walter,
wow. this strikes the nail on the head. i haven't had much time to
integrate DQ into my understanding of zmm's quality metaphysics, but
this is very close to the diffficulty i've had.
i'll skip straight to the point that frustrates me the most about
understanding this.
> This means that the human-experienced DQ, is dependent on previous experienced
> events, so on a static pattern. If not, the sensing of DQ wouldn't be dependent on
> how new the experienced event was.
>
> But doesn't that mean that what is felt as DQ is really Quality, seeing that it
> is based on the Static as well?
> For a long time I assumed that there was such a thing as experiencing DQ.
> Especially with hindsight we can say that some experiences in our lives
> had much DQ. But is it really DQ or Q we are talking about here?
when you ask if it's DQ or Q, it reminds me of the realization that
phaedurs had about the existence of 2 qualities in zmm: romantic and
classic. they are both part of Q. the same is true of DQ and sQ. but,
if i understand correctly, none of these "split" Qs are THE indivsible Q
themselves. the best i've been able to come up with to understand this
problem is comparing it to the emergence of subject/object from
intellectual reality (in zmm metaphysical hierarchy). understanding
(intellectual reality) of the event causes us to be aware of the object
and ourselves; we sense a division through our rationality.
similarly, a differentiation of Q as DQ and sQ (or romantic/classic)
comes from its direct experience. we recognize this division as a
sensation/feeling that tells us we have experienced Q. in other words,
we use words to talk about Q through the DQ experience ("exciting")or
the sQ experience ("the same old thing"). these words may explain the
DQ/sQ, but they can't describe/define Q. our mind, then, breaks Q down
in a way to understand/define it.
i am not entirely convinced that we actually experience
"pre-intellectual" reality (DQ). but the more i read from the group,
the more i understand it. it's rhetoric in action.
now that i reread this, it is a poor explanation, but it's the best that
i understand it right now. does it address what you were asking?
[all this talk about DQ has made me hungry for a chocolate-dipped ice
cream cone.]
your thoughts?
jamie
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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST