...I guess what I'm asking is what you mean generally in both instances by using the term "to know" as it refers to both "directly and immediately" and as opposed to "intelligibly". I mean I know the distinction drawn and I understand why, but just let me play devils advocate for a bit. In what sense does the term "to know" differ?
Basically it is the difference between knowing by direct acquaintance (like a loved-one's face) and third-person knowledge or information or abstract concepts. Remember that thought experiment wherein a person spent a lifetime studying the color red through all kinds of books and such but lived that life in a completely colorless room. The day she steps outside for the first time and actually sees red for herself, that's when she will be directly acquainted with "red", as opposed to knowing it conceptually.
Somewhere, Pirsig explains this by pointing out that the German language has two separate words for "know".
Thanks for the time Dave, all the typical silliness aside, I think this plays an important factor in our explanation
of what Dynamic Quality means and how we use the term. You hit on what I was after in another thread with
this statement: "The evolving understanding of the universe is all about intellectual quality and this forum should
be too." I remember Steve and or Matt was pursuing something similar in the vein of "knowing" as intelligibility
by direct aquaintance, as in recognition as remaining in the distinction of the static. I think they were attempting
to make the arguement that in this regard
the "pre-conceptual" is little more than a place holder for the primacy of the origin of understanding and I believe
the focus was on what we mean generally, regardless of context, of what it means to "know" and how this fits in
pragmatically with what we mean by the "pre-conceptual" in regard to how it functions within our system of
the intellectual understanding of MoQ. If to "know" has two meanings, one Dynamic context and one Static,
then it would be important to elaborate apon this and clarify it. If "pre-conceptual" is taken to mean "before
understanding" then we must be careful how we use it and not to pose a contrary position by essentially
making the claim that we can posess an understanding before understanding. Caught like this, in a seriouse
debate with a formidable critic would be embarrassing I would imagine. One that would be difficult to clarify
once stepping into it. Very similar to making the claim that static quality is everchanging, and on that note,
technically change is a distinction made in experience and distinctions are formally known to be static. DQ
is statically "known" as change but again we must be very careful about our explanations in this regard.
Just pointing this out.
Being prepared when it comes to these sorts of criticisms only strengthens our ability to explain our
philosophical position. You may feel that they are not fair criticisms at all but when it comes to continuity
in meaning it helps to lend clarity to these reservations no matter how ill founded we may believe them