[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[X Acto]

Ron replied:
Now Dave, to CONTRAST an idea that essentially means the SAME as in Dynanic and Static "knowing" or "understanding"  is like contrasting Dynamic and Static "change". In fact, it's the same god-damned thing isn't it? ..If you can say the terms "understanding" and "knowing" have two contrasting meanings then surely "change" can have two contrasting meanings, right? one Dynamic one Static..or am I missing something?

dmb says:
You're ignoring the context, Ron. The meaning of the word is flexible but we can see how Pirsig is using it in the context of the whole sentence, from the sentences immediately before and after, as well as the context of the chapter and the whole book. It should be obvious to the reader that "understanding" Quality is being distinguished from the kind of understanding that involves definitions and intellectual abstracts. He says you understand Quality "without" definition, "ahead" of definition and he says this kind of knowing is "independent of" and "prior to" intellectual abstractions. 
To say this direct experience is "prior to" and "ahead of" intellectual abstractions is one way of drawing a contrast. He's saying that this direct experience is something you "understand" before you have a chance to think about it or reflect on it. When he says this kind of knowing is independent of definitions and without definitions, that is another way to draw a contrast. It should be clear to any reader that he is talking about an intuitive and immediate form of "understanding", a knowing by direct acquaintance and he is describing it in terms of what it is NOT. It is NOT intellectual or abstract. It is direct and concrete. And so, no, it is definitely NOT the same god-damned thing. It is precisely NOT the same thing as conceptual understanding.  

Ron:
Again, I am playing devils advocate, plus I could use some help with the explanation which I appreciate
you taking the time to do. It is very difficult to draw this contrast when the person you are speaking with
does take the terms "understanding" and "knowing" to posess ONE meaning and under that one meaning
the contrast between abstract and concrete is drawn as types of  knowledge, they see concrete
direct aquaintance as equally based on preconceptions and prejudical expectations. They dispute the
accuracy of calling the concrete "preconceptual". I go round and round without being able to make
any progress in my explanation because to these brain scientists ALL experience is based
in conception which they intimately link to understanding , in other words conception IS understanding
period. Conception literally IS cognition to these guys. They understand the contrast and why it is made
but they dont see it as very special, new or accurate at all in the way they understand those terms to mean.
In that way, to them, preconceptual knowing is an oxymoron a contradiction in terms. Knowing is 
conceptual, from recognizing your mothers face to recognizing the number 4. Sorry Dave but
I'm having a hell of a time with it. It's difficult to explain. I do appreciate your efforts.
How would you explain it , without quoting Pirsig, because what they are expecting from me
is  a reasonable first hand explanation.
 
thnx Dave
 
 
..
 
..