ROGER REMINDS THAT REALITY IS COMPOSED OF NOT THINGS, BUT OF QUALITY EVENTS. THE PRECONCEPTUAL EDGE BECOMES THE POST CONCEPTUAL WAKE Hey Platt and Squadies! My original quotes are >'d and labeled as ROGER, and my new replies are labeled as ROG (my alter ego? Hell last month I didn't exist at all, now there are two of me!!!). >ROGER: >1)DQ is everyday Direct Experience. By Direct Experience we >mean presubject and preobject and preconceptual PLATT So far, so good. >ROGER >and by definition it is not "human experience" (it is presubject) PLATT Not human experience? How can that be? What about the baby, the brujo, the heart attack victim, the song hearer, the hot stove sitter? Did they not all directly experience DQ? Do you mean "it is not an EXCLUSIVELY human experience?" ROG: No. I am again guilty of the linguistic traps that David accused me of yesterday. I am trying to conceptually explain the preconceptual. And screwing everything up in the process. Rich's post highlighted some of the difficulties here as well. What I mean is that once DQ becomes definable subjective experience it is degraded? into sq. One is PRE and the other is POST. Does this make sense? Remember, Quality is more a thing than an event. DQ is the edge and sq the wake. >ROGER: >Sq is objectified and subjectified patterns. These are conceptual >models that are our best representation of preconceptual experience. PLATT: So now you posit humans having �preconceptual experiences" and making �representations� of them. Yet, you state that preconceptual DQ is not a "human experience.� Contradiction? What am I missing? Add "not an exclusively human experience" and leave out �by definition� and I'm OK with your position. But your categorical "not human� throws me. Even pure mysticism, about which very little can be said, permits one to say it's a human experience. ROG: Again I am toggling back and forth between DQ and sq, preconceptual and post conceptual. DQ cannot be conceived at all, let alone conceived as human. But that experience can later be conceived into a model or shadow of the original experience. That conceptual experience can clearly be referenced and categorized as human or atom experience. (You know , I think I am starting to sound like Dan and his Complementary nature of reality...?) My eloquence is even worse than usual today, so let me shut up and quote Zen Empiricist Nishida (who got 75% of the way to the MOQ 50 years before Pirsig): KITARO NISHIDA: "It is not that there is experience because there is an individual, but that there is an individual because there is experience." and, "There is no individual person prior to pure experience....pure experience includes thinking........thinking is the process by which a great system of consciousness develops and actualizes itself." Am I making any sense yet? How about my good man Nishida? Rog PS -- The last quote was a real cut and paste, but I think I was true to his message. PPS -- Both Nishida and I could be wrong MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
