From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 20:07:02 GMT
Ian,
Ian said:
One thing that strikes me - dichotomies again ...
We're talking of immediate / pre- and interpreted . post-intellectual
"experiences", which you summarise as "two kinds of experience".
No, I say "many kinds of interaction". Whether we use the words lensing or
filtering we're talking about many effects, with many "onion-skin" layers of
experience ...
Physical contact or "communication"
Biological / genetically / hard-wired "responses"
Mentally / socially / historically learned "reflexes"
Mentally / individually / memetically reflected "rationality"
Mentally / globally / enlightened reflection or "extended rationality"
... and no doubt many more distinctions we can all think of.
Is the distinction of just two (or your suggested three) critical to your
argument ? I see even the word "reflective" as having scope for varying
degrees and mental processes involved. (eg Wilber seems to suggest nine
levels, but I say anyone picking a fixed number is killing the beast.) My
approach is to keep adding "aspects" to the process of experiencing, rather
than defining its ontology.
Matt:
I'm not sure which distinctions you are referring to. I had the
non-intellectual/intellectual experience distinction. I forwarded that one
to capture the kernel of truth in the pre-/post-intellectual distinction.
If your asking whether _that_ distinction is critical, I'm not sure what you
mean. Critical to what argument? I was forwarding an argument against the
idea of "pre-intellectual experience," as formulated in a certain way. But
the distinction isn't critical to that argument except insofar as there is
something that needs to be distinguished in the area that "pre-" was trying
to get at, and I should forward some replacement to statisfy it. And by my
"suggested three" I'm guessing your referring to my three distinguished
senses of DQ, but that's not critical to my argument against "pre-" either.
That was forwarded to try and alleviate the sense that I was arguing against
DQ. I distinguished the three to try and orient three different uses of DQ
I see being used by Pirsig and others here.
If you thought I was trying to "define its ontology," then that was
certainly not what I was doing. When have you known me to be forwarding an
ontology? I'm just trying to distinguish between different uses of certain
concepts and eliminate the bad ones in favor of some better ones.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 -
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 Nov 23 2005 - 20:40:50 GMT