[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[david buchanan]

David Morey said to DMB:
I see so animals can tell what the difference is between say a mate and say something to eat...

dmb says:
Yea, obviously. Animals eat and procreate every day.



David Morey said to DMB:
....and respond to the undifferentiated dynamic quality of these undifferentiated non-patterned experiences and respond in different ways to these undifferentiated experiences. Yes that really hangs together well,  how could I possibly imagine that your definitions of DQ and SQ have become a mess?


dmb says:

When you abandon your misinterpretation of "undifferentiated" and realize that it simply means "unconceptualized" - as I've pointed out about ten different times - your objections will immediately evaporate. If your sentence were re-written to reflect the actual meaning of the term, it would suddenly become rather weird, boring and obvious.

Animals "respond to the unconceptualized experience of these unconceptualized, unconceptualized experiences and respond in different ways to these unconceptualized experiences".

Or, as I put it, "animals can respond to experience without deploying concepts". They respond biologically, instinctively, without abstractions and without reflection.

Again, the reason it doesn't hold together is that you have misunderstood the key terms; static patterns and DQ or "pure experience". As a result, your questions don't even make sense. They cannot rightly be answered because they are predicated on a profound lack of comprehension. All I can do is explain why they make no sense. All I can do is show you the quotes that explain the terms you've misunderstood. But you refuse to deal with them honestly and in fact you barely even acknowledge the evidence.

I don't know where you got the idea that "undifferentiated" experience means blankness or white noise but that is wrong and that's what has you so confused. For the tenth time, nobody says that. You are simply interpreting the terms incorrectly. Period. I have already proved that fact several times. You're just too clueless to realize that you lost this debate a long time ago. And it's your own damn fault. I've supplied all the answers you'd need to see how it all hangs together but you refuse to discuss it. 

Apparently, you have been taking Marsha lessons. You rudely demand answers and then ignore them for vague and insulting reasons. Insult and evade, insult and evade. 

The quotes from James, for example. They could clarify the concept you're misinterpreting but you didn't say one word about them. Not one word. As I see it, that is an instance of willful ignorance and a dishonest evasion. I think your conversational behavior has been outrageous and quite worthy of contempt. 

ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCE or are you going to continue to evade it and otherwise respond dishonestly? 

Here's a question to prompt a new, more honest direction. According to the evidence as you understand it, what do James and Pirsig and Northrop mean by terms like pure experience, pre-intellectual experience or the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? What do THEY mean when they use such terms? 

If I had a thousand dollars to bet on whether or not you could answer that question, you can guess where I'd place that bet.