DMB said: know where you got the idea that "undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise or a lack of content but that is wrong and that's what has you so confused.
DM: Not my view, just a leading question I asked at one point to make explicit the potential implications of too much emphasis on the word undifferentiated. DMB said: in fact you already lost this debate a long time ago DM: well who believes that? You, well that's a surprising conclusion isn't it? I don't think you have even taken up my arguments let alone answered them, but no problem, I have no interest in some sort of contest, is that what you think this is? Wrong, I am only interested in challenging what I see as poor definitions not consistently applied and with unrealised implications. If you could overcome my concerns adequately we could move closer to the truth or a better thought out MOQ and we would all be winners, us British are jolly good sports you know, team spirit and all that old chap! Nothing personal in this at all for me, but sorry when I think you are writing rubbish or using terrible arguments I feel it is my civic duty to point this out. Sorry if I can't read all your quotes and find answers to all the problems I am raising as you claim you do, but it seems rude and lazy to expect me to do that when you claim complete understanding and satisfaction with the existing definitions, should you not make an effort to understand what my issues are and explain to me what you think are the best way to resolve them. Your approach seems to be to go la la la, none of these problems make any sense to me if only DM would see everything my way he would have no problems, well I try to follow what you write, but when I query your inconsistencies or inadequate mapping of experience you seem to be incapable of understanding, I find it easy enough to follow you, and even easier to point out exactly why I do not agree with what you are saying, who looks more lazy when you endlessly attribute views to me that are completely false, why do you do that, maybe my UK English is very different to your US version, I do very much make use of test assertions and questions to get at the core of an argument, these test assertions and questions usually try to get at what your views are or what the logical implications are, perhaps you confuse these with my views, in the UK and in the law this is very common practice, and it is logically and stylistically fairly obvious where I am doing this if you are used to this sort of thing, perhaps you are not? My apologies for any confusion, shall I mark such things with a * would that help? I can't see any benefit in me setting out how I understand what James, Pirsig, Northrop are saying because I am arguing that what they appear to be saying in certain specific ways is wrong or confusing, it seems to me that the people who disagree with me should be able to show me why I am wrong or how I can resolve my concerns by changing my approach and why I should do this, but other than Horse very little adequate answers have been offered in my opinion. If people do not make an effort to understand my view and why it reveals problems in the MOQ they are never going to be able to resolve my problems by adequate explanation that I can accept or by recognising that I have s point. I am open to persuasion, ask yourself why you are failing instead of keep looking for my faults. I think I made some progress with Horse earlier and suggested dropping using pre-conceptual for percepts if instead we recognise them as pre-cultural, pre-language SQ, do you agree with this? Half the time you seemed to want to see percepts as undifferentiated DQ, do you and Horse disagree about percepts perhaps? DMB: When you abandon your misinterpretation of "undifferentiated" and realize that it simply means "unconceptualized" - as I've pointed out about ten different times - your objections will immediately evaporate. DM: take the taste of an apple and a banana, drop the names and the concepts, does this make the tastes undifferentiated because undifferentiated means the same as unconceptualised? But do you then claim that they still taste different from each other but because unconceptualised percepts are DQ these two different tastes exist in an undifferentiated state? I call that horribly problematic, either accept taste as a form of DQ or just say that in DQ there is difference of qualia or percepts but it is undifferentiated in terms of subjects and objects, I have been waiting for an explanation like this but I heard nothing until Horse suggested percepts are patterned and are therfore SQ but I assume pre-cultural SQ. david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >dmb says to David Morey: > >You refuse to deal with the evidence honestly and in fact you barely even >acknowledge the evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that >"undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise or a lack of >content but that is wrong and that's what has you so confused. If you'd LOOK >AT THE EVIDENCE you'd see that nobody says that. I have already proved that >fact several times and in fact you already lost this debate a long time ago. >And it's your own damn fault because I've supplied all the answers you'd need >to see how it all hangs together. But you repeatedly refuse to read it, think >about it or discuss it. You rudely demand answers and then ignore them for >vague and insulting reasons. The quotes I've supplied could clarify the >concept you're misinterpreting but you never have anything to say about them. >As I see it, these are instances of willful ignorance and dishonest evasion, >which is outrageous and quite worthy of contempt. This willful ignorance is so >dishon e > st and lazy that it's not just a mistake and not just incorrect but also > morally objectionable. ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE or are you > going to continue to evade it and otherwise respond dishonestly? > >Here's a question to prompt a new, more honest direction. According to the >EVIDENCE as you understand it, what do James and Pirsig and Northrop mean by >terms like pure experience, pre-intellectual experience or the >undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? What do THEY mean when they use such >terms? And what is it about their meaning that leads you to think that DQ >includes sq? I promise that you will find no evidence for your assertion and >lots of evidence against it. How else can a dispute about the MOQ be settled >except to look at what the philosophers actually say about it? > > >David Morey said to DMB: >...I object to this muddle where you think conceptual and differentiated and >patterned all mean the same, well why not stick to one term, I am perfectly >happy with a talk about the undifferentiated flux and fundamental wholeness of >DQ,... > > >dmb says: >Do you know WHY I think conceptualized and differentiated and patterned all >mean the same thing? Because that is what THE EVIDENCE SHOWS US! That is how >Pirsig, James and Northrop use the terms we're supposedly talking about. >Like I said, "All I can do is show you the quotes that explain the terms >you've misunderstood. But you refuse to deal with them honestly and in fact >you barely even acknowledge the evidence." Instead of looking at the evidence, >you are totally misusing these terms and it's quite clear that you do not >understand what mean. > >For the tenth time, to construe DQ as patterned is a contradiction in terms, >like saying squares should be understand as round. It's just contradictory >nonsense. There is no such thing in the MOQ. > > >David Morey said to DMB: >...if DQ is full of content, is all about variable response then what is this >content,... due to your association of SQ with concepts you seem to be unable >to admit all this content.... you seem to agree that it exists but can't name >it, ... I still think your use of terms is very questionable, collapsing >different words into one meaning, ... > > >dmb says: > >No, David. My use of the terms is based on the textual evidence. Your use of >the terms contradicts logic, language and the evidence. You will never escape >from this big bag of nonsense until you deal with the text were are supposedly >discussing (but which you are ignoring). > > >David Morey said to DMB: > ....I largely agree with what you say about SQ and DQ although you like to > pretend I don't and would like to have me cast out of your fiefdom, ... > > >dmb says: >How can you agree with something that you don't understand? How can you >identify a problem with an idea that you don't understand. That's logically >impossible. I know what I mean to say and I know that you have shown zero >comprehension of the ideas I'm trying to communicate. Hell, you can't even >stop using contradictory phrases. You're talking about wet dryness, round >squares, and static dynamism and preconceptual concepts. This kind of talk is >embarrassing drivel. It's stupid, David, and every time you say something like >that only shows how lost and confused you are. > >AGAIN. > >When you abandon your misinterpretation of "undifferentiated" and realize that >it simply means "unconceptualized" - as I've pointed out about ten different >times - your objections will immediately evaporate. The reason the MOQ doesn't >hold together FOR YOU is that YOU have misunderstood the key terms; static and >Dynamic. As a result, your questions don't even make sense. They are >predicated on a profound lack of comprehension. All I can do is explain why >they make no sense. All I can do is show you the quotes that explain the terms >you've misunderstood. > >You refuse to deal with the evidence honestly and in fact you barely even >acknowledge the evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that >"undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise but that is wrong >and that's what has you so confused. If you'd LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE you'd see >that nobody says that. I have already proved that fact several times. You're >just too clueless to realize that you lost this debate a long time ago. And >it's your own damn fault. I've supplied all the answers you'd need to see how >it all hangs together but you refuse to read it, think about it or discuss it. > You rudely demand answers and then ignore them for vague and insulting >reasons. The quotes I've supplied could clarify the concept you're >misinterpreting but you don't have anything to say about them. As I see it, >that is an instance of willful ignorance and a dishonest evasion, which is >outrageous and quite worthy of contempt. ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THE >EVIDENCE or are yo u > going to continue to evade it and otherwise respond dishonestly? > >Here's a question to prompt a new, more honest direction. According to the >evidence as you understand it, what do James and Pirsig and Northrop mean by >terms like pure experience, pre-intellectual experience or the >undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? What do THEY mean when they use such >terms? > >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
