Hi DM If you can't follow Dmb's advice I'll suggest that you take a look at my book "Money and the Art of Losing Control" where the the picture of preconceptual experiences comes in Color!
Jan-Anders > 5 okt 2013 kl. 00:20 skrev david buchanan <[email protected]>: > > > David Morey said to dmb: > ...great but I say there is a step missing between flux and reflective > thought, this 'material' in experience must have some form or pattern so that > we start to experience qualities and not just flux, qualities implies > pattern, .... continually changing flux or continually changing patterns, I > assume we do not just experience white noise and then add concepts to it to > create experience,.... > > > dmb says: > You think pure experience is like "white noise"? Where did you get that idea? > > This way of imagining the situation is at quite odd and I'd be very surprised > if there were any reasons to believe it or any evidence to support it. > > I'll try to explain one very important point that might help clarify the > situation. Please think carefully before you respond. > > > The flux of experience is said to be undifferentiated or unpatterned or > undivided. The impression that pure experience is like "white noise" is an > impression you got from language like that, I suppose. But that's not what > the terms mean at all. Concepts are differentiations, the differentiations of > consciousness. We use concepts to divide the continuously flowing experience. > The dynamic flow of perceptions is chopped into static patterns. > > To say that the flux of experience is undifferentiated is to say it is > unconceputalized. > > To say that the flux of experience is unpatterned is to say that it is prior > to concepts. > > To say that the flux of experience is preintellectual is to say it is not yet > divided into concepts. > > These are just various ways of saying the same thing. All those terms tell > you that pure experience is not static, not patterned, not conceptual. But > this has nothing to do with white noise. DQ is not a big blank. The immediate > flux of reality is overflowing with feelings and sensations, what Northrop > calls an esthetic continuum or Pirsig calls the continuing stimulus that > causes us to created the world. It'll prompt you to jump off the hot stove > even before you can conceptualize it. We act in response all the time and > then think about it later. > > Yea, get that white noise out of your head. It has nothing to do with > anything Pirsig or James or I ever said. > > That, by the way, is why your proposal for "pre-conceptual patterns" is a > contradiction in terms. Pre-conceptual MEANS there are no concepts. Your > phrase means "unpatterned patterns" or "preconceptual concepts". > > Please, you have to realize that Pirsig and James use these kinds of terms, > not scientists. You are simply misusing the MOQ's terms and in a > conspicuously bad way. Like I said, it makes you look quite foolish to talk > in such contradictory terms. It's not just slightly incorrect, you > understand. It's super, duper wrong and embarrassing. > > > > 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
