[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Horse]

Hi Platt

On 11/12/2010 21:14, Platt Holden wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>
>> How do you do this then, as all understanding is post-experience and intellectual? What is pre-logical, pre-conceptual is not knowledge, because knowledge (knowing) is post-experiential and intellectual.
>>
>> On 11/12/2010 17:11, Platt Holden wrote:
>>> ...never understanding  the mystic reality of prelogical,preconceptual knowledge
> Platt
>
> Hi Horse,
> I thought I had pretty well covered this in my previous post in response to
> your question about my take on reality. The type of knowledge I refer to is
> not SOL intellectual scientific rational knowledge but rather mystic
> knowledge. Pirsig expressed it thusly:

There is no such thing as mystic knowledge. There is knowledge 
(knowledge of or about the experience of mystic reality), which is 
static patterns, and there is mystic reality which is pre-conceptual and 
experiential (DQ) - beyond knowledge and intellect (SQ). There is also 
SOM (not SOL - SOL is not part of the MoQ) perspective of knowledge, and 
MoQ perspective of knowledge. Both Intellectual patterns of value. 
However you cut it, knowledge is static patterns of value because that 
is how we assimilate experience. As with Mark's earthquake example, 
there is knowledge that there is a mystic reality and knowledge gained 
from experiencing that reality, but both types of knowledge are 
intellectual patterns of value.

> "For the MOQ this is, "Some things are better than others." Every infant knows this before he learns his first word"

Dependant upon the age of the infant it is likely that this is the same 
'knowledge' shared by all animals and at a biological level, like "it's 
better to have a full stomach than to be in pain" - no intellect is 
involved so the idea of 'knowing' is analogy or metaphor. But if we are 
referring to 'things' then we are making statements about static 
patterns and not the mystic reality which we were talking about 
previously. Didn't you say something along the lines that mystic reality 
contains no 'things', as 'things' is a word and absent from your 
definition of what's real and what's imaginary?

> In other words, knowledge by illumination as Augustine put it, or by intuition as Susanne Langer described it.

Yes, but that knowledge has been intellectualised, as has all knowledge, 
which is why we refer to it as static patterns of value. We're still 
using words here and they still aren't part of mystic reality - at 
least, not according to what you said previously. Experiencing 
illumination or intuition comes before knowing you've experienced 
illumination or intuition.

> Knowledge which is beyond reason as well as sense data, knowledge of the truths of mathematical axioms for instance, or of the existence of ideals like beauty and goodness, or the validity of the very distinction between truth and falsehood.

It would appear that you are confusing experiential reality with 
knowledge of that experience. All of the above are 'knowledge of' or 
'knowledge about' or 'knowledge that' etc. and not the pre-intellectual, 
pre-conceptual, experiential mystic reality. This is one reason why 
Dynamic Quality is undefinable, because as soon as you try and define it 
or talk about it you're right back in the world of static patterns - or 
imaginary symbols as you suggested a while back. Mystic reality - what 
you called 'real' - is experienced. Knowledge comes after this 
experience. That's why the MoQ differentiates between pre and post 
experience, Dynamic and Static. Knowledge about and, subsequently, 
discussion of mystic reality is limited to analogy, simile and/or 
metaphor and, by definition, post-experiential.

> Or, the knowledge every musician like yourself understands when the right note is struck at the right time.

The right notes don't impinge on my experience of music when I'm 
engrossed in music - they just flow. To put it another way they ARE my 
experience! I'm not thinking about them or having knowledge of them - 
I'm just engrossed in the music. There are various terms for this - in 
the moment, in the zone, spaced-out, tranced etc. but the expression is 
not the experience. However, what can snap me out of this is someone 
playing a bum note! But that drops me right back into the static world - 
generally with an expression of "WTF - who did that"!

> Enough for today. I apologize for exceeding your rule of no more than two posts on SOL in a day.

If you stopped referring to SOM as SOL then there wouldn't be a problem. 
What I thought we were talking about here is the difference between 
pre-intellectual, pre-conceptual, experiential reality (DQ) and 
knowledge, concepts and understanding (SQ).


Cheers

Horse

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa