Dmb
Magnus said: What I'm saying is that since we have this tool of the
levels, and since it *is* a rather good fit for dividing this
undefined which is going on outside our concepts of it, why not try
to make it a better fit?
dmb says:
You're probably not going to believe this but the levels do not
divide the undefined.
Did I ever say it did? The levels are SQ, not DQ. Talk about fighting
straw men.
They re-define what is already defined, they
re-conceptualize all the stuff that is already in the encyclopedia.
The undefined (DQ) is the only thing that supposed to be left out of
the four static levels. The levels are not supposed to be
representing an objective, pre-existing reality either.
For the last fracking time, dmb-ass!
I have never claimed the levels are used to represent an objective reality!
Get it??
I have never claimed the levels are used to represent an objective reality!
No? Ok, one more time.
I have never claimed the levels are used to represent an objective reality!
The static
patterns are supposed to agree with experience, not an objective
reality.
My levels do. Check!
In the course of experience we feel the pushing back and
resistances and persistences and from this we construct ideas of an
objective reality. And these are very handy ideas, but the MOQ says
they are ideas.
And what are ideas?
Intellectual patterns.
And what do intellectual patterns depend on?
All lower levels.
So what is required to support an idea?
All lower levels!
What does that mean?
That the reality (which is not objective) support the ideas we have
about that same reality. I.e. the MoQ supports the common sense notion
that we, human beings, have ideas about the very same reality in which
we live.
There is an element of realism here. We know from
experience that experience is not just whatever we want it to be. Our
concepts can fail quite miserably when they are tested in experience.
That's why the MOQ sometimes seems like a form of realism. But there
is also the important claim that "man is a participant in the
creation of all things", which is also expressed in the assertion
that reality as we know it conceptually, including yourself and the
physical universe, is one big set of analogies. That's why the MOQ
sometimes seems like a form of idealism. But it's not really idealism
or materialism, it's radical empiricism. Experience is reality and
that is the starting point for all subsequent conceptualizations.
This is not experience OF the physical universe or experience BY a
subjective agent because those are among the conceptualizations,
among the analogies derived from experience. As Pirsig and James say,
the primary empirical reality is neither physical nor psychical. It
logically precedes this distinction.
Yes, it precedes it because Q's first division is into DQ/SQ, not
physical/psychical.
Magnus
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/md/archives.html
