[MD] Static patterns are ever-changing?!? i

[David Morey]

DMB

My problem is with 'agree' what can agree to the flux mean? -please explain or give example,  how does conceptual SQ latch onto anything in our experience if there are no pre-conceptual patterns found in our experience,  and don't be a fool this has nothing to do with SOM objects,  in SOM they sit outside of experience and cause experience, MOQ talks of patterns and concepts,  how do they differ, well I say pre-conceptual patterns are found in experience,  are the qualities of experience,  they have to be described somewhere in the MOQ,  trying to deny their existence in experience just makes the MOQ inadequate and flawed,  can you not avoid this disaster? Put them somewhere,  are they SQ or DQ or do you just want to pretend they do not exist in experience?

DM

david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>David Morey said to dmb:
>...You say the concept agrees with experience, well yes, but it cannot agree to a flux, so what do we say? We can say it agrees with the dynamic patterns of our experience, placing patterns in DQ rather than in SQ.
>
>
>
>dmb says:
>You want to rearrange the MOQ into the shape of SOM because "the concept agrees with experience," you say, "but it cannot agree to a flux". I think this is what it all boils down to. 
>
>Firstly, we are talking about DQ as an experiential flux, so saying "the concept agrees with experience" is exactly the same as saying "the concept agrees with the flux". You can't rightly accept one and deny the other.
>
>That's the idea, though. Reality (DQ) is an experiential flux, a stream of experience, a flow of perceptions, an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, the endless landscape of awareness, pure experience, immediate experience, preconceptual experience, unpatterned Quality, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of experience. All these terms mean the same thing and THAT is whats is being conceptualized. This is the source and substance of all static patterns. Every last bit of it. 
>
>This is what all those quotes said, David. Your question was answered by the evidence before you even asked it.  As I've tried to explain, your objections to this "flux" don't seem at all legitimate because you're demanding, basically, that we convert DQ into the pre-existing objective reality of SOM. It's okay to raise objections, ask questions or otherwise probe the meaning of this experiential flux - but converting it into its enemy is an outrageously bad idea. That is nothing less that a rejection of the MOQ, and for no good reason! 
>
>
>"Dynamic Quality is the term given by Pirsig to the CONTINUALLY CHANGING FLUX of immediate reality while static quality refers to any concept abstracted from this flux." (McWatt)
>
>Again, "....static quality refers to any concept abstracted from this flux." (McWatt)
>
>
>Paul Williams, a Buddhist scholar quoted by McWatt, says the same thing.  
>
>"...imagine all things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is experiencing, as just a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is something 'out there'."
>
>AND
>
>"...there is only an EVER-CHANGING FLOW of perceptions ...we construct these perceptions into enduring subjects and objects confronting each other."
>
>
>Pirsig, in chapter 29 of Lila, says the same thing that Williams just said.
>
>"Subjects and objects are ..concepts derived from something [James] described as 'THE IMMEDIATE FLUX OF LIFE "   
>AND
> "In this basic FLUX OF EXPERIENCE, the distinctions of reflective thought,..  have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them." (Pirsig in Lila)
>
>AND
>
>"There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is DYNAMIC AND FLOWING." (Pirsig in Lila)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		 	   		  
>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