SA previously:
> With your abstract/concrete explanation, a hitch would
> be this
> abstract part. I've been contemplating how all of this
> is imagination.
> All imaginary. Yet, with the stipulation that these
> happenings be
> unmasked from those in history that have tried to demonize
> them.
> Ron:
> Not quite sure what you mean SA, the abstract/concrete
> distinction is
> lingual. Descriptors for experience.
SA: I really didn't say much. I was looking for a way to bring this up. Now
with your response, I think I could clarify some.
Ron:
> Now, Aristotle by defining truth
> statements maintains that these are two differing
> experiences while
> Pirsig says not really, they are all the same but we use
> different terms to describe them.
SA: So, two different ways of describing (abstract/concrete), two different
kinds of experiences (dynamic/static)?
Ron:
> When we use DQ/SQ as terms to describe experience rather
> than as entities
> that interact, a lot of the confusion dissolves.
SA: Thus, the abstract/concrete dissolves for now we're using static and
dynamic? Therefore skipping all the hops that we might set-up to jump through
and starting from where we want to end up anyways?
Ron:
> then we may talk about dynamic quality in experience, but
> talking about
> dynamic quality as if it is a concrete entity is where the
> trouble begins
> and where I believe why Pirsig states that DQ is
> indefinable.
> It is this little grammatical tidbit that caused Bo to
> develop
> SOL to allow us to talk about DQ. But as I said, all it did
> is lead us
> into confusion and right back to square one .
SA: What you state as making dynamic concrete, is what I meant by historical,
thus, ghostly presences becoming demons, thus, the demons demonizing what
imagination might actually be doing. Don't really know about the demon part,
but these ghosts demonizing, I would say this act of demonizing is tricky. It
is limiting and stating with an aspect of authority, say somebody as great as
Aristotle was difficult for many people to stand up to him. Thus, it might not
be so much as authority, but somebody like Aristotle complicating issues,
spinning everybody's heads with words that twist and turn in all kinds of
directions that it would still take somebody a lot of learning, education from
outside oneself, to get what the guy was saying. In this wall he has built,
and in the company he kept and argued with, many would have to throw their
hands up in some dumbfounding gesture. That's what I like about the moq. It
says that the 'throwing up of the hands' is
that primary reality and we all experience it and we all may be trying to
understand it, but it will remain.
Now back to imagination, that I brought up earlier. Imagination is a
creative act. I would say logic is based in imagination. Yet, what this means
I'm still delving into. Definitely has to do with the images we make and how
these images sustain a world. Change is something that can be unthought of and
unimagined and yet we go on to create something of these changes. It is not I
creating and imagining these unknowns, these gaps, or even what I think I know.
It is me trying to make sense of it, in a way that is helpful and valuable.
It is also what I imagine this to be, even with what I might think is great
precision.
SA
> warm, breezy, the smell of hay in the fields
> and blooming day lilies
>
>
> 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/
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/
