[MD] cloud of probability

[John Carl]

>
> Dave and all,
>
> dmb says:
> There are biological concepts, cultural concepts, philosophical concepts,
> concepts about concepts. Physical concepts are just one of many, many kinds.
> Why would that be a problem?
>

John:

Ah, I see my confusion.  I thought you meant a physical concept, you meant
 a concept about physics.  A problem of interepretation, then.

dmb:



> But the idea that we all live in a physical reality and our concepts mirror
> that reality is exactly what we mean by the correspondence theory and
> subject-object metaphysics.


John:

We call our reality "physical"... well, some do.  Idealists don't, but
that's another subject.  But you've got me guessing (again) with your
formulation "our concepts mirror that reality" because it seems to me that
that is what you take as your base assumption in all you communicate - that
your concepts are the ones that really mirror reality, and anyone who
disagrees with you is obviously stupid, hasn't studied enough, or doesn't
believe in your dictionary.  So... if you think that's SOM, that idea, then
why do you persist in it?

dmb:



> That's not what I'm saying


John:

No, that's what you're doing.  You're doing one thing and saying something
different.  It's a little crazy-making at times dave.

dmb:


> and that is not what Pirsig or James meant when they said "there must
> always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality".


John:

Yeah, well what did they mean?  And how do they know?  How can anybody prove
that there is a discrepancy?  It seems to me that to try and prove the
negative, is just as impossible to prove the positive.  James was right when
he said trying to solve the problem logically always led to infinite
regress, but where then does he, or Pirsig, or you, get off on thinking then
that it proves the opposite?  Just because we can't really know if our
concepts do match reality perfectly or not, does no prove that occasionally
they do.   I would say very much, that any idea which most closely
harmonizes with reality is the highest quality idea.  That is the very
essence of what we mean by "intellectual quality."

Saying its infinitely unattainable might be true, but there's no way to
prove that and in the mean time, I think it behooves us to act and talk as
if it might be true.  But then, you know me.  I'm an idealist at heart, I
am.

dmb:


> What they mean, and what I mean, is an alternative to the correspondence
> theory and SOM. The "reality" they have in mind is not objective reality or
> physical reality. In the MOQ, experience and reality are the same thing.
> There is no experience OF reality such that reality is the cause or the
> source behind experience. It's just experience itself. And I don't mean the
> experience OF a subjective mind substance either. That is also a secondary
> concept rather than reality itself. Reality is outside of language and it's
> pre-conceptual but you know it by direct acquaintance. Experience as its had
> is not conceptual. It's not true or false and it's not a thing but
>  an ongoing event, a happening, something we go through, suffer and enjoy.
>


John:

Well, that's one way of looking at it I guess.  But it seems kludgy and
circular to me.  You're dressing up identical concepts in different
terminology is all, and running them round and round the flag pole in the
hopes of garnering a salute, but I ain't buyin.  "Reality is outside of
language"?  Reaallly?   Ooo... ahhhh... what grand and noble ideas you
present. What a storm and fury that signifies, in the end, nothing.   But
hey, always glad to make your "direct acquaintance", mr. reality.  Where
have you been all my life?


dmb:

>
> In the MOQ, reality is the immediate flux of life just as it's experienced
> and the "physical universe" is a concept about reality. When people take
> this concept as more than a concept and give it the status of reality,
> that's called reification. It's also called the error of misplaced
> concreteness. It's a kind of literalism.
>
>
> John:
>

Well.  I am impressed.  Does Marsha know you're using "reification" like
that?  Because I'd think she'd have some snide commentary about hypocrisy.
Reification is just what we do, is all.  So?