From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 05:18:10 GMT
David R,
> 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).
See the quote form the SODV paper that Platt provided. Pirsig says we have
a "sense of value", but I think that should be taken in a non-precise way,
It just means that we perceive value (which is non-trivial, as it opposes
the notion that we subjectively impose value on what we perceive).
>
> 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".
I have to wonder if you are serious. Sure, there are all sorts of problems
that arise when we try to precisely define things, but do you really have a
problem distinguishing conceptually between seeing the keyboard you are
typing on, having hallucinations, and understanding non-physical things like
proofs in geometry?. Surely we don't need to get into pathological or
borderline cases.
- 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 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 05:26:42 GMT