[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[X]

Gentlemen,
I think what Dave Morey is trying to say, mostly out of the conversation he and 
Dan were having, where Dan had stood fairly stern about static patterns  not being
experienced. (Dan was coming from the point of view of the concepts\experience 
distinction I believe (please correct me if in err)) IS  understanding that distinction
as given, begin asking the question of what we mean when we say that pragmatic
truth is verifyable in experience. What do we mean  when we say concepts "agree"
with "experience"?
I think what Dave M is asking, and deducing, is that there must be a sort of relatedness
our concepts MUST share with DQ in order for Pragmatic truths to exist. 

Or else what the heck are we really saying about precision and clarity.

Right?


..

david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>David Morey said: 
>... My point is that patterns have to exist in experience before you then go on to conceptualise them, which sure, is an enhanced form of experience, but it is all experience isn't it? And clearly patterns exist in nature prior to human experience, helping evolution along, long before we come along to put them into concepts. But we only come to this intellectually to project  them back into nature, but nature does the evolving via SQ patterns and DQ prior to our 'discovery' of this.
>
>
>
>dmb says:
>
>No, David, that's wrong. Patterns do NOT exist in experience before you conceptualize them. Patterns ARE conceptualizations and those concepts are derived from DQ, which is pre-conceputal or unpatterned experience.
>
>To say that static patterns exist in nature prior to human experience is exactly the opposite of what the MOQ says. The MOQ says we invent static patterns in response to experience. 
>
>The evolutionary scheme is just a way to organize these invented analogies and does not organize reality (DQ) itself. As Pirsig puts it, the idea that physical reality exists prior to our experience is a very good idea, especially when you're doing science (or talking about evolution), but it's still just an idea and that was derived from experience just like every other static pattern. 
>
>You are simply construing static patterns as pre-existing objects and that's exactly why people are criticizing you for trying to conceptualize the MOQ in terms of the metaphysics it opposes. 
>
>You're totally mixed on which way is up and which way is down, David. You're way off the 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