From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 16:48:02 BST
Hi Platt,
>> Platt said,
>>> Undeniable Fact: Experience (Quality) is always the primary context.
>>
>>> Thus, truth is experience-dependent, experience being the germinal
>>> context from which all other subsidiary contexts (such as historicism) are
>>> derived.
>>
>> But when someone makes a statement of undeniable fact, that person has just
>> introduced a subsidiary context. Instead of Experience as Quality, we have
>> "someone's mediated experience" mediated further through words--just one of
>> infinite contexts. Would you agree?
>
> Please clarify for me what you mean by "mediated." I've noticed this has
> become a very popular word among intellectuals in recent years. It used
> to mean "to settle differences between two parties." I don't think that's
> your meaning above, but just what sort of behavior the word "mediated"
> points to I'm not sure. Perhaps "interfere with" or "translated by?"
What I mean is that, first of all, awareness is dependent on a context of
static patterns for the individual who experiences. What each individual is
aware of happens within his or her individual context. Maybe I don't
understand what is meant by equating Experience and Quality. I think there
must be a distinction between small "s" experience and Quality since one's
static patterns determine experience of Experience. Do you make such a
distinction?
Secondly, I can't really communicate my experience to you. I can use words
to describe my experience but the words that you receive from me cannot
recreate the experience for you. I could never buy into being "stuck in
words" because I know that I use words to point to experience, not merely to
other words.
You don't want to live with the contradiction of "absolutely no absolutes."
Matt is okay with that contradiction. He will continue denying that he ever
made such a claim or that such a claim is implicit in his philosophy .
Matt's philosophy disallows a primary context, a context of not having a
context, i.e. DQ, or the possibility of becoming free of all static
patterns. He's not willing to live with such a contradiction as a point of
view of not having a point of view. You seem to be okay with this
contradiction.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 16:46:56 BST