DMB Concepts can agree to the pre-conceptual patterns/qualities we find in experience, how can concepts agree to pure flux in experience, although maybe point or indicate iS the starting place of concepts rather than agreement. The concept horizon draws a line to mark out the sky from the ground, clarifying and naming and identifying a pre-conceptual pattern in our experience of reality. If the concept blue does not pick out a pre-conceptual regularity/pattern of blueness, why is everything not blue and why is there red? And next let us discuss how to suck eggs if you need to dude. You do make me laugh!
DM david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >David Morey said to dmb: >...You say the concept agrees with experience, well yes, but it cannot agree >to a flux, so what do we say? We can say it agrees with the dynamic patterns >of our experience, placing patterns in DQ rather than in SQ. > > > >dmb says: >You want to rearrange the MOQ into the shape of SOM because "the concept >agrees with experience," you say, "but it cannot agree to a flux". I think >this is what it all boils down to. > >Firstly, we are talking about DQ as an experiential flux, so saying "the >concept agrees with experience" is exactly the same as saying "the concept >agrees with the flux". You can't rightly accept one and deny the other. > >That's the idea, though. Reality (DQ) is an experiential flux, a stream of >experience, a flow of perceptions, an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, >the endless landscape of awareness, pure experience, immediate experience, >preconceptual experience, unpatterned Quality, the pre-intellectual cutting >edge of experience. All these terms mean the same thing and THAT is whats is >being conceptualized. This is the source and substance of all static patterns. >Every last bit of it. > >This is what all those quotes said, David. Your question was answered by the >evidence before you even asked it. As I've tried to explain, your objections >to this "flux" don't seem at all legitimate because you're demanding, >basically, that we convert DQ into the pre-existing objective reality of SOM. >It's okay to raise objections, ask questions or otherwise probe the meaning of >this experiential flux - but converting it into its enemy is an outrageously >bad idea. That is nothing less that a rejection of the MOQ, and for no good >reason! > > >"Dynamic Quality is the term given by Pirsig to the CONTINUALLY CHANGING FLUX >of immediate reality while static quality refers to any concept abstracted >from this flux." (McWatt) > >Again, "....static quality refers to any concept abstracted from this flux." >(McWatt) > > >Paul Williams, a Buddhist scholar quoted by McWatt, says the same thing. > >"...imagine all things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is >experiencing, as just a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is >something 'out there'." > >AND > >"...there is only an EVER-CHANGING FLOW of perceptions ...we construct these >perceptions into enduring subjects and objects confronting each other." > > >Pirsig, in chapter 29 of Lila, says the same thing that Williams just said. > >"Subjects and objects are ..concepts derived from something [James] described >as 'THE IMMEDIATE FLUX OF LIFE " >AND > "In this basic FLUX OF EXPERIENCE, the distinctions of reflective thought,.. > have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them." (Pirsig in Lila) > >AND > >"There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the >former are static and discontinuous while the latter is DYNAMIC AND FLOWING." >(Pirsig in Lila) > > > > > > > >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
