[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[John Carl]

Matt and Mark,

sounds to me like you guys are flirting around the area of "neo-hegelian"
verboten territory.  Bad!  Naughty!  Mustn't!
dave doesn't approve.

According to my thinking, experiencing an abstraction is just about the most
direct experience there can be. Neurons have a language too, ya know.  If
people would just sit on a hot stove  just a little  longer than normal,
maybe they'd learn something beyond a parrot-like reactionism.

John

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com
> wrote:

>
> Yeah, it's this notion that, under the typical understanding of what it
> means to distinguish between "direct" and "indirect" experience, one
> would have to count abstraction as just as direct as experience as
> any other that I've been working on articulating, most recently under
> the rubric of "isolation."
>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:56:08 -0800
> > From: ununoctiums at gmail.com
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Abstraction
> >
> > Hi Matt,
> > It is interesting how we view abstraction as something different from the
> > scene abstracted from.  I think this is something of an illusion, perhaps
> > provided by the concrete nature of books.  Certainly the abstraction is
> > somewhat simplified, but the process of abstraction is as real as any
> other
> > adventure in life; the process of abstraction is no different from
> > parachuting.  It is done in the moment and consuming of the present.
> >  Abstraction is an art just as much as playing the guitar.  Trying to
> > understand somebody else's abstraction may seem a bit removed.  But even
> > that is in real time like listening to a concert.
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> 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
>