From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Oct 31 2004 - 02:11:55 GMT
Hi Erin:
My quick response to your recap in response to my recap... :-)
1) I don't dismiss the possibility of ESP. I simply do not accept
reports of ESP experiences as proof of ESP, any more that I would
accept someone's report of seeing Martians playing on a swingset as
proof of extraterrestrial life.
2) You can't make a Quality distinction if Quality doesn't exist.
Any time someone says A is better than B (regardless of what A and B
are) they are making a Quality distinction. Therefore, Quality
exists. Q.E. freakin' D.
3) I'll leave the discussion of the relative value of religions to
others. To me, all religions are of equal value.
Best,
msh
On 29 Oct 2004 at 16:53, Erin wrote:
Let me do my recap:
I wasn't clear how you could dismiss things like ESP or let me add
another example a high quality dream with the idea that things are
not accepted by just saying they are experienced they have to be
demonstrated. I had given the example of painting vs bare wall
because I thought the value of the painting could be experienced but
not sure about demonstrated. When it is the painting or the bare
wall, I was trying to see whether you could demonstrate whether the
painting had quality. Then it turned to comparing which had higher
quality. Let me use an analogy of another thing that confuses me. I
came in on this discussion with the not understanding why people
argue there is no value in religion but then thinks Buddhism has
value. As I already explained I think Buddhism is a religion, and
the only explanation of why it isn't has been mu, which hasn't helped
clear up my "emprical evidence" that it is. So hypothetically say the
"picture" represents religion and I am trying to demonstrate that
religion has value. Then the discussin turns to which "religion" has
more value. To me a different question--if you accept one religion
has value then you accept religion has value.
I know that exchange between the scientist was just being silly, I
was showing why I prefer to use the word experiences rather than
empirical evidence (that is how I typically see the word, and so
seeing it used so differently just seems to cause confusion and
miscommunication with me but again science doesn't own the word so go
for it I will just do the mental translation when I see you write
it.)
Erin
Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
Hi Erin,
I don't want to leave you with the impression that I've dismissed
your
question; I'm just not sure what question you are talking about.
Let me recap: The question of whether or not Quality exists is
demonstrated affirmative any time any one makes a Quality judgment;
it
doesn't matter whether it's the wall-guy's decision or the
painting-person's. So I thought that question was settled.
But then comes the next question: Why do people sometimes disagree
about the objects in which Quality resides? I suggested that this
might be because they bring to their evaluations different bases of
experience, but that these bases may be broadened (on both sides) by
engaging in an honest exchange of ideas and experience, perhaps
resulting in a closing of the gap between their quality judgements.
The example you offer of Erin and the Scientist doesn't show an
honest exchange of ideas and experiences, as neither person makes an
attempt to share why they make the judgements they do.
Anyway, sorry if I seemed overly sensitive. I have to be stingy with
my time and energy, and I was getting the idea that you weren't
spending as much energy reading my posts as I was in writing them.
Just a cost-benefit analysis kinda thing...
I've enjoyed our discussion very much.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' On 29 Oct 2004 at 13:21, Erin wrote: But the example was just a bare wall and instead of answering my question theexample changeto having magnificent ripples and stainsthat made it 'found art" Sorry if you felt that I dismissed your example, but by changing the example, didn't you dismiss my question. Erin Mark Steven Heyman wrote: I think your frivolous dismissal of the wall being found art only further convinces me that we are not communicating. Good luck in your exploration of Quality and the MOQ. Best, msh On 29 Oct 2004 at 8:41, Erin wrote: On 28 Oct 2004 at 13:10, Erin wrote: msh says: Well here's what I said: "...people often fail to see the value in valuable things for a variety of reasons, one of the most common being discomfort with the unfamiliar. Though we often appear to be far apart in our value estimations, we need not be. If everyone's ground of experience was equally broad I'd expect the discrepancies to all but disappear. We share a common humanity, after all." erin: True. But in case there was a hidden implication, i don't think this is the reason (i.e discomfort of the unfamiliar)I don't like c! alling my experiencing the value of a painting as empirical.For me itis more analgous to when something "new" doesn't seem as good as old, e.g., the trend of calling something you really like"bad". Don't forget thediscomfort with the old----- Maybe this is the underlying reason why somebody doesn't like toadmit Buddhism is an old religion, discomfort with the idea that something oldmay be better than the new. msh: So one way to solve the problem might be to try to broaden our ground of experience. Maybe the person who likes the painting and the one who likes the wall should get together and talk it over. It may be that the wall guy sees walls as a kind of found art. Maybe he likes the texture, or values the way a certain crack ripples and spreads into a subtle off-color stain. Or the painting-person might point out some beautiful but subtle effect in the painting that the wall person had missed. In sharing, their bases of experience become broader, and their chance of quality agreement more likely. erin: LOL the wall is found art, you crack me up. Are you a salesman? politician? diplomat? Okay my turn to be silly and I am not only going to embrace the new definition of empircal but also add some more to help unify science and the MoQ. Erin and her scientist friend went to the art museum. Erin: I really like this painting. Scientist: Ugghh it is awful. Erin: I hypothesize that this painting has high quality. I just did an experiment and the results were significant. Therefore I have just demonstrated empirical evidence that supports my hypothesis. Scientist: ????? Erin: I have broadened the meaning of these terms. Scientist: whatever it is still ugly Erin: You have no hope of understanding the MOQ or more succinctly mu. -- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutio! ns for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html -- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 31 2004 - 02:29:27 GMT