Re: MD matt said scott said

From: David R (elephant@plato.plus.com)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 14:46:00 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD I believe; you believe"

    Scott, Platt, All,

    Thanks, Scott, for your contribution. I can see that this might now go off
    in all kinds of interesting directions (Does R.P. think of value as a
    "sense"? - whatever 'sense' means here).

    But for myself, I have the feeling I'm going backwards.

    This is embarrassing, but despite Scott's clarification, I still don't know
    what 'sense perceptible' means. Before, that is before Scott's helpful
    clarification, I used to think I knew what 'see' means. Now I'm not so
    sure.

    Scott has offered the following clarification of 'sense perceptible':

    > Sense-perceptible particulars are the objects and events we see, hear,
    > touch, smell, and taste. By "see" (to refer to your later post) I mean
    > physical sight, not insight or understanding.

    You'd think that would sort me out and clear up any remaining clouds of
    ignorance. Sadly not.

    Now you are saying that there is this distinction between on the one hand
    "physical sight" and on the other "insight or understanding". Ok. Let's
    suppose I think I've got a vague and greasy-handled grasp on this nice
    distinction, a distinction that you clearly understand quite well. But what
    exactly am I to understand here? Help me get a grip.

    *Where* does this supposed line between these two kinds of 'seeing' fall?
    What's the principle, or criteria, or definition, that helps us to tell them
    apart?

    What makes something a case of "physical" sight as opposed to "insight"?

    Try some actual cases of 'I see'.

    I'm walking home about 5pm in the deepening winter gloom in the dark eyes of
    the forest, and I look up into the branches. I'm startled. I *see* the
    silouette of a long catty tail hanging down, and the mass of a couched
    animal. Immediately, without any pause for thought, I find myself stopped
    and looking up, expecting a growl to emminate - Oh no, that myth about the
    puma on the prowl: no myth.

    But no low growl comes. And no flash of eyes. And the movement in the
    coiling 'tail' is the same for all the trees, just wind. And now I *see*
    that it's just a knarled branch in a welsh forest, not a hungry killer.

    Ok, help me out. Is this a case of "physical sight", or of "insight"?

    If you explain that, maybe I'll understand what you mean by "physical sight"
    and by "insight".

    David

    (also, Elephant - but that's just a silly email address, in case you were
    wondering)

    > From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    > Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:13:38 -0700
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Subject: Re: MD matt said scott said
    >
    > Platt,
    >
    >>> Sense-perceptible particulars are the objects and events we see, hear,
    >>> touch, smell, and taste. By "see" (to refer to your later post) I mean
    >>> physical sight, not insight or understanding.
    >>
    >> The MOQ adds "value" to the physical senses [Scott] lists. Value is our
    >> sixth sense.
    >
    > Does he ever actually call it a sense? All I recall is that he says it is
    > "verifiable", a source of knowledge. In any case, one cannot demonstrate
    > truth of value judgments by correspondence. That is, if I say X is better
    > than Y, and you say Y is better than X, then there is nothing further that
    > either of us can physically point to to determine who is right (we may be
    > able to make non-sense-perceptible justifications, but those are not done
    > through correspondence).
    >
    > - 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
    >

    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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 14:49:25 GMT