Andre, On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote:
> John to Andre: > > Well first off, I should say that I differentiate between "all potential > experience" and "all personal experience". The Universe is the former, not > the latter. > > Andre: > This, John, potentially, is a Pandora's Box. John: By all means then, let's open 'er up. That's what Pandora's Box is for, eh? Andre: > I don't know what you mean by 'all potential experience'. John: Don't feel bad. Neither do I. It's sort of an all-purpose construction I think, like Ham's "Essence". Something needed logically, and therefore construed. But I got no overall confidence in the term except that I know there sure has to be something to explain that which is outside my experience, and yet potentially or actually real. Andre: Especially when, for you, this is 'the Universe's experience? Potential for > whom of what? Isn't experience complete in itself? > Isn't 'experience', 'Quality',the 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum > (Northrop), the 'immediate flux of life'(James), the continuing stimulus > which our environment puts upon us'(Pirsig) the ineffable, the undefined, > the un-conceptualized, the pre-intellectual reality which brings forth > notions of 'universe','personal', 'potential', and even the word > 'experience' itself? I am unclear as to how you differentiate Quality except > when you slice quality up in ways that is confusing, to wit: 'universal' and > 'personal'. > > John: Ok, not even Pandora herself could get all that back into her box once it was opened, and so we find ourselves forced with the task of dealing with the evils, one at a time. "The Universe's Experience": I like this term, it dennotes what I mean. I don't like your "for whom or what", that reeks of a somish predisposition with which I disagree. So lets leave agency in the path of discarded paradigms, and actually try and construct some truth with this language, eh? "The immediate flux of life": That's fine. As long as its remembered constantly that the immediate flux is dependent upon the prior flux, then ok. But realize that "immediate" is an entirely subjective judgment and nothing else. "Experience" also always implies a subject. If there is no experiencer, then how can there be any experience at all? Its just what the word means, really. "the continuing stimulus which life puts upon us" is a good word for "experience" but it doesn't take us beyond our own subjective outlook, does it. "The pre-intellectual reality" - yes, but intellectualized through naming into something quite different than it once was, right? And if you are confused at my attempts at the definition of Quality.... well, all I have to say is "welcome to the fray". > John: > Second, I don't equate DQ and sq, but make the point that the only true > differentiation between the terms is a subjective perspective, not a > metaphysical absolute. > > Andre: > Good to hear you do not equate the two. As Phaedrus argued: 'People differ > about Quality, not because Quality is different, but because people are > different in terms of experience'. (ZMM, p 244) > John: And yet, as people we don't seek out the items of differentiation, we seek out the commonality and congruence. In this regard, Quality is that upon which we agree, while maintaining our own difference. > > John: > And we seem to be discussing static and dynamic only on the subject levels > (social/intellectual) where we ought to be looking at the terms > fundamentally as the division of ALL reality. > > Andre: > I'd like to hear you put forth an intelligent perspective from the > inorganic and organic levels John. Lets look at it objectively... . ;-) Hah! Nice, Andre. You know I can't do that. I can only intellectualize. And occasionaly rhapsodize. 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
