[MD] John Carl's Critique of Pure Experience INST04

[John Carl]

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

John, DMB, again, you are at the nub of all our issues ...



Well for some that might be an aggravation, but for me it's a relief.  I
only think "root" when I hear "radical".  Nothing else.  Well... there is
this quick conceptualized radish that twinkles in my brain for a moment.  I
always associate radishes with radicals.  Just like Dave associates lima
beans with low quality.


>
>
> DMB "the idea is to fix that defective value-free intellect."
>
> John "Man will inevitably conceptualize, its in his nature."
>
> It certainly has been human nature ... but it's an evolved and
> evolving nature ... we can still learn.
>
> Clearly we are never going to get some "pure" definitive handle on
> pure-experience (or Quality) without contaminating it with conceptual
> objects.


Almost there, "contamination" should be in quotes cuz that implies some sort
of evil infiltration, does it not?  What is the whole point of man's
existence but to conceptualize?  It's something we do better than all the
animals, it lies at the heart of our intellectual being, and I don't see the
point of denigrating or bemoaning the fact that we inevitably conceptualize.

Because it keeps us from experiencing the moment?  What moment?  That one
right there?  Or the one coming up next?

It's a ridiculous game invented to keep you going in circles so you can see
the circles so you can stop going around in circles.

"Transcend" is the aim of that game.  But because Pirsig has to make some
sort of static statement to get you to see these circles, and W James
comprehends the needed psychotherapeutic solution to the static intellectual
traps of SOM, acolytes of Jamesian Pirsigianism turn the circle into an
object of veneration which means it's now degeneracy to get off!   Let us
all bow down and say Ohhhmmmm before the great Pure Experience.  And on and
on it goes, whither it stops, nobody knows.

I wonder if this is sort of Bo's point.  I'm not very good at
following other people's arguments.  But then, nobody is.




> BUT what this kind of radical empiricism is saying is PLEASE
> notice that defect, PLEASE discount your pre-conceived objects so far
> as you possibly can whenever experiencing something, or interpreting
> experience in another.
>


Which might be very helpful to some kinds of intellectuals, in some kinds of
intellectual traps.  I mean please look carefully at "pre-concieved"  What
exactly is that?  I know it means "that idea that is in your mind BEFORE
experience"  but some ideas that are before experience come in right handy.
 For instance, if I have an idea that the stove might be hot, my
pre-conception is gonna keep my butt from getting burned.  Is that "lower
quality" than actually getting the pure experience of blistered buns?

 Has anybody ever defined the MoQ as a system designed specifically to cure
the world view problems of academics?  I don't think that's fair.
 Motorcycles mechanics need metaphysics too, ya know.  Preferably something
easy to handle that stores nicely but works well when you need it and
doesn't break.

A larger-than-lifetime guarantee wouldn't be so bad.

John




>
> Regards
> Ian
> 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/
>