Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic

From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Feb 02 2005 - 18:32:21 GMT

  • Next message: Ron Winchester: "RE: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic"

    On 1 February 3:00 PM Ham writes to Joe:

    [Ham] If "pure experience" is not part of any known philospopher's
    terminology,
    how do you distinguish it from ordinary experience? In other words, what is
    its significance to epistemology?

    Hi Ham and all,

    [Joe] IMO "pure experience" and "direct experience" emphasize an experience
    that is unmediated. I expect Scott used it in the subject title since Kant
    had proposed that the phenomena was not experienced directly.

    [Ham] What is your definition of mystical experience? What if I said it was
    all
    "mystical"?

    [Joe] Mystical experience is a direct experience of undefined quality. This
    is in contrast to logical experience which is experience of defined or
    patterned quality. It is also in contrast to metaphorical experience which
    is experience of a particular quality of existence, order, or belief, e.g.,
    he is king. Word games!

    [Ham] By "order", do you mean priority -- as in a sequence? Or are you
    referring to the evolutionary process in general? If the latter, then anyone
    who
    subscribes to Kantian theory would argue, as I do, that "process'', like all
    change, is an illusion caused by the rational mind's inability to experience
    all events at once (or all things as one). That is what I mean by an
    "intellectual construct". It's also why I'm suggesting that finite
    experience may be illusory -- or, perhaps, "mystical?"

    [Joe] IMO "order" is priority of existence over non-existence. Morality is
    not priority, but an awareness of different levels.

    [Ham] To describe the key element of my philosophy as a "social metaphor"
    hardly does it justice. Would you describe Pirisig's Quality as a
    "socio-biological metaphor"? These are "belief systems", Joe, not computer
    word games!

    [Ham] I'm sorry, but I don't see your analogue logic as anything but a
    meaningless crossword puzzle.

    [Joe] I also am sorry! I in no way meant to suggest "social metaphor" as a
    pejorative! "Essence" intrigues me. I go to Church and I see the existence
    of God as a "social metaphor ." I am aware of a moral order in inorganic,
    organic, social, intellectual levels. I seem to attribute a moral order to
    logic, analogy, metaphor. I have to re-think my word games. I can see in
    trying to explicate a method of DQ manifestation, instead of seeing merely a
    tension between creation and order, I attribute a morality, DQ is more
    necessary than SQ. Something has to intervene. I am not convinced that
    'essence' by abstraction is a mediator.

    [Joe] I do not know how to characterize a "belief system". I want to stay
    away from the 'intentional existence' of scholastic thought since that
    creates a transcendental 'good' posterior to transcendental 'truth'.

    Joe

    >
    > On 1 February 2005 5: 15 PM Joe responds to Ham:
    >
    >> I don't know that Pirsig uses the term pure experience. He does write in
    >> Lila: "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
    >> intellectual abstractions." Lila chapter 5.
    >
    > If "pure experience" is not part of any known philospopher's terminology,
    > how do you distinguish it from ordinary experience? In other words, what
    > is
    > its significance to epistemology?
    >
    > Ham said:
    >> What piqued my interest was the distinction noted by Scott, and echoed
    >> by all of you, between appearance and reality. I find it strange that
    > there
    >> seems to be no support in this discussion for the proposition that
    >> appearance IS reality. Would that not be the true empirical view --
    >> including the view of MoQ whose author claims an empirical foundation?
    >
    > Joe answered:
    >> For me language is a toolbox for communicating. Logic is used to
    >> describe appearance. Analogy is used to focus my attention on direct or
    >> mystical experience.
    >
    > What is your definition of mystical experience? What if I said it was all
    > "mystical"?
    >
    >> Metaphor is used to indicate order or show my belief.
    >> IMO metaphor describes an order. The way I recognize order is in the
    > denial
    >> of existence, no order. Pirsig posits a social order of evolution based
    >> on
    >> organic evolution from inorganic evolution. I see that order in terms of
    >> existence. IMO "Appearance is reality" is a dogma of faith, as there is
    > not
    >> any order in the existence of 'reality' except by analogy. If 'appearance
    > is
    >> like reality' is used, then I am focused on the direct experience of
    > quality
    >> and I can agree or disagree that is my experience. It is in terms of
    > analogy
    >> or the mystical that I use "evolutionary analogue". IMO evolution in time
    >> follows an evolution in Quality.
    >
    > By "order", do you mean priority -- as in a sequence? Or are you
    > referring
    > to the evolutionary process in general? If the latter, then anyone who
    > subscribes to Kantian theory would argue, as I do, that "process'', like
    > all
    > change, is an illusion caused by the rational mind's inability to
    > experience
    > all events at once (or all things as one). That is what I mean by an
    > "intellectual construct". It's also why I'm suggesting that finite
    > experience may be illusory -- or, perhaps, "mystical?"
    >
    > Ham said:
    >> The reality of essentialism is Essence, which (I assume) qualifies as
    >> your
    >> "Analogue".
    >
    > Joe responds:
    >> I do not see Essence used in this way as an analogy, but rather as a
    >> social metaphor indicating an unknowable limit in the social order or as
    >> a
    >> dogma of faith.
    >
    > To describe the key element of my philosophy as a "social metaphor" hardly
    > does it justice. Would you describe Pirisig's Quality as a
    > "socio-biological metaphor"? These are "belief systems", Joe, not
    > computer
    > word games!
    >
    > I'm sorry, but I don't see your analogue logic as anything but a
    > meaningless
    > crossword puzzle.
    >
    > Regards.
    > Ham
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 19:18:57 GMT