Hi DMB (Horse apologies for the over posting but catching up with a back log
and I have a low overall average and it has gone midnight in the UK)
That's great I am glad you have backed down from the terrible position you
have been taking recently.
My point is that patterns have to exist in experience before you then go on
to conceptualise them,
which sure, is an enhanced form of experience, but it is all experience
isn't it. And clearly patterns
exist in nature prior to human experience, helping evolution along, long
before we come along to
put them into concepts. But we only come to this intellectually to project
them back into nature,
but nature does the evolving via SQ patterns and DQ prior to our 'discovery'
of this.
Many thanks
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: david buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not
do that say some of us
D Morey said:
... Some people round here seem to have got very confused about SQ, they
seem to think that SQ is not experienced, that SQ is about objects and
therefore can't be part of experience... When you really get the MOQ you
see that SQ is part of experience and you do not have to exclude it from
experience and try to turn experience back into boring old SOM subjectivity.
Once we see the SQ and DQ of primary experience we can recognise and make
sense of the patterns that make sense of a world that exists over and above
what we experience,... The Dan/DMB error about SQ returns the MOQ to
Kantian idealism, accepts the SOM division that Kant created between
experience and the things-themselves and then thinks that if there are
patterns these have to belong to things-in-themselves and therefore cannot
be experienced, so accepting the SOM division and destroying the way the MOQ
puts DQ and SQ back together again, where MOQ recognises patterns as part of
experience.
dmb says:
I think you're arguing against a position that nobody holds. You're arguing
against a misconception but you're said nothing at all about the actual
distinction in question. Pirsig and James are making a distinction between
concepts and pure experience (or pre-conceptual experience) - but you
mistakenly take this as a claim that concepts are not experienced or that
static patterns cannot be experienced. Not only did I never say such a
thing, I think that claim is absurd. To distinguish concepts from reality is
to distinguish intellect from Quality , is to distinguish static quality
from the undivided empirical flux of reality, is to distinguish primary,
unsorted, as yet unconceptualized experience from secondary, sorted,
conceptualized experience. In the MOQ there is nothing outside of experience
and everything within experience is real in some sense. There no substance
behind experience. There are no Kantian things-in-themselves beyond
experience. There are no Platonic realit
ies beyond appearances. And that's the big difference between Pirsig MOST
philosophers. Radical Empiricism rules out all such metaphysical fictions,
all such trans-experiential entities, "trans-experiential" simply means
"outside of experience".)
I'd be quite surprised if this explanation had any positive effect on you
whatsoever, David. I like surprises.
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
