Exactly....Quality becomes another old man in the sky
(ie misconceptions of God) if you assume things using
the Ontological Proof. The Ontological Proof is (no
offense) merely an apologist's proof for God based off
an abuse of our word 'perfection'. I can imagine a
perfect wife for myself, but that doesn't mean she's
real...
Also, I can label the sense data I recieve as
anything. I can name it cheese, or God, or whatever I
wish. There has to be a way to experience Quality
independently of sense data to verify that it is true.
Is that possible...or must we live on assumptions
alone?
And in response to an earlier question, 'sense data'
is quite real. In an objective sense, it is real
because scientific instruments can measure waves in
the optic nerve/auditory nerves and can register the
fact that such data is being transmitted to the brain.
In a subjective sense, I know that I'm seeing things
(no word on whether they're true :P), and that I'm
hearing things. Sense data does exist.
And next, Quality is not an attribute. Remember, from
Pirsig's writings, that Quality is not just an object,
and not just the subject- It is both. Everything is
created by Quality.
(Question- does that make objects with less Quality
less real? It doesn't seem to change its objective
scientific status...)
...in response to the Intellect/Art Question...
I think that an artist is NOT an intellectual. What I
think is missed in this discussion is that the Quality
that both artists and intellectuals seek is the same;
the only difference is how they go after it. This is
where we get our classic/romantic split.
For example, an artist typically seeks Quality in a
non rational way- this is his own vision of Quality,
but the Quality itself is the same.
--- Marty Jorgensen <mjorgensen@vpdinc.com> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty Jorgensen [mailto:mjorgensen@vpdinc.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:11 PM
> To: MOQ
> Subject: RE: MD A question
>
>
> To Elephant and Rog:
>
> 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.
>
> “ELEPHANT: Firstly, as I remarked in my original
> post, your argument that we
> could conceive of quality without the conceived of
> Quality existing depends
> upon treating Quality as an Object. The waters of
> the ontological proof are
> deep and murky, marty, but this much is clear:
> Quality isn't an old man in
> the sky with a white beard. Nor is it any pattern at
> all (patterns have
> static quality, but are not the same as static
> quality, and they don't have
> dynamic quality at all). Since Quality isn't a
> pattern or object, it
> doesn't have attributes, it is an attribute.”
>
>
> Sure, Quality is an attribute, but we still have an
> idea about what it is
> when we talk about it. My original point was that
> just because we have an
> idea about something, whether it’s object, subject,
> sensation or concept,
> doesn’t mean that the concept, sensation, et. al.,
> is as we conceive it. My
> argument to the ontological proof isn’t that
> existence isn’t an attribute,
> but that conceptions aren’t necessarily reality.
> The fact that I can’t
> conceive of God unless I also conceive of God as
> existing (since the
> “highest being possible” would not be the highest
> being without existing)
> doesn’t say anything about a real God, it only says
> something about my
> conception of Him. My conception of Santa Claus
> includes a white beard and
> a home at the North Pole, but that doesn’t mean
> there is such a man, only
> that I can’t accurately conceive of him without
> these attributes. The same
> goes for Quality, no matter if it’s an object or an
> attribute.
>
> “ROG:
> Pardon me for saying so, Marty, but this seems like
> a kinda dualistic way to
> define things. Our "brains" are other than "of the
> world? Our state-of-mind
> is other than of the world? Our knowledge is other
> than of the world?”
>
> Rog, I don’t believe that the brain and the world
> are two different things.
> IMO, whatever is going on is not split into
> different parts at all, but we
> confuse ourselves by taking our interpretations of
> Reality as Reality.
>
> Marty J
>
> P.S. As I am sure you can tell from my simplistic
> posts, I am not a
> professional philosopher, although I had some
> background in the past. I
> bring this up because I am unable (or unwilling?) to
> devote more time to
> this endeavor, although I enjoy reading most of the
> posts and have learned
> quite a bit in the last several weeks. I can't
> always respond as quickly as
> would be polite, so I thank you for your indulgence
> of my ignorance and my
> slowness.
> Happy New Year!
> marty j
>
>
>
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
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