[David] ... My point is that patterns have to exist in experience before you then go on to conceptualise them...
[DMB] No, David, that's wrong. Patterns do NOT exist in experience before you conceptualize them. Patterns ARE conceptualizations and those concepts are derived from DQ, which is pre-conceputal or unpatterned experience. [Arlo] Right, DMB, and I feel like this is ground we keep going over. David's statement can easily be seen as "objects have to exist before the subject goes on to conceptualize them". Its using "MOQ terminology" but it really shows a complete 'miss' of the MOQ's central premise. You can go back to ZMM for this simply and elegantly stated: "The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!" (ZMM) In LILA, Pirsig expands up this: By this [James] meant that subjects and objects are not the starting points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as "the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories." In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot be called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this distinction. ... What the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James' pragmatism and his radical empiricism is the idea that the primal reality from which subjects and objects spring is value. 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
