[MD] Speed of Lighting, Roar of thunder...

[Magnus Berg]

Dmb

> Magnus said: What I'm saying is that since we have this tool of the
> levels, and since it *is* a rather good fit for dividing this
> undefined which is going on outside our concepts of it, why not try
> to make it a better fit?
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> You're probably not going to believe this but the levels do not
> divide the undefined.

Did I ever say it did? The levels are SQ, not DQ. Talk about fighting 
straw men.

> They re-define what is already defined, they
> re-conceptualize all the stuff that is already in the encyclopedia.
> The undefined (DQ) is the only thing that supposed to be left out of
> the four static levels. The levels are not supposed to be
> representing an objective, pre-existing reality either.

For the last fracking time, dmb-ass!

I have never claimed the levels are used to represent an objective reality!

Get it??

I have never claimed the levels are used to represent an objective reality!

No? Ok, one more time.

I have never claimed the levels are used to represent an objective reality!


> The static
> patterns are supposed to agree with experience, not an objective
> reality.

My levels do. Check!

> In the course of experience we feel the pushing back and
> resistances and persistences and from this we construct ideas of an
> objective reality. And these are very handy ideas, but the MOQ says
> they are ideas.

And what are ideas?

Intellectual patterns.

And what do intellectual patterns depend on?

All lower levels.

So what is required to support an idea?

All lower levels!

What does that mean?

That the reality (which is not objective) support the ideas we have 
about that same reality. I.e. the MoQ supports the common sense notion 
that we, human beings, have ideas about the very same reality in which 
we live.


> There is an element of realism here. We know from
> experience that experience is not just whatever we want it to be. Our
> concepts can fail quite miserably when they are tested in experience.
> That's why the MOQ sometimes seems like a form of realism. But there
> is also the important claim that "man is a participant in the
> creation of all things", which is also expressed in the assertion
> that reality as we know it conceptually, including yourself and the
> physical universe, is one big set of analogies. That's why the MOQ
> sometimes seems like a form of idealism. But it's not really idealism
> or materialism, it's radical empiricism. Experience is reality and
> that is the starting point for all subsequent conceptualizations.
> This is not experience OF the physical universe or experience BY a
> subjective agent because those are among the conceptualizations,
> among the analogies derived from experience. As Pirsig and James say,
> the primary empirical reality is neither physical nor psychical. It
> logically precedes this distinction.

Yes, it precedes it because Q's first division is into DQ/SQ, not 
physical/psychical.

	Magnus