[MD] Misunderstandings are driven by what we value not by the logic we use.

[David Morey]

David H:
> And this is important for overcoming SOM precisely because it takes
> subjects and objects as the cause of experience rather than a product of
> reflection, rather than concepts which has been derived from experience.
> Our radical empiricist are correcting a conceptual error, one known as
> "reification" As Stuhr puts it, “the error of materialists and idealists
> alike” is “the error of conferring existential status upon the products of
> reflection” This is a matter of treating our “products of reflection” as 
> if
> they were ontological realities instead of parts of a man-made conceptual
> scheme.
>

Dan said:
Yes! This seems quite profound, actually. By saying we experience static
quality we are conferring "ontological realities" upon them. We are saying
static quality patterns come first and our experience of them is secondary.


DM: I suggest static quality patterns are part of what we experience, that
we can grant that our experience is real and can therefore confer 
ontological
reality on them, if you expel SQ/patterns from experience (like Dan/DMB)
then you think that if you give them ontological status you are projecting
this status into a real that is outside of experience, if you keep 
SQ/patterns
as part of experience you can use this to give them ontological status.
It is then a good idea, based on the metaphysics of experience, that SQ
has ontological status, it is then a secondary aspect of your 
experience-realist
philosophy to grant SQ a realist status, that SQ/patterns can also exist
whilst you are not experiencing them, that's why they can be re-experienced
when you turn your back and cease to experience certain patterns and
then turn to face and re-experience them. Experience is entirely primary,
we can base our SQ and DQ ontology on it, but we can also 'work out'
that DQ and SQ can exist independently of our experience, and even
historically prior to human experience, although not philosophically prior,
as we base our metaphysics and ontology on experience as primary,
but, in a secondary move, our reason can go beyond experience and
work out the value of realism and the pre-dating of patterns and change
prior to our primary human experience. This may be too complicated for
some people to handle but it makes a lot more sense of experience than
pretending realism does not work or there was not a time prior  to
human experience. Of course, there is no thinking and no working
out of such conceptions prior to human experience, this is a dialectical
reality of course,, interlinking human experience and our human reality,
but this human reality can recognise realism and pre-human history.





> dmb:
> This attack on subjects and objects is really why we want clarify the
> distinction between concepts (sq) and pre-intellectual experience (DQ).

DM: Problem is it banishing pre-conceptual experience that is not
just DQ, i.e. a DQ with emerging with patterns, and saying all patterns have 
to involve
concepts may work for rhetorical protectionism, but ends up embracing the
disaster of non-realism, the same disaster that afflicts post-modernism.


>
>
> “The Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to what is called empiricism. It
> claims that all LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE arises from the senses or by THINKING
> about what the senses provided. ” (LILA 99).


DM: Quite, the senses provide DQ and SQ, if DQ is undefinable, then we need
some SQ in our experience that we can define, and build concepts on, would
DQ provide anything for concepts to work with, DMB and Dan seem to
talk as if DQ can provide some hint or trace that concepts can latch
on to, but why not call such hints or traces SQ?



Dan:
Yes again. Dynamic Quality (experience) and static quality (memory of
experience) are both necessary to make sense of the world. Once experience
has been defined, it is no longer experience but a concept, a memory, a
static quality pattern that makes sense of that experience. The hot stove
example in Lila is a great example.

DM: So Dan do animals and babies experience SQ and concepts do you believe?
I