[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[X Acto]

Ron said to dmb:
When compared to the statement "that which has no value does not exist" how is it we "know" that there is more than the "shoe box"? When speaking about the intelligible we are meaning to "know" it, to have a conception of experience that's what makes experience experience, the very fact that it is intelligible, that it has value. ...

dmb says:
What? In the analogy the shoebox is full of static concepts (sq) and the sky stands for pre-conceptual experience (DQ). To say DQ is pre-conceptual or pre=intellectual is to deny what you just said. (Intelligible concepts are what makes experience into experience.) DQ is just what you experience before you have a chance to think about it. It's the cutting edge of experience before concepts are added. This experience is pure value, as in the hot stove example, and so you know it directly and immediately rather than through intelligible concepts. 

Ron sez:
Well I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the arguement that there is no such thing as a "pre-conceptual experience" as having some
merit in light of what Pirsig states about that which has no value, has no existence. I guess what I'm asking is what you mean generally in both
instances by using the term "to know" as it refers to both "directly and immediately"  and as opposed to "intelligibly".  I mean I know
the distinction drawn and I understand why, but just let me play devils advocate for a bit. In what sense does the term "to know" differ?
 
 
thnx Dave
 
..