> SA previously said:
> What is unpure experience? I understand your trying
> to point out a difference in what reality is, and
> how people come up with these different
> philosophies. If reality was experience, then why
> the differences, what's making the distinctions. I
> find it is where you place your focus. If you want
> to focus on A/R distinction, then so be it. Pure
> experience is pointing out something more that
> doesn't downplay appearance as non-reality.
> Appearance is just as acceptable as a reality as any
> other reality notion. It is this intellectual
> flexibility that is able to point this out, thus, a
> notion that is not coming from the A or just the R
> in the A/R distinction. Think of mu. Mu is
> intellectual enough to be understood, but it is not
> just A and not just R. Is this what your wondering
> about? Also, experience is not just an intellectual
> exercise in defining A or R. Experience is social,
> biological, and inorganic, and let us not forget how
> all of these change with events: dq.
>
> Matt responded:
> I appreciate your intercession, but I have to
> confess that I'm unsure of what direction you're
> coming from. The conversation DMB and I have been
> having is going on four years now, and much of it is
> shorthand, reference points and allusions to other
> parts of it.
> The gist is that if you have a notion of "pure
> experience," then you are going to need a notion of
> "unpure experience" because that's how contrasts
> work. In Pirsig, pure is DQ, which means unpure is
> static. The question is what the role of "unpure"
> is in describing static patterns of value.
I might be way off, since, as you pointed out to
me, this conversation between DMB and you has been
long.
I'm seeing this contrasting as a hang-up. Why
the need to contrast in the first place? Let me
explain why I ask this.
Dq is pure experience, but in a way that still
allows static patterns to be pure. Dq explains much
more than sq does. Sq is not explained as pure
experience to contrast their ontological explanatory
capability/power. Sq is reality, but dq is primary
reality. Dq is pure experience due to dq explains
within each level and outside the levels, as the SODV
papers mention. Sq is still pure experience, but on a
particular level. It seems pure experience can still
remain on each level and the contrast might be in sq's
presence. Dq is in more places than sq.
[Matt]
> If experience and reality coincide as in Dewey's
> radical empiricism, then the old idea of experience
> having various levels of contact with reality (more
> or less direct/pure/etc.) should be out the window.
> I would have thought. But there still exists in
> Pirsig, and James, what seems to me a survival of an
> older philosophical vision that they are otherwise
> out to displace.
Sq's explanatory power is more limited than dq.
Sq is confined to different levels. Dq is within
these levels and outside these levels. Yet, sq is
still defining a direct experience: a direct
intellectual experience, a direct social experience,
etc...
[Matt]
> The importance of this issue resides in Pirsig's
> insistence in coalescing Dynamic Quality with both
> "direct/pure experience" and "betterness" (not to
> mention "immediate"). The fact that I see it as
> problematic is a whole other thing.
Yes, I find this important, too.
I might be way off-discussion here, so, I'll bow out
if I am.
thanks.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
