[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:04 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:

No, no, no. How do you know a tree even falls if no one is around?
What tree? It's like asking if elephants could dance would they do the
mambo. Again, what tree is falling? In what forest? Context, John, it
is all about context. You're setting up an imaginary scenerio and
asking nonsensical questions about the result of something no one can
know.


>
>
>  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".

Dan:

I don't think so. Conceptualization is the beginning of
intellectualization, yes. It is the realization of a potential pattern
emerging from Dynamic awareness. That is one reason why I never
cottoned to patterned/unpatterned being synonymous with
static/Dynamic. The expectation of a pattern isn't Dynamic Quality.
Confusion can arise if taken as so.

>
>
>
>>
>> >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.

Dan:
And both conceptualization and intellectulization emerge from a dim
apprehension we know not what... Dynamic Quality.

>
>
>
>
>> >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:
Each day is a clean slate on which I write of what I learn. I learn
from fools as well as scholars. I am not a philosopher... right now I
am more into historical fiction as far as my reading goes. I've
discovered a wonderful author named David Mitchell. Currently, I am
reading The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet... oh what wonderful
storytelling!

But really, I read so I can write. All these stories I read turn into
a mish mash inside and I have to get it out somehow in a way not only
I can relate to but others as well. Philosophy books just don't do it
for me... I find the reading dry and unrelated to that which truly
holds my interests... storytelling. Robert Pirsig is of course an
exception...

>
> 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:
Well, I will leave that for others to attend to as I have little to no
interest in academia.


>
>
> 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.

Dan:
No, you haven't. We knew by experience. How else would we?

>
>
> Thanks Dan,

You're welcome, and thank you too.

Dan