Look, DMB,
I don't have time for this bullshit. You posted an useful article, I wanted to thank you for that. I guess I just couldn't believe you actually do think it's good to reject positive things other people give, such as respect. I'm not interested in playing your game, because it is not relevant practice for my work. I was interested in the article you posted. You were useful for me, but in a way which you did not intend, and now you seem to say this implies that I'm stupid. Talk about drivel.

-Tuukka



25.3.2012 21:55, david buchanan wrote:
dmb says:
Thanks for playing along, Dan. I'm going to withhold comment and hope others 
take a shot at it to too. (Since Tuukka doesn't seem to understand the core 
concept of this game, you're the only one to participate so far.)



------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:37 PM, david buchanan<[email protected]>  wrote:
This might be fun but it's also a kind of experiment. I was reading a paper and saw many 
parallels to Pirsig, which wasn't very surprising because it's titled "Dewey's 
Zen". But I wonder if others read it the same way I do. In certain passages it seems 
like one could plug Pirsig's terms into the sentences and they'd still mean the same 
thing - almost exactly. Telling you more than that - like which terms I had in mind - it 
would ruin the experiment. How about if I just post a bit of it and let everyone take a 
shot at it? Maybe it would be fun to put in Pirsig's terms wherever you think they would 
fit. Take your pick or play with them all, but please be explicit enough to let me know 
if you're seeing the same thing that I'm seeing.
Hi David
Been editing one of my books most of the evening... I love the
writing... the editing, not so much... but since I cannot afford to
pay someone to do it, it falls to me. Anyway, I thought I'd throw out
a few ideas to chew on...


...experiences come whole, pervaded by unifying qualities that demarcate them 
within the flux of our lives. If we want to find meaning, or the basis for 
meaning, we must therefore start with the qualitative unity that Dewey 
describes. The demarcating pervasive quality is, at first, unanalyzed, but it 
is the basis for subsequent analysis, thought, and development. Thought starts 
from this experienced whole, and only then does it introduce distinctions that 
carry it forward as inquiry.
Dan:
The author seems to be saying the same thing that RMP says when he
talks about Quality coming first, and how ideas arise from 'it'. The
qualifiers the author uses seem contradictory on the surface though it
is possible I'm not seeing things properly.

            It is not wrong to say that we experience objects, properties, and 
relations, but it is wrong to say that these are primary in experience. What 
are primary are pervasive qualities of situations, within which we subsequently 
discriminate objects, properties, and relations.
Dan:
See... the author subtly shifts here into saying these qualities are
pervasive and the demarcation only happens later.

  Dewey took great pains to remind us that the primary locus of human experience is not 
atomistic sense impressions, but rather what he called a "situation," by which 
he meant, not just our physical setting, but the whole complex of physical, biological, 
social, and cultural conditions that constitute any given experience—experience taken in 
its fullest, deepest, richest, broadest sense.
Dan:
A minor quibble here... in the MOQ, experience is synonymous with
Dynamic Quality. Static quality comes later... inorganic, biological,
social, intellectual.

Mind, on this view, is neither a willful creator of experience, nor is it a 
mere window to objective mind-independent reality. Mind is a functional aspect 
of experience that emerges when it becomes possible for us to share meanings, 
to inquire into the meaning of a situation, and to initiate action that 
transforms, or remakes, that situation.
Dan:
To respond to Dynamic Quality, in other words...


The pervasive quality of a situation is not limited merely to sensible perception or 
motor interactions. Thinking is action, and so "acts of thought" also 
constitute situations that must have pervasive qualities. Even our best scientific 
thinking stems from the grasp of qualities.
Dan:
"Acts of thought" are ideas? Is that what I'm understanding here? And
yes, the MOQ would seem to agree that ideas are as 'real' as inorganic
and biological patterns... they exist on different evolutionary
levels, however.

And perhaps my favorite....

            The crux of Dewey's entire argument is that what we call thinking, or 
reasoning, or logical inference could not even exist without the felt qualities of 
situations: "The underlying unity of qualitativeness regulates pertinence or 
relevancy and force of every distinction and relation; it guides selection and rejection 
and the manner of utilization of all explicit terms."
Dan:
I should think that in the MOQ, culture is the regulating force of
distinctions and relations... remember how Phaedrus read about the sun
flashing green before he actually looked up and 'saw' it?

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com
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


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

Reply via email to