From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 22:37:53 GMT
Hi Wim:
PH
> 'According to the MoQ, experience (awareness) is PRIOR to (patterns of)
> values, not identical with such patterns. Patterns are intellectual
> concepts formed AFTER direct experience.'
WIM
> To explain 'patterns of values' to people used to subject-object thinking,
> this is fine. When we try to found a Metaphysics of Quality however (which
> is a degenerate activity compared to contributing to the 'migration' of
> patterns of values), I'd still say that we only experience AS atterns.
Even in MOQese I would say direct, pure experience (awareness) is
patternless. True, as human beings, as aware beings, we are
composed of static patterns. Is that what you mean by "we only
experience AS patterns?"
> Experience IS recognition of the pattern you are conforming to (like in the
> hot stove example). In the absence of patterns we don't experience.
Raw awareness and recognizing a familiar pattern often seem to be
simultaneous occurrences. But awareness is an indispensable condition
for patterning of any kind. You can be aware without having meaningful
concepts, but cannot have meaningful concepts without being aware.
>And
> Dynamic Quality is the 'newness' of those patterns, their just having
> cristallized or been formed from older patterns.
Dynamic Quality cannot be described, so "newness" seems incorrect.
Nor can we attach concepts like "cristallized" or "fomed" to Dynamic
Quality which is prior to all concepts. It's best not to say anything about
DQ at all, but then we couldn't engage in a degenerate activity like
metaphysics or this exchange. To attempt to explain DQ beyond "pure
experience prior to concepts," "creative force" and "value" is pretty
much a hopeless task IMO. It's like an eye trying to see itself.
> Understanding 'patterns of
> values' as intellectual concepts formed after direct experience sets up a
> appearance - reality distinction again and effectively makes 'patterns of
> values' into a subjective category and 'direct experience' into the
> objective one. It re-introduces SOM under the guise of MoQ.
I don't see how "direct experience" as I experience it can be "objective."
I cannot record or measure you experiences as you experience them,
nor can you record or measure mine. Experience is a strictly private
affair. I can only guess at what it means to be you, and vice versa. I
can, however, be reasonably certain that your experiences are in many
ways similar to mine (like sitting on a hot stove), and thus a general
abstraction like "direct pure experience" can be meaningful both of us,
though never in exactly the same way..
The difficulty with exchanging ideas about awareness, experience,
subjectivity, objectivity, patterns and nonpatterns and all is the peculiar
double life of language. I'm being subjective as I think to myself, but as I
write my thinking becomes objective, or to be more accurate, thinking is
subjective and objective at the same time. ("I" as a subject hear and
see my "words" as objects simultaneously.) See the problem? On top
of that you have to deal with another language besides your native one.
The wonder is we ever agree on anything. I can only hope that I haven't
misconstrued your meaning completely. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 22:40:43 GMT