[Arlo] Its frustrating, as I'm sure you know, to see this same mistake come up over and over.
DM Well you need to stop having this delusion as you clearly have no idea what I am saying, try going back and reading more carefully. Ontologically, pragmatically, assuming and acting AS IF patterns precede experience is a high-quality IDEA. But epistemologically we are aware that they DO NOT. DM Yes the realist idea is about what happens to patterns when we are not experiencing them, thus is a postulated idea and a good one, better than the witchcraft eh, but in experience prior to conceptualisation of patterns we have pre-conceptual patterns, it is how babies recognise mothers and dogs food, unless you think they are using concepts to recognise patterns? Instead DM just keeps beating the drums of objectivism/realism, DM My introduction to non-dualism 30 years ago was Heidegger, I like Pirsig because he is so simple, not much chance I am confused here, you do not seem to understand how subject-object metaphysics can be rejected but realism retaindd as per Paul's 2nd perspective, it is very simple stuff really, you may need to broaden your reading in philosophy I suggest. as if replacing the word 'objects' with 'patterns' is all that's required, and somewhat funny accusations of 'witchcraft' for those who deny his oxymoronic term 'pre-conceptual patterns' (funny, to me, because I have a personal fondness for witchy women). DM well in philosophy we use definitions that distinguish what words mean, I like Siouxsie Sioux too, I met her when she was 14, but there is no oxymoron in pre-conceptual patterns, experiencing shapes and colours, identifying food is all stuff human experienced before language, culture and concepts.came along. Anyway, that does it for me today. DM good because your contribution is not very helpful, can you please stop suggesting I am saying things I am not, read my stuff more carefully, and can anyone here please tell me what the problem is with pre-conceptual patterns, not a scientist on the planet would find that in any way odd or an oxymoron, can't think of any philosophers really who would question it, only MOQ seems to have lost such patterns somewhere between DQ and SQ, happy to place them in DQ, so that DQ is full of pattern and potential pattern, how else does conceptual SQ find anything in experience to concepts of something or about something, sure you start naming these patterns you have concepts, but where are the patterned qualities or experiences you are using concepts about? You and DMB cannot answer this, I am expecting a back down any moment as usual, if course pre-conceptual patterns are part of what we call DQ, DMB only ever had a real issue with keeping pre-conceptual qualities out of SQ, I can accept that, but it changes some of the too pure comments about DQ, the aesthetic continuum if full of difference isn't it, full of all our experiences of shapes, sounds, smells, colours, feels, etc, all with their felt values and all patterns, this leaves SQ entirely as the realm of concepts and culture, that seems good to me, just because the castle DMB and friends have built has a few missing bricks in it there is no need to have a hissy fit, the MOQ without preconceptual patterns in experience (not pre-experience strawman fool or phony) is flawed and incomplete, get used to it, or prove to me I am wrong, so far you guys have offered nothing. 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
