Hi dmb,
> dmb says: > Since the glasses are intellectual and represent a way to interpret > experience, then taking the glasses off leaves you with DQ, with > pre-intellectual, uninterpreted experience. He tells us quite a lot about > this pre-intellectual experience elsewhere, of course, but this passage is > about the MOQ as an alternative set of glasses, an alternative way to > interpret experience that passes "the tests of truth", which "are logical > consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation". > > The MOQ's distinction between concepts and reality (sq&DQ) shows up here > again and so Steve and Matt are going to be confounded. It only goes to show > that you misunderstanding of the MOQ's most basic distinction has very > far-reaching consequences. It will continue to cause trouble everywhere you > go, no matter what facet or feature you try to explore. Steve: I don't think this unpacking works even a little since we _aren't_ talking about one's uninterpreted experience as being regarded as crazy. Remember what the quote says: "If someone sees things through a somewhat different set of glasses or, God help him, takes his glasses off, the natural tendency of those who still have their glasses on is to regard his statements as somewhat weird, if not actually crazy. But he isn't. " So it is clear that the person who has figured out how to take his glasses off (the Enlightened one?) is making statements that sound weird. These statements are obviously not pre-intellectual. We can compare the statements of someone wearing the MOQ glasses to someone wearing the SOM glasses for sure, but presumably we are also to be able to compare these to what it's like without any glasses, and I don't know what that means. Best, Steve 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
