Hi dmb, I agree with the rhetoric which you presented in response to Dan. I just have a comment about the last part.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > Presented: Quote from Lila pg 119 concerning the proposed reasons for concept development (deleted). > dmb resumes: > Here we see good description of the relation between objects and the primary > empirical reality from which they are derived. The objects reached for are > not primary realities but they are derived from and agree with that complex > bundle of "sensations and boundaries and desires". They are derived from the > "force of Dynamic Quality", from "primary experience". That's what makes the > difference between a concrete particular tree and an abstract hypothetical > tree. Since the two main categories in the MOQ are concepts and reality, I > think this is a fairly important point. Mark comments: I would appear that by categorizing experience in this way one is succumbing to the objectification of experience by the subject. While it is illuminating to present such rhetoric as pointing to something fundamental, it also runs the risk of misleading the reader. We have here what is termed "primary experience", as opposed to what could be termed "secondary experience". What is presented as the conversion factor is the objectification of the primary experience into, say, concepts or objects. We could say that such objectification is a process of taking the salient features of this primary experience and thus simplifying them to a secondary experience. This simplification thus allows us to not be encumbered by the "full effect" of the primary experience, and we can move on. What is lacking is the nature of the secondary experience. I would submit that the secondary experience is identical to the primary experience in nature. That is, the secondary experience (say, the creation of a tree in the mind) is about as primary as it gets. The act of forming the concept (or as Pirsig would say "deducing") and the act of recalling the concept are primary experience that comes from within. One cannot draw a line as to where primary experience and secondary experience are demarcated. To use MoQ relevant analogies, the recollection of a tree is no different from the stimulus which makes one jump off a hot stove. They both occur dynamically as they happen. It is this split of one reality (dynamic) as being more fundamental than another reality (static) that I think needs questioning. This is not to say that the DQ/sq split is not useful, because it certainly is in terms of explaining MoQ. What I am trying to say is that at a fundamental level, one should not take this split too literally. The teachings of Zen can be used to point to the fact that this distancing from reality through the creation of an unreality of conceptions removes one from appreciating the moment. This is no different from the idea that reality lies solely in the conception itself. While both of these may appear to be opposed, they are fundamentally the same thing. That is, either a literal distinction between DQ and sq, or an abandonment of quality ideas of DQ in favor of sq, are the same problem. To summarize, the rhetoric you present is one to make one aware of the usefulness of distinction between experiences, but it cannot be taken literally. The dynamic envisioning and usage of concepts (such as tree) is dynamic quality at work. Our intellectual representations are DQ, since they are all occurring in the present. It is useful to consider the split between DQ and sq in order to arrive at more fundamental understanding, but once this understanding is realized, one must drop (kill) these intellectual patterns. Else wise one is living in an SOM reality. > > In my humble opinion, Mark > > > > > > 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 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
