significance) with the evaluation of that
meaning as good or bad. <snip> The classification of the experience as
good or bad comes a fraction
of a second later."
. . . . . that lead to my comments. A fraction of a second later than what?? Reproduced without the
snip, it reads.
"This confuses primal meaning (significance) with the evaluation of that
meaning as good or bad. This was the basis of my objection to the hot
stove example e.g. (JONATHAN, 5th Jan 2000):
<<<the initial quality sensation (DQ if you like) isn't really good vs.
bad, but the
registering of a sensation. The classification of the experience as good
or
bad comes a fraction of a second later.>>>"
So what is this, 'initial quality sensation' which 'isn't really good vs. bad?' Sounds like an
experience to me and you clearly say that the classification of the experience as good or bad comes
a fraction of a second later. That being the case, I can't see how my comment, "So, good, bad,
morality and value all come after experience and are evaluations of it," is wrong. I could rephrase
it, "So good, bad, morality and value all come after the initial sensation and are classifications
of it," if you prefer, but it means the same to me. Do we have a bone of contention here? I'm still
not entirely sure.
Jonathan:
"If we take Struan's lead there will indeed be nothing left of the MoQ and nothing left of humanity
either."
How on earth do you come to that conclusion????? I have always supported emotion and intuition as
you should well know. I have never even suggested that being irrational is worse than being rational
and, indeed, go further and say that emotions and intuition are far, far more important in my life
than reason. I'm a jazz musician for goodness sake! Where did that come from?
As for X. I will stick with our agreement that "the claim of the moq is simply that the 'primary
metaphysical entity' has certain qualities (whether we know them or not)" For me 'X' is as far as I
can get in describing those qualities and to call it quality is a linguistic trick. If you can
establish, 'meaning,' to your satisfaction then that is fine by me. I can't see the benefit myself.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST