HI dmb, > Steve said to dmb: > ...From the dynamic perspective, it is impossible to be out of touch with DQ > since DQ is the very ground of being. To not be in touch with it would be to > cease to exist. We can't be _ontologically_ out of touch with DQ. > > > dmb says: > Ontology deals with what entities exist. DQ is not an entity or a thing. It > is an event, an experience.
Steve: Obviously it is not a thing if what you mean is a physical object, so we can't literally touch it (be in touch or out of touch with it as physical contact). That goes without saying, doesn't it? The issue is, what does the metaphor "in touch" mean from an ontological perspective with respect to DQ? Ontology is about what sorts of things exist. Are you denying that DQ exists? If so we cannot be in or out of touch with it. But if it is the ground of being, If DQ is experience, and experience is reality, then it is impossible to be out of touch with it. Otherwise you would be saying that some experiences aren't experienced. > Steve said: > Sure, but surely you don't mean that someone is _literally_ living in the > past and therefore not in touch with the present. The person isn't not > feeling her feelings but only giving them a bad interpretation. So this isn't > an answer to a question about metaphysics. It is an answer to a question > about whether or not we have good concepts, and that question has nothing to > do with our metaphysical relation to DQ which is what it is regardless of > what we think about about it. This is a question about our relationship with > "DQ" (the concept) rather than with DQ (reality). > > > dmb says: > I disagree. The question is very much about bad interpretations; It's all > about whether or not we have good concepts. Steve: If what you mean by "out of touch with reality" is merely having bad ideas about reality, then fine. But what does the "out of touch" metaphor get you other than Platonic confusion (people mistaking you for saying that our ideas correctly hookup with reality as it really is)? Why not just say we need better ideas to avoid that interpretation? dmb: The problem (SOM) is being out of touch with DQ and the MOQ is the solution to that problem. Steve: Here you are saying that the SOM is out of touch with reality while the MOQ is in touch with reality. If "out of touch" simply means we need better ideas, then aren't we always in that position regardless of whether we subscribe to the SOM or the MOQ? The MOQ may be MORE in touch (a set of better ideas), but surely you don't mean to say it _ultimately_ in touch (the best possible set of ideas). And if "in touch" is a matter of good ideas as you say above, then where does the "taking off the glasses" bit come in? If the glasses are intellectual and social patterns, and if "in touch" is a matter of having better ideas, then "in touch" is a set of awesome glasses rather than having no glasses. It seems to me that you contradicting yourself. You are saying... A. "in touch" is about having good concepts. B. taking off the glasses is about unconceptualized reality. C. taking off the glasses is getting in touch. How can "getting in touch" be simultaneously about not having any concepts and also about having better concepts? 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
