Hello everyone
---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:24:55 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] The MoQ, by Jove! > > Krimel said: > I take Craig and possibly Pirsig to be saying, that there are relationships, > processes, distinctions that exist independently of any conceptual patterns > of them. > > Dan replied: > If there are relationships, processes, etc. that exist independently, how > would we know? It's possible, sure. But it is a moot point so far as I can > see. ...The levels aren't reality; they're a way of ordering reality. > Again, a person can order reality any way they wish, but it will not be the > MOQ. > > dmb says: > I think Dan's point is an important one. Seems like a lot of > misunderstanding follows from missing that point. It's probably the main > reason why Bo thinks the primary empirical reality (DQ) can be equated with > objective reality. It's probably the main reason why Krimel thinks pure > experience (DQ) is something like the transduction of energy through the > sense organs. > > [Krimel] > Just to clarify I said that experience is a process that begins with the > transduction of energy into neural impulses. Dan: I don't know. I woke up one day and found myself here. Later, I might have formulated theories as to the hows and whys this should be. I think the beginning of experience is a mystery. And that is all one can say. > > [dmb] > It's probably why people expect to find some version of Kant's > things-in-themselves in the MOQ. But this is just the metaphysics of > substance talking. > > [Krimel] > As Dan points out since TiTs cannot be directly experienced it is a moot > point. Whether one takes them seriously or not is a matter of preference. > > [dmb] > In the MOQ, our ideas don't correspond to any kind of pre-existing structure > of reality. Of all the things one could say about DQ or undifferentiated > aesthetic continuum, "structured" is NOT of them. In the MOQ, all our static > analogues exist in relation to "reality", which is understood AS experience > itself and not the "things" supposedly experienced. Put another way, the MOQ > says that the idea of an external reality is a good idea, but it's just an > idea, an analogue. Like all analogues, they exist in relation to pure > experience, which is neither mental or physical, again, because "mental" and > "physical" are among the analogues that follow from experience. > > [Krimel] > I agree but would join James in pointing out that experience synthesis of > percepts and concepts. You can't throw either one out as a way of achieving > balance. Dan: I'm not sure nor do I have the inclination to find out on my own so maybe you can describe the difference between percepts and concepts and why James thought this important. This is completely beside the point and maybe someone else has mentioned it before (I don't remember) but I was delighted to discover Ralph Waldo Emerson was William James' godfather. Pretty cool, huh? > > [dmb] > It boils down to the difference between static quality and Dynamic Quality, > between concepts and reality. "Reification" means taking an abstract concept > and making it into a reality. When that happens, we say there ARE > "distinctions that exist independently of any conceptual patterns of them". > In the MOQ, concepts and distinctions are always static while the primary > empirical reality is an undivided, undifferentiated continuum. > > [Krimel] > Say you know a really great way to understand undifferentiated continua? > That's right as probability distributions. Dan: No. That's not right. I'm pretty sure Robert Pirsig says Dynamic Quality and undifferentiated continuum are synonyms. They both point to "not this, not that." You seem to be labeling "it." > > [dmb] > It's a radically different picture of things. We live in a static reality of > our own making so that conventional reality is one big intricate set of > reifications. > > [Krimel] > It is indeed a set of conception in a conceptual framework that has an > intricate fractal structure. It is infinitely complex at every level of > detail. Concepts are only problematic when they are calcified and become > inflexible to the point they are mistaken as perception itself. Not all of > us live in such a world. Dan: True, that. > > [dmb] > Not that it's all just a dream or whatever. These static patterns aren't > hallucinations, they exist in relation to experience, the primary empirical > reality and they work, more or less. But the MOQ is one way to see through > that reality, to see our concepts of reality AS concepts. > > [Krimel] > I take Dan's position to be more like it's just a dream. I think he > understands that outside of our perception there is nothing. Or if there is > something it is not worth talking about since it is outside of perception. > For me both faith and rationalism bridge the gap to an external world. But > that might not work for everyone. You seem confused about which way you are > going. Dan: I think it's easy to believe my position is more like a dream but that's not quite right. It's a good idea, as dmb says, to think static patterns exist in relation to experience. For instance, there are always tell-tale signs we're dreaming. Likewise, there are signs that we're not. Pinch me. > > [dmb] > This is more or less what "Maya" means. It comes from Hinduism and means > "illusion" but also "the power by which the universe becomes manifest". It's > liberating to realize there is more than one way to "compose" a reality. > Creative freedom becomes a profound thing in this picture. > > [Krimel] > I've been through this before with both Dan and Ron and I think an illusion > is just one way of organizing perception. It is not true or false it is just > a pattern of organizing input. That point is that all perception is > illusion. It is a particular way of organizing experience. Some of our ways > of perception are learned and some are biologically programmed but they are > all ways of organizing input. Dan: Again, I prefer dmb's response. Krimel seems to be saying experience is input. There is one external reality experienced many different ways by organizing input from that external reality. I think that is a pretty conventional way of looking at things. The MOQ tells us experience arises dependent on our static quality evolutionary history: social and intellectual patterns of value which we find ourselves embedded. That's how the world becomes manifest - that is maya. Thank you, Dan _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to meet. http://windowslive.com/online/groups?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_groups_032009 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/
