It is easier to me if you do many posting, otherwise to much to comment, on
each post. If there is a single topic for every posting it is easier to
manage [paste, delete, answer]
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
----- Original Message -----
From: <RISKYBIZ9@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sonntag, 22. August 1999 03:46
Subject: Re: MD Reality & Observation
> ROGER FINDS WALTER'S QUESTIONS GET
> TO THE HEART OF THE DEBATE
>
> NEW DADDY WALTER WROTE:
> Two questions for you.
> 1) You write:
> "DQ is everyday Direct Experience"
> and
> "Reality is Direct Experience"
> Can this be, seeing that Quality = Reality = divided in DQ and SQ.
> I guessed you meant that Reality is Direct Experience but also the
> conceptualisation of this Direct Experience. But then you write:
> " SQ is subjectified and objectified patterns. These are conceptual
> models that are our best representations of pre-conceptual experience.
> These are often CONFUSED WITH REALITY because ...
> "they have become such a common apparatus
> for describing, understanding and analysing that reality." "
> Do you regard the conceptualisation of Direct Experience not as part of
> Reality? Please explain?
>
> ROGER:
> Is the ocean composed of water or waves? Both answers are correct in
their
> own way. Waves are patterns that can form in myriads of mediums. My answer
is
> that Reality is formed of direct experience. Sq is the patterns or waves
> abstracted from this experience. But yes, the abstraction process is part
of
> reality too. Remember my song and my echo analogies? I guess it would be
> clearer to say that "These are often confused with THE ESSENCE of
reality."
> This was how Ant worded his original quote by the way. Good catch, sorry
for
> the confusion.
>
> WALTER:
> 2) DQ is Direct Experience, but it is also the Conceptually Unknown.
> As Pirsig writes in his SODV-paper:
> "I think that science generally agrees that there is something
> that has to enter into experiments other than the measuring
> instruments, and I think science would agree that "Conceptually
> Unknown" is an acceptable name for it. "
>
> How can you reconsile DQ as "the Conceptually Unknown" with
> DQ as "Direct Experience". These seem to be two different concepts?
>
> ROGER:
> This gets right to the key issue. DQ is direct preconceptual experience.
It
> is the present, which occurs before we have objectified or subjectified
this
> experience. It is the leading edge of the stream of quality events. Sq
is
> the wake. It is experience conceptualized.
>
> Remember, Quality is an event, not a thing. The Conceptually Unknown and
the
> conceptually known are two sides of the Quality Event.
>
> And by the way, it isn't me who is saying that DQ is DIRECT EXPERIENCE, it
is
> Pirsig (in numerous places), along with James (that is the central point
of
> Radical Empiricism), and the Zen philosophers (you guys absolutely must
read
> Nishida.... he makes the issues so much clearer.)
>
> Later Dude,
>
> Rog
>
> PS -- Squad.....Sorry for posting so many times today, I will be better
from
> here out.
>
>
> 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
>
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