Marsha, Marsha, You say:
> Unpatterned experience is direct experience without static patterns of > value. And right there, I have to quibble with you. I don't want to, but I have to. Experience can't be what you describe, either unpatterned or without staticity. The very defining of experience requires a static pattern in order to be experienced. The idea of "before" is itself a static pattern of existence relative to time and obviates the pure nullity you postulate, imo. > You do > no like my use of 'unpatterned experience', you say to hear the term gives > you gas, > but I remember you didn't like my definition of the self either. Both self > and > unpatterned experience cannot be bound by words, so I grant you that the > words > I use to refer to either are false. > Well you can't exactly equate the two dislikes. I didn't like your definition of self because it was unwieldy, kludgish and hard to whip out when needed. But "unpatterened experience" is far worse because its a philosophical self-contradiction. A metaphysics no-no. But if you think the words you use are false, then I have to wonder why you use them? Isn't the idea of words that we use them for truth? I mean, we know when we shoot for the moon we'll miss, but at least it provides a big fat aim point. Yours, John 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/
