From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 07 2005 - 16:17:07 GMT
Hi Scott
Scott said:
There are good reasons (to which a good chunk of ZAMM is addressed) for
saying that value is neither in the subject nor in the object. However,
to go on from this and claim that the value exists prior to the
distinction into subject and object has no empirical basis, as far as I
can see.
Paul:
The newborn baby example is supposed to provide that. Newborn babies do
not grasp for objects until they are several months old and show no
acknowledgement of self until much later than that but cry from birth
and smile and laugh soon after. They are experiencing something and they
communicate it in a way that no human needs an explanation of.
Scott said:
What is the *empirical* basis for making the claim that experience comes
first?
Paul:
What is the basis for saying that anything comes before experience? How
is that basis known if not through experience?
Scott said:
What is the response to my saying that I do not experience myself as
coming second after the experience?
Paul:
Huh? How do you experience yourself as arising prior to experience?
Scott said:
I experience trees, thoughts, and so on, or think I do. I do not
experience Quality, at least not obviously in the way I experience
objects.
Paul:
So you don't "obviously" like or dislike anything?
Regards
Paul
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 : Mon Feb 07 2005 - 17:00:28 GMT