Hello everyone On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: >> [Krimel] >> Well no. What are you saying. I said nothing about priority or any >> such thing in what I wrote. > > Dan: > Yes you did. Using the term 'experience' in that manner indicates there are > patterns waiting to be experienced. But according to the MOQ, experience is > primary while patterns are secondary. They arise from experience. I > explained this in a prior email to you but reading your reply it seemed > pretty obvious I was wasting my time. > > [Krimel] > The statement "Biological patterns are experienced irrationally. They are > unnamed" contains no reference to temporal order. If I left some issue you > raised previously unanswered I apologize. Refresh my memory; I will try to > be more diligent and more clear in my response. > >> [Krimel] >> Any sort of patterning is experienced irrationally but only becomes >> objectionable in the MoQ sense when named. I thought that was clear in >> what I said. It seems that you are making a big deal out of the naming >> problem which is part of what I have been trying to address here of >> late. > > Dan: > Well, what you seem to be addressing has little to do with the MOQ, so far > as I can see. You seem to be equating irrationality with Dynamic Quality > (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). This "naming problem" > doesn't exist if we adhere to the tenets of the MOQ. It appears to me that > you have no inclination to do so, however, which is a bit strange > considering this is a forum dedicated to it. > > [Krimel] > All I said was that the irrational, as our usual mode of being, is primary, > preintellectual and undefinable. Is the problem that is doesn't match your > preconception of DQ and thus must have no bearing on the subject?
Dan: I have no preconception of Dynamic Quality. I think that is the point. As I said, it seemed as if you were equating irrationality with Dynamic Quality. Now my hunch is confirmed. Thank you. I don't think that is an altogether good move but perhaps you have other insights to offer that might alleviate my concerns. I am open to discussing them if you are. How is irrationality the same as pre-intellectual awareness? Isn't irrationality cognition without rationality? Are you using the term as more of an intuitive way of thinking? [Krimel] > Or is it > that I have characterized experience in an unorthodox way? Dan: No, not really. I appreciate the sharing of ideas here. [Krimel] > Have you defined > DQ so rigidly that you are certain what is and what is not the proper way > to speak of it? Dan: I feel I have been consistent over the years with not defining Dynamic Quality in any way. We can say what it is not, but as soon as we say what it is, we have effectively encapsulated it into static patterns. [Krimel] > The MoQ seems shot through with language problems if the reading and writing > of every sentence requires some specialized translation and negation of > impure thoughts and words. It also seems strange that someone on a forum > that espouses to be open to discussion of Pirsig's work; a place that Pirsig > has invited people to join in; where Pirsig himself says in the introduction > to your book, "But if dissenters didn't exist we would have to invent them > because no set of philosophic ideas is worth much until it is tested by > dialectical opposition." In such a place as this you feel comfortable saying > that any problem will cease to exist, " exist if we adhere to the tenets of > the MOQ." It sounds like you oppose testing "by dialectical opposition." > Hmm, now that you mention it, that "is a bit strange." It is also strange > that you feel justified in judging ideas on the basis of your assumptions of > what someone else's inclinations are rather than what was said, especially > when it was said specifically about the MoQ. Dan: Yes perhaps I judged your words more by our discussions in the past than their merits today. If so, I apologize. I think most of us here have always welcomed the dissenting voices, at least I have. But it also seems as if most if not all of those dissenters end up with axes of their own to grind which have nothing to do with the MOQ. So can you really blame me for being just a tad leery? [Krimel] > But perhaps I have misunderstood you as well. Dan: Perhaps. 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
