> > Dave and all, > > dmb says: > There are biological concepts, cultural concepts, philosophical concepts, > concepts about concepts. Physical concepts are just one of many, many kinds. > Why would that be a problem? >
John: Ah, I see my confusion. I thought you meant a physical concept, you meant a concept about physics. A problem of interepretation, then. dmb: > But the idea that we all live in a physical reality and our concepts mirror > that reality is exactly what we mean by the correspondence theory and > subject-object metaphysics. John: We call our reality "physical"... well, some do. Idealists don't, but that's another subject. But you've got me guessing (again) with your formulation "our concepts mirror that reality" because it seems to me that that is what you take as your base assumption in all you communicate - that your concepts are the ones that really mirror reality, and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously stupid, hasn't studied enough, or doesn't believe in your dictionary. So... if you think that's SOM, that idea, then why do you persist in it? dmb: > That's not what I'm saying John: No, that's what you're doing. You're doing one thing and saying something different. It's a little crazy-making at times dave. dmb: > and that is not what Pirsig or James meant when they said "there must > always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality". John: Yeah, well what did they mean? And how do they know? How can anybody prove that there is a discrepancy? It seems to me that to try and prove the negative, is just as impossible to prove the positive. James was right when he said trying to solve the problem logically always led to infinite regress, but where then does he, or Pirsig, or you, get off on thinking then that it proves the opposite? Just because we can't really know if our concepts do match reality perfectly or not, does no prove that occasionally they do. I would say very much, that any idea which most closely harmonizes with reality is the highest quality idea. That is the very essence of what we mean by "intellectual quality." Saying its infinitely unattainable might be true, but there's no way to prove that and in the mean time, I think it behooves us to act and talk as if it might be true. But then, you know me. I'm an idealist at heart, I am. dmb: > What they mean, and what I mean, is an alternative to the correspondence > theory and SOM. The "reality" they have in mind is not objective reality or > physical reality. In the MOQ, experience and reality are the same thing. > There is no experience OF reality such that reality is the cause or the > source behind experience. It's just experience itself. And I don't mean the > experience OF a subjective mind substance either. That is also a secondary > concept rather than reality itself. Reality is outside of language and it's > pre-conceptual but you know it by direct acquaintance. Experience as its had > is not conceptual. It's not true or false and it's not a thing but > an ongoing event, a happening, something we go through, suffer and enjoy. > John: Well, that's one way of looking at it I guess. But it seems kludgy and circular to me. You're dressing up identical concepts in different terminology is all, and running them round and round the flag pole in the hopes of garnering a salute, but I ain't buyin. "Reality is outside of language"? Reaallly? Ooo... ahhhh... what grand and noble ideas you present. What a storm and fury that signifies, in the end, nothing. But hey, always glad to make your "direct acquaintance", mr. reality. Where have you been all my life? dmb: > > In the MOQ, reality is the immediate flux of life just as it's experienced > and the "physical universe" is a concept about reality. When people take > this concept as more than a concept and give it the status of reality, > that's called reification. It's also called the error of misplaced > concreteness. It's a kind of literalism. > > > John: > Well. I am impressed. Does Marsha know you're using "reification" like that? Because I'd think she'd have some snide commentary about hypocrisy. Reification is just what we do, is all. So? 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
