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

[Jan-Anders Andersson]

Hi DM

If you can't follow Dmb's advice I'll suggest that you take a look at my book "Money and the Art of Losing Control" where the the picture of preconceptual experiences comes in Color!

Jan-Anders

> 5 okt 2013 kl. 00:20 skrev david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:
> 
> 
> David Morey said to dmb:
> ...great but I say there is a step missing between flux and reflective thought, this 'material' in experience must have some form or pattern so that we start to experience qualities and not just flux, qualities implies pattern, .... continually changing flux or continually changing patterns,  I assume we do not just experience white noise and then add concepts to it to create experience,....  
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> You think pure experience is like "white noise"? Where did you get that idea?
> 
> This way of imagining the situation is at quite odd and I'd be very surprised if there were any reasons to believe it or any evidence to support it.
> 
> I'll try to explain one very important point that might help clarify the situation. Please think carefully before you respond.
> 
> 
> The flux of experience is said to be undifferentiated or unpatterned or undivided. The impression that pure experience is like "white noise" is an impression you got from language like that, I suppose. But that's not what the terms mean at all. Concepts are differentiations, the differentiations of consciousness. We use concepts to divide the continuously flowing experience. The dynamic flow of perceptions is chopped into static patterns.
> 
> To say that the flux of experience is undifferentiated is to say it is unconceputalized. 
> 
> To say that the flux of experience is unpatterned is to say that it is prior to concepts.
> 
> To say that the flux of experience is preintellectual is to say it is not yet divided into concepts. 
> 
> These are just various ways of saying the same thing. All those terms tell you that pure experience is not static, not patterned, not conceptual. But this has nothing to do with white noise. DQ is not a big blank. The immediate flux of reality is overflowing with feelings and sensations, what Northrop calls an esthetic continuum or Pirsig calls the continuing stimulus that causes us to created the world. It'll prompt you to jump off the hot stove even before you can conceptualize it. We act in response all the time and then think about it later. 
> 
> Yea, get that white noise out of your head. It has nothing to do with anything Pirsig or James or I ever said. 
> 
> That, by the way, is why your proposal for "pre-conceptual patterns" is a contradiction in terms. Pre-conceptual MEANS there are no concepts. Your phrase means "unpatterned patterns" or "preconceptual concepts". 
> 
> Please, you have to realize that Pirsig and James use these kinds of terms, not scientists. You are simply misusing the MOQ's terms and in a conspicuously bad way. Like I said, it makes you look quite foolish to talk in such contradictory terms. It's not just slightly incorrect, you understand. It's super, duper wrong and embarrassing.
> 
> 
>                         
> 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