[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[John Carl]

Salutations Dan and all,

John:

 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?
>

John:

Simple, by definition.

"Sound" is defined by the physical impact of waves in a medium (air) upon an
eardrum.  Without an eardrum, there may be (and probably is) some sort of
phenomenon but it can't be "sound".   From the subjective perception of an
air molecule, it's a tsunami.  From the subjective perception of a planet,
it's a tiny, imperceptible shiver.  From the subjective perception of an
animal ear, it's a sound.  Take away a "hearer" and you've reframed the
matrix of meaning which defines "sound".


 Dan:

>
> 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.
>

John:

I'd say "contending" rather than "missing", but otherwise, yes, that is what
is at stake.

 Dan:


> 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:

I'm reading and practicing meditation technique right now, and exploring
this deeper so I reserve the right to change my mind after further
experience :-).  But from where I'm at, I see this dynamism as arising
conceptually, not pre-conceptually.  In fact, it's the very act of creative
conceptualization by which I define DQ.  Out of a chaotic matrix of
sensation, we create our reality.  Every bit of it.  We don't do this all by
our selves,  I believe that DQ is fundamental to this process.    Perhaps it
will help our discussion if I contrast "conceptualization" and
"intellectualization".



>
> >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:  I agree that conceptualization comes before intellectualization.
Intellectualization is thinking about concepts whereas concepts don't
require intellect.  "hot" is a concept formed by nerves and hot stoves.
Jumping is also a conceptualization.  Some of these nerve conceptualizations
occur outside of a brain, but they don't occur outside of a nerve/organism.




> >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.



John:

Me for instance.  Sometimes, that's the only way for me to learn is say
something, even though its stupid, in the hopes that I'll be corrected and
thus learn something.  Already I think I've made a big mistake because the
"Sellars" I've been reading about is probably a completely different Sellars
than Matt's been discussing and I'm very ignorant of Willfred Sellars'
thinking.  I've been reading about Roy Wood Sellars, who promotes, as I've
mentioned, "ontological nominalism which is in essence, psychological
nominalism".  I have no idea of the relationship (if any) between the two,
but I found very much in my reading of MY Sellars which seems very close in
essence to radical empiricism.   But I might be wrong about that.

In fact, I hope I am, so that I can learn something more!

Dan:


> 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?
>
>
John:  Agreed.  And to my thinking, "discussing the MOQ" includes discussing
the surrounding matrix of 20th century philosophical trends to see how it
fits in, where it fits in and who it's "friends" are and who its enemies.


Dan:


> 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?
>
>

I could equally ask, "how do you and your son  know it did?"  But I think
I've answered this one adequately already.


Thanks Dan,

John