David M said to DMB:
... Now seems to me you want to say look at experience right and you have to
acknowledge the DQ. Great I agree with that but I want to look at all the
levels of SQ and how they have evolved, changed, become and be-gone. To me the
play of SQ reflects DQ, so that all SQ is subject to change, overcoming,
renewing and original emergence. To me the plurality and openness of the cosmos
as a whole reflects the plurality and openness that we find in experience.
There is a cosmos as a whole that transcends our individual experience,
sometimes you sound like experience is limited to a single self, whereas it
clearly opens out onto a world and a plurality of others. This is how the MOQ
of experience relates to the wider whole of the cosmos in process.
dmb says:
Experience is limited to the single self? No, Dave, that's just solipsism.
Solipsism is a position that's predicated on the subjective self, which the MOQ
rejects. I'm not arguing against openness or plurality either. The problem that
I've been criticizing is still unaddressed, David. Is there some reason you
will not address the actual point, which I've repeated several times now? The
same criticism still stands, this time I'd press it against this particular
assertion: "There is a cosmos as a whole that transcends our individual
experience."
Like I said, it a mistake to impose physicalism upon "static patterns," as if
that were just another name for the pre-existing and external objects. You're
using the MOQ's jargon (static and dynamic) but still conceptualizing
everything in terms of SOM. Static patterns are conceptual, not material.
...The MOQ does not reject "subjects" and "objects" so long as they are taken
as concepts and not mistaken for primary realities. ... I still think it's a
mistake to be talking about "physical states that transcend our experience".
The MOQ says that "physical states" are concepts derived from experience. They
do not transcend experience but grow out of it and refer back to it.
...As I see it, I'd said last time, you are persisting in an error that I
already tried to correct two or three times [now it has been three or four
times] . Instead of addressing the criticism, in fact, you have basically
repeated the same error yet again. I had complained that it, "only undermines
the MOQ's central distinction" The problem I'm complaining about is a
"materialistic misinterpretation of the static/Dynamic split, wherein
metaphysical terms are inappropriately used to describe physical states."
Pirsig says that Dynamic Quality is the cutting of experience but you're using
"dynamic" to describe knowable, definable, physical processes. Do you see what
I'm complaining about here? It's not something you've addressed, as far as I
can tell. Instead, the error is simply being repeated in various ways.
It's really not cool that I have to repeat myself over and over again. If you
can't address this criticism, please don't bother replying at all because that
would just be a silly waste of time.
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
