David M to Andre:
Not only is the pre-conceptual 'very little' it also does not exist, bit
odd, bit silly,...
Andre:
Okay David. Nitpicking an expression of speech. By 'very little' in the
context I used it I mean 'none'.
DM:
'...also there is something 'aforementioned' that 'generates' all
There had been other comparable times, Phaedrus supposed. The day the first
protozoans decided to get together to form a metazoan society. Or the day the
first freak fish, or whatever-it-was, decided to leave the water. Or, within
historical times, the day Socrates died to establish the
Hi David B and All;
The negative side of evolution (ex voluntas) is nothing, in chaos. DQ/SQ!
I experience the indefinable! DQ is indefinable and not Chaos. DQ is
indefinably creative. I experience indefinable creation, free will. I guess
sometimes I act in error and am held accountable.
Joe
David M to Andre:
So until there is culture and language there is no experience?
Andre:
No, that's not what I'm saying. There is experience first after which we
try and find ways of describing this value. It is after the experience
we generate notions of 'banana taste', green or red colours,
Hi Andre and DM
The only inherent property of DQ is the balance between amount, form and
expression. Unbalance, however, is the trigger, the motivator which starts next
step in any process. That is why just any stupid contribution is allowed in a
discussion. To find a new balance point,
Hi Andre
Glad to hear it. There is much more agreement here than my interpreters seem to
want to admit, I am against dualism and essentialism as much as anyone here,
and it would be a lot more useful if people argued with what I am saying rather
than with a heap of stuff I am not saying or
David
It appears you don't read what others write.
There are no patterns in DQ.
All patterns are SQ.
SQ is fourfold - Inorganic, Biological, Social, Intellectual.
Concepts, precepts, tastes, senses are SQ.
All THINGS are SQ.
SQ is post-Experience (post-DQ).
DMB is saying the same as Andre and
Hi Horse
Rather you are not reading me carefully enough, I accept conceptual patterns,
these are SQ we all agree. But I also say percepts are pre-conceptual and
patterned, I am perfectly happy to see percepts as SQ and all DQ as
unpatterned, but this gives us pre-conceptual and conceptual
Horse said to David Morey:
It appears you don't read what others write. There are no patterns in DQ. All
patterns are SQ. SQ is fourfold - Inorganic, Biological, Social, Intellectual.
Concepts, precepts, tastes, senses are SQ. All THINGS are SQ. SQ is
post-Experience (post-DQ). DMB is saying
Sorry, we really need to separate concepts and percepts as James says:
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
David M to Andre:
Glad to hear it. There is much more agreement here than my interpreters
seem to want to admit,...
Andre:
I am not sure what you are glad about David. Perhaps the part where I
said that 'There are many things going on at all levels about which I
have no knowledge...'.
Just like to confirm that I am disputing the way DMB is defining the key terms
of the MOQ, and claim that the way DMB is describing them fails to account for
ordinary experience and is inconsistent, simply claiming as DMB does, that
the way he describes the SQ/DQ distinction is the only and
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
James says: Data from all our senses enter into it
DM says: all data is surely patterned
DMB: Why does the perceptual flux have to be patterned or white noise?
DM replies: James and me refer to data, you talk about perceptual flux for no
relevant reason, you must be able to read, so I can
Andre: All these aforementioned will generate theories, ideas,
conceptualizations
Andre: There is very little 'pre-conceptual' stuff there because that does not
exist.
DM: Not only is the pre-conceptual 'very little' it also does not exist, bit
odd, bit silly, also there is something
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
Hi DMB
Is all data patterned? Interesting if yes, and obviously it is yes, ask a
scientist, as James seems to think that patterned data underlies concepts,
agreeing with me. What do you say? Who started the are you a 4 year old name
calling exactly?
Looked up cloud cuckoo land yet, are
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
, 322, 450).
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:23:05 +
From: david...@blueyonder.co.uk
To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!
Hi all
Of course like me Whitehead is a realist who opposes SOM and essentialism,
for me Pirsig ought to open our thinking
dmb:
In a certain sense, perception entails conception.
DM to dmb:
Yes in a certain sense I agree, but obviously in the full and normal
sense,conception is formal, abstract and based in language, so has
nothing to do with pre-conceptual percepts,
Andre:
Hugh? What strange twist of argument.
Andre:
Hugh? What strange twist of argument. Aren't 'percepts' an abstraction,
a way of conceptualizing? There is no such thing as a pre-conceptual
percept.
DM: Obviously not, we taste things like banana flavour, this is a patterned
experience prior to conception.
DM:
yet we experience
DM to Andre:
I recognise tastes, colours, etc prior to concepts,...
Andre:
No you don't! You must have learned the recognition and the distinction.
You have learned what is what. Re-read Pirsig's These are transmitted
culturally. Any taste, colour, smell (not part of your own culture) you
On 11/9/13 11:21 AM, David Morey david...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
DM: I recognise tastes, colours, etc prior to concepts, you seem to think
ideas create all of reality, obviously ideas transform our reality so as
usual there is a dishonest distortion here by you of what I say and think,
Hi Andre
So until there is culture and language there is no experience? Sounds like
nonsense to me. You and DMB are promoting idealism not a metaphysics of
qualities. Is this what Pirsig really wants? At least you and DMB should say
percepts and qualities are 100% conceptual and stop bluffing
dmb says:
Horse asked me to take another look at this thread. It was dominated by David
Morey's quest for speculative realism and more or less centered around his
objection to the notion that static patterns are concepts.
David Morey said (for example):
...the idea of using the notion of
Hi all
Of course like me Whitehead is a realist who opposes SOM and essentialism, for
me Pirsig ought to open our thinking about experience into a more complete and
consistent realist metaphysics such as the one Whitehead proposes, highly
compatible with a non SOM form of science. So DMB
Hi DMB
So you are back to DQ is experience, is full of percepts, colours, sounds,
feelings, etc, all pre-conceptual. Fine, except, pretty obvious such DQ is
full of pattern, percepts that repeat and have sameness, sure we can see all
SQ as conceptual, but a DQ full of repeating
David Morey said:
So DMB where does Whitehead's realism go wrong, is not Whitehead an advance on
Pirsig? -as he is more comprehensive, what issues with Whitehead would concern
a DMB style MOQ anti-realist?
dmb says:
It's really depressing that your response has nothing to do with anything I
DMB
You like narrow, I prefer the big wide open world where your narrow looks,
well, like a dead end to me. Many Speculative Realists are exploring Whitehead,
great news isn't it, having somewhere to debate a metaphysics that is non
dualist and non essentialist with the wider world, shame
dmb says:
Okay, now you've responded twice but still haven't said a word about anything I
said in the post you're supposedly responding to. Last time you wanted to
change the subject to Whitehead and now you're just repeating an old objection
about perception. Don't you have anything to say
DMB: In a certain sense, perception entails conception.
DM: Yes in a certain sense I agree, but obviously in the full and normal
sense, conception is formal, abstract and based in language, so has nothing
to do with pre-conceptual percepts, yet we experience sameness and identity
and
Hi Horse and All,
A monism, Quality, is a briar patch. The first accepted usage of Quality in
SOM is a Modifier.
In SOM Quality is the first adjective modifying existence in the noun.
Reality must have quality or it is a pipedream.
In MOQ quality is dual reality DQ/SQ indefinable/definable.
Hi DM
Not 'only' or 'just' or 'merely'!
Intellectual patterns of value are one part of the hierarchy of static
patterns of value.
In this hierarchy they are the uppermost part and this is where the
division of Quality into Dynamic Quality and Static Quality takes place.
In this plain of
Hi Horse
Thanks for the below I particularly agree with ' Intellectual patterns of value
are (only) one part of SQ', not sure DMB would.
All the best
David M
Horse ho...@darkstar.uk.net wrote:
Hi DM
The way I see it is that there is Quality. That's it. Nothing else.
Then there is the
Hi DM
The way I see it is that there is Quality. That's it. Nothing else.
Then there is the Metaphysics of Quality.
One is not the equivalent of the other.
The MoQ is an intellectual pattern of value.
On 22/10/2013 11:58, David Morey wrote:
Hi Horse
There is something in what you say below,
Hi DM
Apologies for the delay - I've been doing other stuff!
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here.
What we experience directly is DQ - it is unpatterned.
Anything else, which is patterned, is SQ.
I think the problem you're having is trying to force-fit SOM terminology
and ideas
Hi Horse
There is something in what you say below, I would be pleased if the MOQ more
clearly stuck to its original division between dynamic and static, the idea of
using the notion of concepts to divide the dynamic and static is a very bad
move I think, unpatterned and patterned works
Hi Horse and All,
I accept DQ/SQ indefinable/definable reality. An inconclusive definable S/O
reality SOM follows illogical reasoning by avoiding indefinable reality
evolution (ex-voluntas) out of will, or creation.
I experience a definable/indefinable emotion, love. MOQ embraces
David M to Andre:
Yes the intellectual views of SOM stop us seeing what quality really is,
in the MOQ there is no such problem, I have no idea what you think you
are challenging in what I said.
Andre:
I was 'challenging' your use of 'pre-cultural SQ', cultural-SQ etc. It
seems to me that
DMB said 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's wrong and that's what has you so
Dmb said:
How would it be possible to offer a better answer?
DM: By actually giving some answers to my questions, by having a conversation
rather than cutting and pasting from your scrap book.
DMB: If a mountain of textual evidence doesn't answer your objections, then
what would?
DM: If
DM to dmb:
'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,...
Andre:
Isn't that reason enough to check for yourself David the
dmb said:
How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual
evidence doesn't answer your objections, then what would?
DM replied:
By actually giving some answers to my questions, by having a conversation
rather than cutting and pasting from your scrap book. If you
dmb,
You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of
text.
Marsha
On Oct 14, 2013, at 4:12 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
dmb said:
How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual
evidence
Lucy said to dmb,
You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of
text.
dmb simply repeats what he already said:
The problem is that you cannot read this evidence for yourself. You do not
understand how the evidence counts as a responsible answer because you
dmb,
All the text you have presented is analogy as you know: Everything is an
analogy.You've given no reason or proof that establishes the mountain of
text as evidence for any argument in particular. You stating that the
evidence is mounting doesn't make it mount to support your case.
Hi DM
Quality is a monism - the MoQ divides this into Static and Dynamic
Quality (SQ DQ).
DQ is unpatterned.
SQ is patterned.
Flavours are SQ, as are bananas and oranges - they are concepts. We
relate these concepts to learned patterns (SQ).
Animals (the vast majority) do not know flavours,
Hi Horse
Thanks for that, it makes more sense than what I have been told to date, OK so
taste and other senses are a form of SQ, unlike DMB, you make it clear this
involves concepts, so clearly the word concept here is being used in a wider
sense than something based in language and
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
David M to Horse:
I am OK to drop pre-conceptual and replace it with pre-cultural SQ, and
cultural-SQ, so that all SQ is conceptual but the distinction I have
pointed out is seen as valid, could make the split biological SQ versus
intellectual SQ. So I would see biological SQ as having evolved
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
Andre said: No David. You're way off the mark.
'It wasn't any particular esthtician who produced this reaction in him.
It was all of them. It wasn't any particular point of view that outraged
him so much as the idea that Quality should be subordinated to /any/
point of view. The intellectual
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
David Morey said to Ron and dmb:
Quite a lot of crap below as usual attributed to me by DMB that I have never
said, wonder why DMB can't argue with what I have actually said, never mind eh!
Here is a real empirical example of what real people experience that is
impossible for DMB to explain I
Very funny example DM! Because what you should really consider is, just like in
the color blind test, you're just acting experince blindly. It is you that
act as you call Dmb, you apparently doesn't understand what dmb is writing. You
maybe read dmb's words but doesn't understand RMP's concept
Hi DMB
Thanks for the below, what you say is entirely correct, I have no disagreement
here as is obvious if you read what I have actually said, without the words
and concepts it is very hard to make sense of or understand our experience, no
argument. But thanks for finally conceding what I
Hi JanAnders
Maybe you can help explain it then, do animals with instinctive behaviors
identify their food and mates using SQ? Yes or no.
Is this SQ conceptual? Yes or no.
Either SQ can be pre-conceptual, which I prefer, but everything
pre-conceptual is DQ for DMB, or animals use
Jan-Anders Andersson said to David Morey:
Very funny example DM! Because what you should really consider is, just like in
the color blind test, you're just acting experince blindly. It is you that
act as you call Dmb, you apparently doesn't understand what dmb is writing. You
maybe read dmb's
DM to dmb:
Experience is presented with all sorts of primary differentiations,
sense ranges and variation, now none of these senses give us objects or
things, they are however a complex, changing theatre of senses but they
create primary difference, where the white of the moon ends the black
Hi DMB
I see so animals can tell what the difference is between say a mate and say
something to eat and respond to the undifferentiated dynamic quality of these
undifferentiated non-patterned experiences and respond in different ways to
these undifferentiated experiences. Yes that really hangs
DM to dmb:
I see so animals can tell what the difference is between say a mate and
say something to eat and respond to the undifferentiated dynamic quality
of these undifferentiated non-patterned experiences and respond in
different ways to these undifferentiated experiences. Yes that really
David Morey said to DMB:
I see so animals can tell what the difference is between say a mate and say
something to eat...
dmb says:
Yea, obviously. Animals eat and procreate every day.
David Morey said to DMB:
and respond to the undifferentiated dynamic quality of these
undifferentiated
Hi DM
SQ is a concept relating to patterns. It is a human metaphysical concept.
What we're talking about, w.r.t. Pirsig's MoQ, is static patterns of
value and dynamic quality.
Animals, the vast majority anyway, are biological and inorganic
patterns. Instinct is biological.
The vast majority of
Horse said to DM:
...What I don't get is why you are trying to impose an idea onto the MoQ that
has been shown not to be part of the MoQ. There are static patterns of value
and dynamic quality - that's it. Nothing else. DQ is unpatterned. SQ is
patterned. There is no such thing, in Robert
Hi DMB
Funny though, because I am happy to drop all talk of subjectivity and
objectivity, and I never talk about mind or matter, however as I clearly set
out even in a post-SOM culture we need to make sense of times and places that
clearly exist or existed independently of human experience,
Hi Horse
I pretty much agree with all that, but should not DQ and SQ be a way to
understand the whole of experience? Otherwise the MOQ is missing part of
experience, so I suspect the way DQ and SQ are being defined has become too
rigid and inflexible. What I want to know is where we put for
Hi DMB
Yes if you replace undifferentiated with unconceptualised I have no great
problem with that paragraph, but that is exactly my point, if there is variable
response going on to DQ with no SQ, then how can this be described as
undifferentiated, difference is making a difference because
Hi David
12 okt 2013 kl. 17:13 skrev David Morey david...@blueyonder.co.uk:
Hi JanAnders
Maybe you can help explain it then, do animals with instinctive behaviors
identify their food and mates using SQ? Yes or no.
Yes. Animals are SQ and their behaviour is SQ experiencing DQ.
Is
Hi Ron
Your quite right that this stuff has a lot of history, I've read a lot of this
stuff in 30 years of study, but where I used the white moon in a black
background I am trying to indicate the differences is percepts that allow us to
latch on to something in experience to base all our
Hi Ron
[Ron]
...you seem to insist on the primacy of an external
independent prime creator of pattern that human concepts correspond to and
mirror when
the Pragmatic assertion is the primacy of human imposition on experience.
DM: No I insist there are differences and patterns in primary
Dave M. said:
Your quite right that this stuff has a lot of history, I've read a lot of this
stuff in 30 years of study, but where I used the white moon in a black
background I am trying to indicate the differences is percepts that allow us to
latch on to something in experience to base all
Hi Ron
I believe it is not idle, it tells us the basis of our knowledge is in
experience, it is the basis of empirical evidence and even with all the
problems you mention quite rightly below, it is exactly what we use to do all
the sciences and interestingly and importantly it is much
Hi Ron
[Ron]
...you seem to insist on the primacy of an external
independent prime creator of pattern that human concepts correspond to and
mirror when
the Pragmatic assertion is the primacy of human imposition on experience.
DM: No I insist there are differences and patterns in primary
Hi Ron
Yes pretty much so, you cannot really express what a banana tastes like but
you know what is or is not a banana taste, so there is identity and pattern,
science of course loves to measure, we can all share experiences of measuring
things and agree measurements, this is far from full
DM said to Ron:
The pre-conceptual patterns I recognise are found in experience,...
Andre:
Trying to grasp what you are asserting David...and what I come up with
is that the 'pre-conceptual patterns' you talk about are what is brought
INTO the experience by the experiencer. This leads me to
Ron said:
Trying to classify percepts as primary or secondary is idle, Bertram Russel
said the belief in the existence of things outside my own biography must be
regarded as a prejudice. but our justifications for such a belief is pragmatic
as C.S. Peirce said let us not pretend to doubt in
dmb,
One way I've heard it differentiated would be:
Enlightenment: the wisdom of Emptiness
Nirvana: the end of suffering
And another question might be, does selfless mean without ego and without sense
organs?
Marsha
On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:44 PM, david buchanan
Hi DMB and All,
Knowledge is an aftertaste of experience determining a true or false
reality. Quality, DQ, is existence. There can be no dispute about quality!
It is determined in SOM to be an adjective. In MOQ quality is determined to
be a noun. A dispute requires definition! There is
Hi DMB/Ron
Quite a lot of crap below as usual attributed to me by DMB that I have never
said, wonder why DMB can't argue with what I have actually said, never mind eh!
Here is a real empirical example of what real people experience that is
impossible for DMB to explain I believe given the
Hi David
It may help if you use this metaphor.
Think about Quality as a balancing point, anything attracted to it has a
different direction, depending on where it is located. A human for example, is
standing on the ground on this planet. What's up and what's down is different
to anyone on
David Morey said to Dave Buchanan:
I'll take incoherent back for a second, you say DQ is full of content, I say
it is full of pattern, let's say it is full of X, now why is content so much
better a word than pattern, what rules it out? Is there a better word for X? I
have tried the split
Hi DMB
I'll take incoherent back for a second, you say DQ is full of content, I say
it is full of pattern, let's say it is full of X, now why is content so much
better a word than pattern, what rules it out? Is there a better word for X? I
have tried the split between DQ and SQ as
David Morey said to DMB:
...why is content so much better a word than pattern, what rules it out? Is
there a better word for X? I have tried the split between DQ and SQ as
pre-conceptual patterns and conceptual patterns, you don't like that, what
about dynamic patterns versus static
The politics is possibly crucial:
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/traumas-of-the-erasure-of-the-real/#more-7479
David M
david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
David Morey said to DMB:
...why is content so much better a word than pattern, what rules it out? Is
there a
Hey DMB
Well never mind, I don't want to make your brain bleed, I think you are trying
to do the best you can with Pirsig's texts, I can't convince you there is a
problem to address, never mind, I will push off and pursue my ideas
elsewhere. I honestly enjoy you calling me stupid, you know
85 matches
Mail list logo
