Re: MD Self-consciousness

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 16:01:28 GMT

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the Nazi, Part III"

    Hi Scott.
    31 Oct. you wrote (to David M.) who had spoken thus:

    > > What is this outside/inside distinction, reality=quality=experience
    > > we experience, there is no inside or outside, it is outsideless. We
    > > can create a theoretical cosmic story but we can not experience
    > > anything outside of experience, I suggest, pretty obvious really.
     
    > By "inside" and "outside" I am referring to the fact that in sense
    > perception I experience things that seem to be not me,

    When at the biological level - perceiving by senses - experiencing pain
    for instance, the feeling of BEING THE PAIN is overwhelming. There
    is no feeling of it being not me. Your "sin" is that of letting (your)
    intellect impose its eternal S/O pattern upon the rest of existence ..by
    God you are not alone at that.

    > while in
    > thinking I experience things that seem to be me.

    Likewise. Haven't you heard about "a thought foreign to me" ;-)
    However, it may be the "empirical" bit you are after ....Pirsig saying
    that Quality is "sensed". I may agree with you here, but why make
    such a big deal of that?

    > Pirsig does not pay
    > attention to the existence of those two very different kinds of
    > seeming,

    After having presented a metaphysics that makes short thrift of the
    inside/outside SOM, you can't well blame him of not paying attention
    to these.

    > in effect assuming that one (sense perception) is basic, and
    > the other an illusion

    If this the empirical bit again I am with you, I have never understood
    the virtue of that at approach.

    > (note that I am referring to the *seeming* as
    > illusory, not the actual thinking). Hence my accusation of nominalism,
    > and that by ignoring the two types of seeming he is not being
    > empirical.

    I have said unto exhaustion that it is the "mental" definition of intellect
    that creates all ills (among other the nominalist one) and that the S/O-
    definition repairs them all and makes the MOQ meet all your demands
    If this makes any difference ... alas? It seems like you have decided
    not to be appeased :-)

    Sincerely
    Bo

    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 Nov 02 2003 - 16:02:37 GMT