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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST