[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[David Morey]

Hi DMB

Yes if you replace undifferentiated with unconceptualised I have no great problem with that paragraph, but that is exactly my point, if there is variable response going on to DQ with no SQ,  then how can this be described as undifferentiated,  difference is making a difference because response is varied and not uniform. You clearly see this problem otherwise why else change the word,  I object to this muddle where you think conceptual and differentiated and patterned all mean the same,   well why not stick to one term,  I am perfectly happy with a talk about the undifferentiated flux and fundamental wholeness of DQ, pattern and difference break out of this,  it is the difference that makes a difference,  if DQ is full of content, is all about variable response then what is this content, it is probably best to see this as patterned,  as SQ,  but is clearly prior to concepts,  language and culture so due to your association of SQ with concepts you seem to be unable to admit all this content that is so open to varied response must be patterned or SQ, you seem to agree that it exists but can't name it, not being able to name it is exactly what pre-conceptual means,  unlike your polemics I am starting to think our dispute is simply about what words are appropriate,  but I still think your use of terms is very questionable, collapsing different words into one meaning,  and pretending perfectly sensible formulations like pre-conceptual have nowhere to go. What you say is just not consistent,  you agree squares are squares,  triangles are triangles,  but circles can't exist there are only squares and triangles,  even though having no straight lines is DQ and being round is SQ,  if we put non-conceptual and pattern together this is the third possibility or a circle but your definition of SQ and DQ rules out what in every other way you agree exists. I largely agree with what you say about SQ and DQ although you like to pretend I don't and would like to have me cast out of your fiefdom,  such defensive self-doubting behaviour, so you cannot deal with what I believe is an obvious content of experience,  pre-conceptual regularity or difference,  an aporia it seems. But if you want to keep this weakness in the MOQ keep it,  but I warned you.9

david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>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. 
>
>
> 		 	   		  
>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