[MD] Language Games (was Theatre and Definitions)

[David M]

Hi Matt

As we are using the term DQ to talk about both change and
that which exists in experience prior to language-intellectual 
differentiation
you are quite right to see ways to make distinctions about what
sort of DQ we are talking about.

The use of the term intuition regarding the way we start to cut things up
prior to language seems useful to me. As the dictionary says:

"The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational 
processes; immediate cognition"

So can we talk of concepts by intuition? Well my dog knows the difference 
between
nice weather for a walk and it not looking too nice but is not much good at 
postulating
that it may be nicer over the hills. So someone in there my dog has 
differentiating capacities
that are a form of concept.

Cheers
DM




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Language Games (was Theatre and Definitions)


> David,
>
> Matt said:
> I'm not convinced it does have value.  I still see it as an unneccessary
> reification of two standpoints, the Dynamic and the static.
>
> David said:
> My first thought here was: are you insane? If you do not gain anything 
> from
> Pirsig by seeing SQ/DQ as a better distinction that subject/object than
> what's the point of the MOQ? I sure don't see any workable form of 
> intellect
> that does not use distinctions as you in fact imply below with 'better'.
>
> Matt:
> Its only insane (and I think this is the reason many people find me so
> insane) if you refuse to disjoin the static/dynamic distinction from the
> other distinctions you might use to elaborate on it--such as the
> intuition/postulation distinction.  One can refuse and so see me as 
> insane,
> just realize that my own sanity depends on seeing the two as distinct and
> thinking that one (intuition/postulation this time around, pure/impure
> sensation another recent time around) is superfluous and the other
> (static/dynamic) as constituted by other distinctions--thus allowing me to
> gain something from Pirsig.  In other words, I don't think we gain from
> Pirsig anything like an intuition/postulation distinction, at least as 
> I've
> seen it bandied about.
>
> What I don't like about the distinction is the idea of a "faculty of
> intuition".  That doesn't seem very useful to me.
>
> And I have no idea where I implied a "workable form of intellect that does
> not use distinctions."  I love distinctions.
>
> Matt said:
> I can't see how a distinction between intuition and postulation plays any
> role in doing it.  I don't know what its for, and I bet anything we might
> want it for can be better played by other distinctions.
>
> David said:
> Such as?
>
> Matt:
> The last list of I came up with was this one:
>
> "In the end, I would suggest three different senses of DQ. The first is
> DQ-as-non-intellectual-experience. This is the DQ of stubbing your toe,
> watching a sunset, and shrooming. In this sense, DQ causes you to shift 
> your
> static patterns of belief in some way (though it doesn't offer you any
> reasons to do so). The second sense is DQ-as-pre-reflective. This is the 
> DQ
> of offering off the cuff answers to questions like "Is that sunset
> beautiful?" or "Which student paper was better?" or "Does Lila have
> quality?" The third sense is DQ-as-innovation. This is the DQ of your 
> static
> patterns being shifted to the point of breaking. This can happen when a
> non-intellectual experience shifts them or when you shift them yourself by
> reflection. All three of these senses can be seen to have links to the
> others, but I think all three need to be distinguished and that its when 
> you
> conflate them that problems start to emerge. All three of these senses are
> commonsensical and there may be good, practical wisdom to be drawn from
> them, but I think problems will also emerge when you start to push them 
> into
> philosophical service."
>
> This was the set I suggested after discussing the use of "pre-intellectual
> experience" in elaborating on DQ several months ago.  The
> intuition/postulation clearly mirrors the pre/post distinction, which is 
> why
> I find it a little surprising to be going through the dialogue again so
> soon.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/