Re: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 05:02:35 GMT

  • Next message: Dan Glover: "RE: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?"

    Matt,

    IMHO - the use of pure / immefiate / direct in Pirsig / MoQ terms is
    to signify "pre-intellectual" experience. The more modern problem I
    see is that people may think it's being used to distinguish qualia
    from pre-cognitive experience, in which case we are generally not
    concerned with that here.

    Pre-intellectual, I'm talking raw, as in before reflective /
    rationalising interpretation of what is being experienced.

    Pre-cognitive, I'm talking raw, as in quanto-electro-chemical
    phenomena before their immediate interpratation as qualities like red,
    hot, pain, experiences.

    (Personally I don't think I believe in qualia, which may undermnine
    the distinction for me, but I think it's the distinction being
    confused.)

    Ian

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:55:38 -0600, Matt Kundert
    <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Dan,
    >
    > I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
    >
    > Dan said:
    > Ontologically speaking, experience is never direct.
    > ...
    > The MOQ begins with experience, not pure experience, just experience.
    >
    > Matt:
    > Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that
    > the words "direct" and "pure" were consistently used qualifiers for
    > experience throughout Pirsig's work, Northrop's work, and throughout
    > Anthony's work. And I was under the impression that some people (including,
    > for the most part, Pirsig) thought they were important, played some role in
    > the way we read Pirsig.
    >
    > In fact, I just finished my review of Anthony's essay on the forum and most
    > of it revolves around criticizing the use of these qualifiers.
    >
    > Are we suddenly giving up on these terms? If we are, I don't think we
    > should obscure the sea change that would be involved in interpreting Pirsig,
    > at least the change in the dominant opinion, particularly given that much of
    > my critique of Pirsig in the last few years has revolved around these terms
    > and I've received much animated derision over my "misunderstanding" of
    > Pirsig.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong: I hope my interpretation becomes the dominant,
    > mainstream interpretation. But I was under the impression that I was the
    > minority and offering a dissenting opinion, not the dominant ideology.
    >
    > Given that I could still be drastically wrong on any number of other issues,
    > what's up with immediate, pure, direct experience?
    >
    > Matt
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
    > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 05:33:34 GMT