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

[David Morey]

[Arlo]
 DM's objectivism. Can you, for example, articulate how you believe something can be "pre-conceptual" but not "pre-experiential"? Are you using "pre-conceptual" to mean "pre-intellectual"? Are you suggesting that pre-conceptual lies 'after' experience but 'before' conceptualization? If so, does this suggest that a space-time that has an independent reality in which 'things experience' in sequence? 

DM: You totally fail to understand,  I drop objectivism as per the MOQ,  but retain realism as a good intellectual idea for understanding experience. Pre-conceptual patterns are a way to describe patterned qualities in experience,  colours,  shapes,  etc,  percepts if you like. They are our experience,  not pre-experience,  it says nothing about space-time. Now once we see experience is made up of a sea of change but with some patterns or percepts to latch on to,  like a baby recognising food or her mother,  we can move on to making language and concepts and intellectualising. We could adopt a subject-object intellectual understanding of these percepts, and talk about objects and other substances but that is a bad idea,  better to adopt the less assumption laden MOQ understanding putting more focus on DQ that SOM ignores and covers over,  and treat patterns less reductively and deterministically with a flat ontology of SQ as does Speculative Realism. Now some people here do not seem to realise that SOM can be rejected by MOQ whilst at the same time embracing realism as a perfectly compatible intellectual possibility,  it may not be to your taste if you prefer witchcraft and astrology,  but philosophically it is a clear,  consistent and logical option for MOQ and one I suggest it adopts. I have heard no good reasons not to except for a lot of hysterical SOM flag waving,  you should read James he talks about things and objects a lot more than me and he is your puppet master's hero.


Arlo (nothing precedes experience). 

DM: that's right, patterns are an aspect of experience,  and reality,  space,  time,  history are the intellectual ideas we use to explain experience, and stuff we find like stars,  fossils,  cosmic background radiation. 

At worst, it's trying to explain the ontological view through objectivism (for 'us' to experience, there has to first be 'something' for us to experience- which elevates time (and space) to a pre-experiential reality).

DM: well no one could suggest the big bang until experiencing people could think it up,  yet your mummy must have existed before you were born,  you need realist concepts to understand this stuff.

DM's problem is that he's trying to understand Pirsig's ideas through the lens of SOM. 


DM -just wrong and stupid

When he encounters a problem, he attributes it to a deficiency in the MOQ. 

DM- yeah kinda of possible he is right

He demands an answer, but also demands that answer be loyal to his objectivism

DM-you mean realism

. He seems to fully believe that simply by using Pirsig's terminology he's rejecting SOM

DM: I ditch subject-object substances,  determinism,  essentialism and reductionism


. Its like someone saying they accept Heliocentrism but continue to use nothing but Geocentric mathematics. If you can do better, by all means, do. It would be a welcome change.

DM: more like someone who rejects the flat earth but retains the Earth!