[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:46 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings, Dan.
>
>
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> You're missing the whole point, John. The hot stove analogy is meant
>> to show experience BEFORE conceptualization. That's what I was trying
>> to tell you when you were going on about it being language all the way
>> down. The beginning of experience has nothing to do with prior
>> concepts or narratives of existence. It is pure and direct. Only after
>> do we mutter oaths or sighs.
>>
>>John:
> Well I'd say you're missing my whole point then, because I'm arguing against
> the idea of "pure and direct" in describing any experience whatsoever.  All
> experience is dependent upon prior experience and a cognition that frames
> the experience meaningfully.  Without this meaning, there is no experience.
> If a tree falls in the forest, without a hearer, then it makes no sound, is
> what I claim.

Dan:
How do you know?

You're framing this intellectually and logically but you're missing
the Dynamic issues that RMP is attempting to bring to light with the
hot stove analogy.

All experience begins Dynamically... every moment. It is only later
that we conceptualize it into meaningful experience. Granted, it
happens so fast that we normally fail to even notice it happening. I
think zen practice may help bring this Dynamic experience more into
focus but I hesitate to say so on account of muddying the waters.

>John:
> Without conceptualization, there can be no experience.  The very essence of
> experience is a realization of a something which requires a concept of some
> kind.

Dan:
Disagree. Without conceptualization there is no intellectual
experience but there can be experience before the intellectualization.
That's what the hot stove analogy is all about!

>John:
> Too bad you don't like to get into technical philosophical discussion, Dan,
> or we could really get into this.  Especially in light of Matt's recent
> postings on Sellars' Ontological Nominalism, which seems pretty close to
> what you're pushing here, and exactly what I'm arguing against.

Dan:

Well, I've never read Sellars and I refuse to discuss that which I
know nothing about, unlike most. And truth be told I will probably
never read Sellars, unless of course I have trouble sleeping, but then
after a paragraph or two I will be snoozing and I won't read any
further anyway. Besides, I thought we were here to discuss the MOQ,
are we not?

I recall my son and me walking through a forest years ago heading
towards our favorite fishing spot... he must have be fifteen, maybe.
We came across this enormous tree that had fallen directly across our
path. I mean this thing was BIG. Sideways, it stood taller than I did,
and it was chore to climb over. My son remarked, Dad, this son of a
bitch made a noise when it fell whether anyone was around or not! And
I laughed and I agreed.

So again, I ask you, how do you know that that tree did not make a
noise when it fell if no one was around?

>
> Take care,

You too,

Dan