Dan said to dmb:
I would say that Dynamic Quality only becomes concrete empirical reality
afterwards, and then "it" is no longer Dynamic Quality. If you drop the two
identifiers and say Dynamic Quality is synonymous with reality, then I would
tend to agree with you here. I see you trying to box it in... to make Dynamic
Quality into something, when instead it is better to say it is not this, not
that.
dmb says:
Well, as I tried to explain before, DQ is "concrete" reality in the sense that
it is not "abstract" or conceptual and it is "empirical" reality in the sense
that it is directly known in experience. Those identifiers are just another way
to make the same point you did, which is that DQ is not to be confused with
things we say about it and think about it afterward.
I mean, to a SOMer or a metaphysical realist, the concrete empirical reality
could refer to the physical universe but that's not what I mean at all. James
and Pirsig both say that this immediate experience is not physical or mental
because those are conceptual categories into which we sort experience after the
fact.
It seems to be further evidence that we actually agree because you agreed when
I made the same point without the terms "empirical" or "concrete"....
dmb said: ... mystics will get off the stove first because they tend to be in
closer contact with that pre-conceptual flux of life. For James and Pirsig,
that's reality and the concepts that follow are only good to the extent that
they successfully operate in that reality, in the flux of life.
Dan replied:
Now... we agree. Thank you,
dmb says:
Good, because I don't like to disagree with you. It makes me nervous. With
other people it might be just the opposite, you know? If I find myself agreeing
with them, I start wondering where I went wrong.
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
