Hi Matt, Yes Matt. It is important to recognize that "knowing-that" is also an experience. You feel it all the time while you are thinking We speak of the feeling of certainty. Experience does not end at the brain. Therefore we need to distinguish between the subjective awareness, and the object which is being made aware of, as you say. One is DQ, the other is sq. Little packets of sq are handed around to give us head trips. There is pre-conceptual experience as we think, but not in what we think of. The thinking is not the same as the thought. The country is not the same as the map.
Let's give our intellectual ability some appreciation, there is nothing static about it, anymore than dancing is static. Peace, man, Mark ps. Who is Rorty? On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Matt Kundert <pirsigafflict...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ron, Dave, > > Ron said: > I remember Steve and or Matt was pursuing something similar in the > vein of "knowing" as intelligibility by direct aquaintance, as in > recognition as remaining in the distinction of the static. I think they > were attempting to make the arguement that in this regard the > "pre-conceptual" is little more than a place holder for the primacy of > the origin of understanding and I believe the focus was on what we > mean generally, regardless of context, of what it means to "know" > and how this fits in pragmatically with what we mean by the > "pre-conceptual" in regard to how it functions within our system of > the intellectual understanding of MoQ. > > DMB said: > If Steve and Matt follow Rorty, then they would say that there is no > such thing as pre-conceptual experience. The notion that DQ is a > "place holder" or "a compliment we pay to sentences" are both ways > of sweeping DQ under the rug or otherwise transforming it into > something inert. I totally disagree with our resident Rortarians about > this. Been telling Matt this his view eviscerates the MOQ - for several > years now. > > Matt: > I think I can regard Ron's summary as something I've been > elaborating (and perhaps better than I had). But in Dave's > recapitulation, he doesn't capture what Ron intended to state: it > should read > > ----- > The notion that "DQ" is a "place holder". > ----- > > For the distinction that is needed is between Dynamic Quality and the > concept "Dynamic Quality," which is a distinction Ron went on partly > to talk about. I take it that further claims about rug-sweeping, > inertia, and evisceration first have to calmly deal with the > implications of that distinction in a conceptual account. > > (With regards to Rorty, we'd only have to say that there's no such > thing as "pre-conceptual knowledge," and that because the concept > "knowledge" has been gerrymandered as a concept, in such > accounts, to be coextensive with linguistic-conceptual capabilities, i.e > knowing-that. "Experience," on the other hand, is still free to play > other roles, including elaboration of other, non-gerrymandered uses > of "know," such as in "know-how" (which, on these Rortyan accounts, > is prior to knowing-that).) > > Matt > 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
