[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

Our difference seems to be a difference in the meaning of "knowledge" and
"understanding." You appear to consider them only pointing to static
intellectual patterns of value. I see them as also pointing to aesthetic
experience prior to the formation of the static patterns of value, that is,
knowledge of Dynamic value before descriptive words. You described this
Dynamic value below in referring to it is as a wordless state of being
"engrossed" in pure experience before being dropped "back into the static
world" of words and analogies. I consider this "engrossment" to be direct
aesthetic knowledge of pure reality. Or, as Huang Po put it: Here it is --
right now. Start thinking about it and you miss it."  This knowledge
"without conceptual distinctions" is aesthetic rather than intellectual,
 cited by Northrop and implicit when you are musically "in the zone."

Regards,
Platt

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>