Hello everyone On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb, > > I am saying if Dynamic Quality is undifferentiated, it cannot be about > perceptions (smells, sounds, tastes, visions, and feelings) which are > differentiated, which require a spacial-temporal framework; and which are > dependent on human sense apparatus? Neither you nor the paper that you were > unable to explain, addressed this issues. >
Dan: Hey Marsha, As I read it, your question is explained right here in the snippet Dave provided: "For our ability to describe or report a wide-range of tastes and smells lags far behind our capacity to actually have an experience of a nearly infinite spectrum of tastes and smells. In other words, the deliverances of our senses continually run ahead of both our descriptive vocabularies as well as our conceptual abilities." Dan comments: Dynamic Quality is the cutting edge of experience. Describing experience always lags behind experience itself. "To actually ... experience" or direct experience (if you will) is seen as synonymous with Dynamic Quality in the MOQ. What we define from the infinity of actual (direct) experience is finite static quality. That includes the spacial-temporal framework and all human sense apparatus. These are all defined and come after the actual direct experience running ahead of all this. Note he says 'the deliverances of our senses' and not our senses. This deliverance of the senses is experience. Smells, sounds, tastes, visions, and feelings all come later. 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
