Just to clarify, data has to be patterned, otherwise it is not data, it carries no information, if there is no pattern it is not data it is white noise. Flux may contain patterns and noise and change, it is change, but waves are patterns, they beat, you can measure them. Something has to be patterned in our experience if we are going to find any kind of line or groove to divide into concepts, so patterns are pre-conceptual, sure there are an infinite number of patterns to identify and conceptualise, a subset of which we may want to refer to as objects like tables and chairs. But DQ and SQ precedes all such conceptualisation, the sort of conceptualisation that produced SOM and now apparently DMBs strange idealist version if MOQ. I just don't get the idea that qualities need concepts, experience must precede concepts, experience is full of DQ and SQ, if only we could stick to that, when did concepts take over the MOQ and turn it into idealism? Tragic!
I really do give up. David M david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >DMB: asked David Morey: > >Why does the perceptual flux have to be patterned or white noise? > > > > >David Morey replied: > >James and me refer to data, you talk about perceptual flux for no relevant >reason, you must be able to read, so I can only conclude you are either a >clown or some kind of performance artist, ha ha ha, you are very funny! > > > >dmb says: > >Did you really just say, "me refer to data"? Are you really going to keep on >producing those run-on sentences? > >Contrary to your conclusion, I talked about the "perceptual flux" because >that's what I read in the James quote that you provided. Nothing could be more >relevant or obvious, you incredible hack. > >"The great difference between percepts and concepts is that percepts are >continuous and concepts are discrete. Not discrete in their being, for >conception as an act is part of the FLUX of feeling, but discrete from each >other in their several meanings. Each concept means just what it singly means, >and nothing else; and if the conceiver does not know whether he means this or >means that, it shows that his concept is imperfectly formed. The perceptual >flux [ PERCEPTUAL FLUX ! ] as such, on the contrary, means nothing, and is but >what it immediately is. No matter how small a tract of it be taken, it [ >PERCEPTUAL FLUX ! ] is always a much-at-once, and contains innumerable aspects >and characters which conception can pick out, isolate, and thereafter always >intend. It [ PERCEPTUAL FLUX ! ] shows duration, intensity, complexity or >simplicity, interestingness, excitingness, pleasantness or their opposites. >Data from all our senses enter into it [ PERCEPTUAL FLUX ! ], merged in a gene r > al extensiveness of which each occupies a big or little share ." > > >You're totally clueless about your evidence and yet you're calling me names? >Outrageous. > > > > > > >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
