RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 09:21:18 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"

    Hi Platt, I abstain.

    To my mind, pure experience is more like the act of knowing value or of
    creating an understanding of values relative to one another. But now I think
    about this, I can't quite see the difference between this and what you said.

    Is "value" any different from "comparison between values"? Is the comparison
    also a value judgement?
    Ah wait, how about calling the comparison a dynamic judgement and the values
    in question static.
    So pure perception is: "interaction of dynamic values with static values"

    Jos

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    Sent: 12 September 2005 15:17
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org; owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    Subject: RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

    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

    PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
     
    On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
    Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
    in partnership with MessageLabs.
     
    Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
    for further details.

    In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk

    This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
    addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
    permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
    and inform the sender by return e-mail.

    Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
    intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
    whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

    This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
    recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
    monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
    at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
    composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

    The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.

    On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free

    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 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 09:33:07 BST