David M said to dmb: You are very confused. The possible is the mother of all that is actual. Experience is entirely rich in the possible and the actual. You see an actual lion coming your way, the experience/meaning of lion includes the possibility of it eating you, without this real possibility you might forget to avoid hanging around too long. You see some nice dinner, what would dinner be without the possibility of eating it, is this possibility actual before you eat the dinner? No it is a real possibility that has yet to become actual but is utterly present in your experience of having a dinner before you. ...The possible is and so is real yet may never become actual. ...you wrongly start associating the possible with some realm disconnected from experience. This is where you are going wrong and getting confused. The distinction possible/actual simply applies to experience just like DQ/SQ. EG mathematicians can be said to explore what is possible, and this has a dynamic creative and static differentiating aspect. Mathematicians and other forms of knowledge help us to map both what is actual and what is possible and how these two aspects of experience-reality relate. And experience=reality, it's all real, actual experience and possible experience. There is some connection here to the inner/outer distinction where we can share experiences of actualised reality where as our explorations of what is possible is experience internally and is a rich source of DQ, innovation, discovery. ...How do we build, what do we build with, if not possibilities? no possibilities no DQ I'm afraid. Surely DQ is real DMB?
dmb says: If I am confused it's only because you are confusing me. I can see that you're trying to equate DQ with "the possible" but it doesn't work. I think the inner/outer distinction and the mathematics example both betray the fact that you're working within the assumptions of SOM here. But the thing that really reveals "the possible" as a bunch of nonsense is your assertion that "the possible" is known in experience. If you imagine the possibility that the lion might try to have you for lunch, you have not experienced that possibility. You have experienced your imagination, your fear, your foresight but you have not had the experience of being eaten. To say, as you have above, that this means that "the possible" is part of experience is a rather transparent rhetorical slight of hand. The same fallacy is used in your math example too, where the predictive equations are actual and part of experience even if they are different from the actual experiments and actual applications. Basically, I think a person has to torture logic and the english language in order to make a case that "the possible" is a real thing that we can know in experience. The possible is what may or may not happen. It refers to what we do not yet know, what could be the case. That's why it is contrasted with "the actual" and makes no sense to say that it is real. And that is why we can't equate "the possibilty" with DQ, because "the possible" is not part of experience. It only refers to what could be and if it is only possible rather than actual then it might also never be. The possible does not exist because it either becomes actual or it doesn't. So if it is known in experience, then we can't rightly call it the possible any more. And if it never becomes actual then it is also outside of experience. As you can see, we also disagree about who is confused here. dmb _________________________________________________________________ The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
