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

Sun Aug 2 10:41:18 PDT 2009

You are a funny guy, and I appreciate the laughter, but this one was just
too much...  You wrote, 

"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."  

Talk about reality is whatever you think!  

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 1:24 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] John Carl's Critique of Pure Experience INST04

Good one indeed Marsha.  Thank you.
I've gotten that "compliment" a few times from Dave and it always
makes me wonder, just a bit, exactly how to take it.  Like a comedian
doing stand-up where the house is real quiet and nobody laughs at his
jokes and afterward somebody comes up to him and says, "That was
great.  Real thought provoking."

Ok... maybe wasn't what he was going for, but ok.

John

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> John,
>
> You are such a funny guy...  Here's a repost of my very, very favorite
DanG
> story...
>
>
>
> John, From: Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 02:01:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: [MD] (no subject)
>
>
> Driving down the road one day, in a hurry as usual, I caught sight of a
> sign
> just as I passed it. Curious, I made a u-turn and went back. The sign
said:
> Buddist Temple and just below that was a little hand-painted note that
> said:
> All Are Welcome. So I drove into the compound. I parked the car in the
> parking lot and walked into the temple.
>
> Your sign is misspelled, I told the young man at the counter. He laughed a
> loud belly laugh. I thought maybe he hadn't understood me. I explained
that
> there should be an "h" in Buddhist. He laughed again, this time falling to
> the floor and rolling around as he grabbed his sides with his hands as if
> his ribs hurt from laughing so hard.
>
> About this time an older man appeared from behind some curtains,
apparently
> drawn by the laughter. Thinking that the older man was in charge, I
> approached him. He wore a long orange robe and he looked quite regal from
a
> distance but as he got closer I could see many tattered rips in his robe
> that had been carefully repaired and I could see his nose hair needed
> trimming. The man looked very old.
>
> Hey mister, I said, I thought you should know that your sign out on the
> road
> is misspelled. It should read B-U-D-D-H-I-S-T, not Buddist. He looked at
me
> a long time without saying a word. I thought perhaps he didn't speak
> English. I looked over my shoulder for the younger man who could perhaps
> translate for me but he had disappeared.
>
> When I looked back towards the old man, he had turned around and was
> walking
> back through the curtain from where he'd first appeared. He waved a hand
> over his shoulder as if motioning me to follow. So I did. We walked down a
> long hallway, made a turn to the left, and then a turn to the right, and
> emerged outside close to where I parked. The old man motioned me to get in
> my car, so I did. Then he waved goodbye. So I drove off.
>
> On my way out of the compound, I stopped, pulled down the Buddist Temple
> sign, and threw it in the weeds that grew by the road.
>
>
>
> -----------
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 12:45 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] John Carl's Critique of Pure Experience INST04
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
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/