Dmb, I use the term "Be-ing" in the context of "primary empirical reality" before conceptions of "self". In a way this is where Pirsigs empiricism rests, "Radically" speaking.
thnx ________________________________ From: david buchanan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:10:24 PM Subject: Re: [MD] qUALITY Ron questioned the statement, "Quality/DQ is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable." ...When it is stated that Quality is unknowable, it stands for a CONCEPTUAL universal meaning. Everyone knows what Quality is from their own particular experience. Quality is "be-ing" thats the universiality of it and where it connects to empiricism. dmb says: I'm not sure what you mean by "be-ing" but otherwise agree. Quality is called the "primary empirical reality" because it is the cutting edge of experience itself. In that sense, we know it directly and immediately but we don't yet "know" it in the cognitive sense because it's that moment of experience prior to the differentiations of consciousness, the distinctions and thought categories with which we perpetually and habitually interpret experience. These differentiations are static quality and are derived from the primary empirical reality or "pure experience" as James calls it. These static interpretations can never capture or exhaust the dynamic flux or reality from which they're derived. As Rosenthal might put it, DQ is too overflowing, too thick and rich to be conceptualized completely. That doesn't mean our interpretations are just arbitrarily made-up, of course. Despite the dynamic, flowing, indefinable nature of the this pre-conceptual experience, the rules of empiricism still obtain. Simply put, our conceptualizations still have to agree with experience, are drawn from experience and tested in experience. And as we all know by now, hopefully, these Radical Empiricist do not conceive their empiricism in terms of "subjective" experience. Subject and objects are among the static interpretations that follow from pure experience. Instead, experience is prior to the distinction between subjects and objects. So, logically, it is not the subjective self having the pure experience. I think this is exactly where people like Ham and Krimel go wrong. Both of them absolutely insists that experience begins with the subjective experiencer, as if they never even read Pirsig's books. It's funny to see a religious dogmatist and a scientific dogmatist both get stuck on this one point at the same time. They both dish up Pirsig's metaphysical enemy and imagine it's some kind of favor. Bet you a buck that on garbage day they take the trash from the curb and put it back in their houses. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 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/
