[MD] Experience of both the actual and the possible

[David Morey]

Hi all

More on Unger here if anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Unger#External_links

David M

-----Original Message----- 
From: David Morey 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:23 PM 
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience of both the actual and the possible 

Hi all

Maybe Unger on the actual, the possible and the hope of
political progress will help you see the political import
of avoiding presentism, and its problematic ontology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01rRJeCwKI&feature=youtu.be&a

David M

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dan Glover
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:20 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience of both the actual and the possible

Hello everyone

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:46 PM, David Morey <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> 
wrote:
>
> Hi MOQers
>
> So we experience SQ and DQ.

Dan:
No we do not, not in the MOQ. I've been over this a thousand times
with David Harding and have no desire to continue here.

>
> Do we experience objects?
> I'd say yes in the form of various SQ patterns at different levels.
> But do we not also experience a dynamic aspect to objects in
> as far as they are partaking in a process? Where objects are
> realising their dynamic possibilities? Is it not possibility
> that we experience and that underlies what is dynamic
> experience?
>
> Do we experience subjects and subjective feelings?
> I'd day yes, these may not be objects but they can
> be patterned and hence SQ. and they can be experienced
> as very open, full of possibility, whether realised or negated
> possibility and hence experienced as dynamic.
>
> The sea of possibility is vast compared the finite reality of
> DQ and SQ that is realised. The sea of possibility that surrounds
> the DQ and SQ that is realised in the actual, is what we mean
> when we refer to the undefinable mystic quality of DQ.
>
> Although you might also wonder about how mathematics explores
> a great deal of definable SQ that is possible but never realised as
> actual, at least not materially actual, only actual as ideas and
> imagination.
>
> MOQ forms a better conceptual grid for understanding experience
> than SOM. No more no less. But qualities are experienced that are
> both actual and possible, experience reaches beyond the actual into
> the possible. This is the really radical version of an empiricism of
> experience.
>
> Agree/disagree?

Dan:
I think you are using the term 'experience' in a number of ways that
do not do justice to the MOQ. If we remember that experience and
Dynamic Quality become synonymous within the MOQ, then it is easy to
see we do not experience static qualtiy. Static quality is a memory of
experience. Static quality emerges from experience. We do not
experience static quality, however. That only leads to giganitic
misunderstandings which many contrtibutors here are currently
suffering from.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com
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 

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