On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
John, DMB, again, you are at the nub of all our issues ... Well for some that might be an aggravation, but for me it's a relief. I only think "root" when I hear "radical". Nothing else. Well... there is this quick conceptualized radish that twinkles in my brain for a moment. I always associate radishes with radicals. Just like Dave associates lima beans with low quality. > > > DMB "the idea is to fix that defective value-free intellect." > > John "Man will inevitably conceptualize, its in his nature." > > It certainly has been human nature ... but it's an evolved and > evolving nature ... we can still learn. > > Clearly we are never going to get some "pure" definitive handle on > pure-experience (or Quality) without contaminating it with conceptual > objects. Almost there, "contamination" should be in quotes cuz that implies some sort of evil infiltration, does it not? What is the whole point of man's existence but to conceptualize? It's something we do better than all the animals, it lies at the heart of our intellectual being, and I don't see the point of denigrating or bemoaning the fact that we inevitably conceptualize. Because it keeps us from experiencing the moment? What moment? That one right there? Or the one coming up next? It's a ridiculous game invented to keep you going in circles so you can see the circles so you can stop going around in circles. "Transcend" is the aim of that game. But because Pirsig has to make some sort of static statement to get you to see these circles, and W James comprehends the needed psychotherapeutic solution to the static intellectual traps of SOM, acolytes of Jamesian Pirsigianism turn the circle into an object of veneration which means it's now degeneracy to get off! Let us all bow down and say Ohhhmmmm before the great Pure Experience. And on and on it goes, whither it stops, nobody knows. I wonder if this is sort of Bo's point. I'm not very good at following other people's arguments. But then, nobody is. > BUT what this kind of radical empiricism is saying is PLEASE > notice that defect, PLEASE discount your pre-conceived objects so far > as you possibly can whenever experiencing something, or interpreting > experience in another. > Which might be very helpful to some kinds of intellectuals, in some kinds of intellectual traps. I mean please look carefully at "pre-concieved" What exactly is that? I know it means "that idea that is in your mind BEFORE experience" but some ideas that are before experience come in right handy. For instance, if I have an idea that the stove might be hot, my pre-conception is gonna keep my butt from getting burned. Is that "lower quality" than actually getting the pure experience of blistered buns? Has anybody ever defined the MoQ as a system designed specifically to cure the world view problems of academics? I don't think that's fair. Motorcycles mechanics need metaphysics too, ya know. Preferably something easy to handle that stores nicely but works well when you need it and doesn't break. A larger-than-lifetime guarantee wouldn't be so bad. John > > Regards > Ian > 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/
