On 2 Mar 2002, at 21:29, Scott Roberts wrote:
...to Gavin:
> There are some big issues here, which may not be what you wanted to
> get into, but they are important to me. For the record, "qualia" as a
> philosophical concept goes back quite a ways, I think to Locke (though
> I'm not sure when the term "qualia" was first used. Locke called them
> "qualities").
Hi Scott.
This message really made (Quality) sense. I haven't looked up the
Locke connection, but you are most probably right.
> I would agree that there is something irreducible about qualia, but I
> think Chalmers' whole attitude is faulty from the beginning (as is the
> case with those, like Dennett, who dismiss the importance of qualia).
> That fault is to assume that consciousness is something "to be
> explained" or that it is something to have a theory of. This, to my
> mind, is the biggest platypus resulting from SOM there is.
Agree, but at this point I bring the last lines of your message up
because that's the gem!
> > Or, to put it differently, I would say that Quality and
> > (non-dualistic) Consciousness are two names of the same non-thing,
> > since we can say of either that they create subject/object duality.
This is an important insight and why I so vehemently oppose the Q-
heretics who want the intellectual level to be awareness or
consciousness or mind (to make it more edible they call it self-
awareness ..etc, but that doesn't make any difference) and don't
see that this leads straight back to SOM. Your words "....Quality
and Consciousness ....create subject/object duality" are spot on.
> If one is to explain consciousness, then that assumes you are going to
> explain it in terms of that which is not consciousness. That is, to
> explain the S of SOM in terms of the O. In other words, to explain
> away consciousness, just leaving the O. What SOM-ites don't seem to
> appreciate, though, is that the very object-ness of an object is a
> quale.
...Explain the S of SOM in terms of the O! Exactly! (and the O in
terms of the S for the idealist camp I would add) is the self-
defeating task that the SOMites never seem to tire of, and
regrettably a trap that so many would-be MOQites also fall for. See
the "Seeing the Light" thread.
> So I would agree that the existence of qualia is the "hardest problem"
> only because one is stuck in SOM.
Granted!
> But to say that the MOQ overcomes
> this, is to ignore some further implications that are required to see
> *how* it is overcome.
Great!
> Instead, I think that everything, both S and O, is to be explained in
> terms of consciousness.
Or in terms of Quality, which is what Pirsig has done.
> In support of this opinion, there is the work
> of those who have actually studied consciousness empirically for
> millenia, namely Hindu and Buddhist philosopher/mystics, whose work
> people like Chalmers or Dennett just ignore, since it doesn't fit in
> with their presuppositions.
Hear, hear! Now, Scott. I remember that you forwarded REASON
as the "characteristic" of Intellect. I wonder if you have noticed my
"crusade" to get Q-intellect reigned in under the general value of
S/O (the ability to divide what is objective from what is subjective is
REASON) stripped of its 'M' naturally ...just wonder if you have
evaluated it?
Bo.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:56 BST