Hi Horse I just think we experience percepts as patterned, there is some form to them, prior to full blown conceptualisation, if that makes them SQ that is fine by me, Pirsig certainly refers to patterned here though:
“If the baby ignores this force of Dynamic Quality [the flux of experience] it can be speculated that he will become mentally retarded, but if he is normally attentive to Dynamic Quality he will soon begin to notice differences and then correlations between the differences and then repetitive patterns of the correlations." See the problem? Do babies use concepts to notice any differences or only to see correlations, if either are babies busy creating SQ using concepts prior to culture and language? Do not experiences press themselves on us without concepts, so that we cannot reconceive the hotness of hot experiences? When we experience hotness do we not differentiate it out, is not the stove hot in the context of the not-stove experiences being not hot? See my problem, maybe seeing percepts as patterned is not the answer, but if not what is motivating us to apply concepts to primary experience, if it is all flux why ever make the move to SQ and are not concepts not a late move in the move from DQ to SQ rather than being the bridge to make that move, I see patterns in experience as leading to concepts not the other way round, sure patterns are clarified, drawn out, defined, etc by concepts but to me patterns in experience are what we build language, culture, concepts on, we can point to the moon prior to conceiving it as the moon, the pointing comes first, we point at patterns see Raymond Tallis's book Michaelangelo's Finger. David 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
