RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 15:16:47 BST

  • Next message: platootje@netscape.net: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"

    Hi Bo, Jos, All:

    Since the beginning of the MD there's been lots of references to
    experience, awareness, sensation, perception, feeling, consciousness, etc.
    -- words that as far as I know have never been agreed upon as to their
    meaning. Something the individuals in this group might constructively do
    would be to agree on the precise meaning of such terms. By doing so,
    better mutual understanding would likely result.

    I'll start by defining "pure experience" as Pirsig does:"The Metaphysics
    of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience which is not valued
    is not experienced. The two are the same." (Lila, 29)

    The question for all is: Shall we accept the definition of "experience"
    the same as Pirsig's definition of "pure experience, i.e., "experience is
    value?" I vote Yes.

    Thanks.

    Platt

    > Hi Bo,
    >
    > Firstly, I admit that I lazily drift between, awareness and perception, and
    > thus far have meant the same thing by both, consciousness is different
    > however, and in my scheme has been restricted to biological awareness. Back
    > to dictionaries though, and according to Wikipedia, awareness includes no
    > interpretation, but perception does, consciousness is different again, and
    > all definitions seem to start specifically on self awareness. I will
    > re-think the way I have been using these words to make it clearer what I
    > mean.
    >
    > To the rest, you pretty much understand me correctly, although seem to
    > imply that the "mystic static patterns" occur as a result of consciousness,
    > (using the word "behind" rather than "of") when I had them as "real"***.
    > (***caveats below acknowledged).
    >
    > As to inorganic (and if we're broadening the spectrum lets not forget about
    > the sub-inorganic chaotic level) awareness/consciousness/perception
    > (whatever), I am not sure that it is necessitated at all, cant we just do
    > without? I think that it is not unreasonable to assert that certain
    > phenomena only occur at or above certain static levels, perhaps awareness
    > only first kicks in, as a product of certain biological static patterns.
    > (There would be a consistency in this, with some of my earlier posts
    > directly relating to consciousness, did you read any of these?)
    >
    > Jos

    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 Sep 12 2005 - 15:36:55 BST