From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon May 16 2005 - 22:57:45 BST
Platt,
Scott,
> Scott:
>
> Mark is not denying Quality, nor do I. He is denying the notion that
> "Quality is the primary source" is empirical. So do I. Assumptions or
> revelations are required to move from "Quality exists" to "Everything is a
> consequence of Quality".
Platt said:
Are you also denying that everything is a consequence of experience, and
that value is primary experience? You see, it requires no assumptions or
revelations on my part to be "absolutely certain" that the quality of
sitting on a hot stove is low, and that this value is "more directly
sensed than any "self" or any "object" (or any thing) to which it might be
later assigned." (Lila, 5., parens added)
Scott:
First, I'm not denying the assumption, just agreeing with Mark that it *is*
an assumption. But in any case, you are confusing "primary source of our
knowledge" with "primary source of reality". Is there value experience in a
molecule 100 miles below the earth's surface? The MOQ says there is. No
MOQist experiences that, though, so it is unempirical assumption.
Platt said:
Seems to me self-evident that everything is a consequence of value-laden
primary experience, i.e. Quality. For example, your and Mark's denial
"that Quality is the primary source is empirical" is a notion that first
emerged as a negative response to that particular intellectual pattern,
followed by verbalizing your negativity. You made an initial intuitive
value judgment, then patterned it in language. To put it metaphorically,
you came across that "Quality is the Primary Source" painting in the
gallery of ideas, took a disliking to it, and later wrote of your
experience.
Scott:
First, are you talking about everything (including that molecule) or
everything in my or your experience? Second, I agree that everything that
goes on in my experience *involves* value, but who is to say that value
*causes* everything that goes on in my experience? How do you know that
there was any value whatsoever prior to a (supposed) emergence of
consciousness from the slime? Now I do not think that consciousness so
emerged -- I think that consciousness/value/intellect *is* all-pervasive --
but I fail to see how one can claim an empirical basis for saying so.
Platt said:
The MOQ starts where we all start, with human experience. Thus everything
is a consequence of it.
Scott:
That is fallacious. Even restricting "everything" to human experience, why
couldn't it be that there is no value unless experience comes in S/O form,
in which case one would say that value is the consequence of S/O form, and
not vice versa? (My preference is to say neither: that value and the form of
experience are mutually dependent).
- Scott
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 May 16 2005 - 23:02:40 BST