ELEPHANT TO MARTY:
Yes, I know what you are saying. You are saying that there are "certain
sensations" which are particular objects, which we then attibute general
characteristics to, but that since it is us who attributed the general to
the particular, the general things like "Quality" might say more about us
than about the "certain sensations".
(you see, I can listen quite well sometimes.)
But No, you haven't understood my point, or Prisig's point either. I am
pointing out to you that you went wrong at first base. There are no such
things as "certain sensations", which I called "data". There is only the
aesthetic continuum. That being the case, the rest of your argument is
besides the point. I suggest you re-read earlier posts/Zen and the art of
Motorcycle Maintenaince.
TTFN
PPPPPPZZZZZZZeph
> From: "Marty Jorgensen" <mjorgensen@vpdinc.com>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:42:41 -0800
> To: "MOQ" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: RE: MD A question
>
>
> We as human beings interpret certain sensations and label those
> interpretations as “Quality”. So what? The fact that we give a sensation a
> name doesn’t necessarily say anything about the sensation (although in one
> sense it does ‘objectify’ it into an object), it only says something about
> the way we interpret it. What I am saying is that those interpretations may
> be suspect due to the way we think, or the manner in which ‘the activity of
> pattern making” comes about.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST