Mark, Pardon for the interruption, but I have been considering how one is encouraged to turn intellectualizing about Quality into the direct experience of Quality.
Marsha On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:33 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi John, > Neo-Hegelian sounds cool to me. I do respect Hegel as a brilliant man. So > long as it is not neo-conservative... Maybe I'll look it up. > > I don't know if it is verboten. We all speak of sensing dynamic quality. > The question is, where does that occur? If our wordy consciousness is > somehow one step removed, then what is happening right at this moment? It > would imply that there is no direct experience within our thoughts, which > doesn't ring true to me. I think the attempt is to qualify and quantify it. > If it is something that we are not aware of, but can only theorize about, > then this whole radical empiricism falls apart. > > Certainly we can use words like "mystical experience" as some kind of > objective reality which is somewhere else. But as I have said before (and > you agreed with, thanks) this whole thing is a mystical experience. How can > we describe it otherwise. Preaching to the converted, I know. It would > seem that some are using the wrong side of Occam's razor, or using it in > reverse. > > So, back to dynamic quality. It is right now, can't be anywhere else. What > do we do with it? That is the question. How do we spread the word to stop > all this insanity? How do we encourage good choices? Unless people believe > in it, they will not follow. All this contusion into tying philosophies > together is great for the philosopher, but what about those others. ZMM had > a way; I experienced it in the '70s; everybody got it. What happened? I > think Pirsig was enamored with his fame and following, and the academics go > ahold of it. What happened to the book on American Indians he was going to > write? But, now I sound like a broken record, Quality is now...Quality is > now...Quality is now... > > Ouch, that burned! > Mark > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matt and Mark, >> >> sounds to me like you guys are flirting around the area of "neo-hegelian" >> verboten territory. Bad! Naughty! Mustn't! >> dave doesn't approve. >> >> According to my thinking, experiencing an abstraction is just about the >> most >> direct experience there can be. Neurons have a language too, ya know. If >> people would just sit on a hot stove just a little longer than normal, >> maybe they'd learn something beyond a parrot-like reactionism. >> >> 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/md/archives.html
