Hi Platt
On 11/12/2010 21:14, Platt Holden wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
How do you do this then, as all understanding is post-experience and
intellectual? What is pre-logical, pre-conceptual is not knowledge, because
knowledge (knowing) is post-experiential and intellectual.
On 11/12/2010 17:11, Platt Holden wrote:
...never understanding the mystic reality of prelogical,preconceptual knowledge
Platt
Hi Horse,
I thought I had pretty well covered this in my previous post in response to
your question about my take on reality. The type of knowledge I refer to is
not SOL intellectual scientific rational knowledge but rather mystic
knowledge. Pirsig expressed it thusly:
There is no such thing as mystic knowledge. There is knowledge
(knowledge of or about the experience of mystic reality), which is
static patterns, and there is mystic reality which is pre-conceptual and
experiential (DQ) - beyond knowledge and intellect (SQ). There is also
SOM (not SOL - SOL is not part of the MoQ) perspective of knowledge, and
MoQ perspective of knowledge. Both Intellectual patterns of value.
However you cut it, knowledge is static patterns of value because that
is how we assimilate experience. As with Mark's earthquake example,
there is knowledge that there is a mystic reality and knowledge gained
from experiencing that reality, but both types of knowledge are
intellectual patterns of value.
"For the MOQ this is, "Some things are better than others." Every infant knows this
before he learns his first word"
Dependant upon the age of the infant it is likely that this is the same
'knowledge' shared by all animals and at a biological level, like "it's
better to have a full stomach than to be in pain" - no intellect is
involved so the idea of 'knowing' is analogy or metaphor. But if we are
referring to 'things' then we are making statements about static
patterns and not the mystic reality which we were talking about
previously. Didn't you say something along the lines that mystic reality
contains no 'things', as 'things' is a word and absent from your
definition of what's real and what's imaginary?
In other words, knowledge by illumination as Augustine put it, or by intuition
as Susanne Langer described it.
Yes, but that knowledge has been intellectualised, as has all knowledge,
which is why we refer to it as static patterns of value. We're still
using words here and they still aren't part of mystic reality - at
least, not according to what you said previously. Experiencing
illumination or intuition comes before knowing you've experienced
illumination or intuition.
Knowledge which is beyond reason as well as sense data, knowledge of the truths
of mathematical axioms for instance, or of the existence of ideals like beauty
and goodness, or the validity of the very distinction between truth and
falsehood.
It would appear that you are confusing experiential reality with
knowledge of that experience. All of the above are 'knowledge of' or
'knowledge about' or 'knowledge that' etc. and not the pre-intellectual,
pre-conceptual, experiential mystic reality. This is one reason why
Dynamic Quality is undefinable, because as soon as you try and define it
or talk about it you're right back in the world of static patterns - or
imaginary symbols as you suggested a while back. Mystic reality - what
you called 'real' - is experienced. Knowledge comes after this
experience. That's why the MoQ differentiates between pre and post
experience, Dynamic and Static. Knowledge about and, subsequently,
discussion of mystic reality is limited to analogy, simile and/or
metaphor and, by definition, post-experiential.
Or, the knowledge every musician like yourself understands when the right note
is struck at the right time.
The right notes don't impinge on my experience of music when I'm
engrossed in music - they just flow. To put it another way they ARE my
experience! I'm not thinking about them or having knowledge of them -
I'm just engrossed in the music. There are various terms for this - in
the moment, in the zone, spaced-out, tranced etc. but the expression is
not the experience. However, what can snap me out of this is someone
playing a bum note! But that drops me right back into the static world -
generally with an expression of "WTF - who did that"!
Enough for today. I apologize for exceeding your rule of no more than two posts
on SOL in a day.
If you stopped referring to SOM as SOL then there wouldn't be a problem.
What I thought we were talking about here is the difference between
pre-intellectual, pre-conceptual, experiential reality (DQ) and
knowledge, concepts and understanding (SQ).
Cheers
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
