[Marsha] > “whatever conceptual model we come up with, it cannot ultimately serve as a > substitute for Reality. > And while we might be tempted to shrug off this observation, ignoring its > implications is potentially devastating."
[Craig, previously] > I think just the opposite. > I think the "conceptual model we come up with" is greater than our Reality. > For instance, the tetnus germ is no part of my experience. I have never > perceived it nor have I ever known that > I was or will be affected by it. It might as well be a theoretical entity. > Yet I get my tetnus shot--not to do so > would be "potentially devastating." [Marsha] > Probably this represents a good bit of precautionary, static projection, but > would you want to conceive of all such >_probabilities_ of 'devastating > potentiality' as the Ultimate Truth? I don't distinguish between the truth & the Ultimate Truth, so it would be better if I just clarified my previous post. I take Reality to be the sum of everything that happens any where at any time. This cannot be captured by any conceptual model and so there will always be gaps & surprises (happy or devastating). Within our conceptual model, we say such things as "ants have 6 legs"--even though we have experience of only a minute proportion of the number of ants that have ever existed. In that sense our conceptual model is an ambitious generalization from our experience. But if we relied only on our unconceptualized experience, we would be risking "potentially devastating implications". Pirsig makes this same point in the quote that shows up frequently on MD that one needs both DQ & sq. Craig 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
