Hi all
More on Unger here if anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Unger#External_links
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morey
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience of both the actual and the possible
Hi all
Maybe Unger on the actual, the possible and the hope of
political progress will help you see the political import
of avoiding presentism, and its problematic ontology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01rRJeCwKI&feature=youtu.be&a
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Glover
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience of both the actual and the possible
Hello everyone
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:46 PM, David Morey <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi MOQers
So we experience SQ and DQ.
Dan:
No we do not, not in the MOQ. I've been over this a thousand times
with David Harding and have no desire to continue here.
Do we experience objects?
I'd say yes in the form of various SQ patterns at different levels.
But do we not also experience a dynamic aspect to objects in
as far as they are partaking in a process? Where objects are
realising their dynamic possibilities? Is it not possibility
that we experience and that underlies what is dynamic
experience?
Do we experience subjects and subjective feelings?
I'd day yes, these may not be objects but they can
be patterned and hence SQ. and they can be experienced
as very open, full of possibility, whether realised or negated
possibility and hence experienced as dynamic.
The sea of possibility is vast compared the finite reality of
DQ and SQ that is realised. The sea of possibility that surrounds
the DQ and SQ that is realised in the actual, is what we mean
when we refer to the undefinable mystic quality of DQ.
Although you might also wonder about how mathematics explores
a great deal of definable SQ that is possible but never realised as
actual, at least not materially actual, only actual as ideas and
imagination.
MOQ forms a better conceptual grid for understanding experience
than SOM. No more no less. But qualities are experienced that are
both actual and possible, experience reaches beyond the actual into
the possible. This is the really radical version of an empiricism of
experience.
Agree/disagree?
Dan:
I think you are using the term 'experience' in a number of ways that
do not do justice to the MOQ. If we remember that experience and
Dynamic Quality become synonymous within the MOQ, then it is easy to
see we do not experience static qualtiy. Static quality is a memory of
experience. Static quality emerges from experience. We do not
experience static quality, however. That only leads to giganitic
misunderstandings which many contrtibutors here are currently
suffering from.
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
