Mark to Andre:

Yes, I agree with you that DQ is not subordinate to concepts, but neither is sq.

Andre:
Are you saying here, Mark that sq is not subordinate to concepts? In the MOQ 'concepts' ARE static intellectual patterns of value. Concepts ARE sq.

Mark:
The concept of sq cannot contain the fact that it is sq itself.

Andre:
What? This brings up memories of discussions held long ago with Bodvar re the container issue. A dictionary cannot contain the word dictionary to describe itself? Oh dear, maybe I misunderstand you Mark.

Mark:
We know better!  We are not governed by static representations.

Andre:
Well, I'll be pedantic here. We are governed by static representations all right. To go a step further, from the MOQ perspective we ARE static representations of value, we are those patterns. Perhaps you mean that we are 'aware' of this and 'many' are not.

Mark:
A picture on a wall can be a static representation.  A picture formed in ones head is much more than that.  Such picture is a vehicle towards understanding.  There is nothing static about that, unless we
let it be such.

Andre:
I get the feeling that there is a bit of a problem here Mark but perhaps it is only my own paranoia. I think you are conflating DQ with sq as well. What is the difference between a picture on a wall and a picture in one's head? Both are static representations and both can be a vehicle for further exploration no? I get the feeling that you are suggesting that the picture in your head is DQ because it 'is a vehicle towards understanding'. Please tell me I am wrong.

Mark:
As we form concepts, that is DQ in action, as we recieve concepts and understand them, that's DQ.  This notion of some kind of filtration (removing DQ) going on between when we first sense something to when we conceptualize it does not make sense.  The formation of a concept is primary experience.

Andre:
Well, here it is. With all respect Mark: NO!! Experience (DQ) is first. After this we form concepts. "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions". The attempts at describing this experience is secondary. Value will always come first, the descriptions second. When you are at the stage of forming a concept/trying to put into words what you experienced then you already are at the secondary, static level.

As mentioned above, it seems to me that whenever there is 'movement' or 'action' you immediately equate this with DQ. I mean, it may be a dynamic formation/formulation but it is a step removed from your primary experience.

Mark:
This blockage of DQ being part of the intellect representing results in more problems than it provides answers.

Andre:
Okay, here it is completely. You want to 'encase'/'encapsulate' DQ by making it part of the intellect?  By making it part of the intellect you are making it into an intellectual pattern of value. Maybe an 'ideal type'? Now that would result in problems. The horror of this scenario continued Phaedrus on his mission with more resolve than ever. As I expressed earlier, my philosophy isn't up to scratch but this sounds Platonic to me ...to the hilt. It invites loads of religious and philosophic disasters back in again. IMHO.



  


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