I am glad that you see things "clearly", but some of us may have too
much knowledge to do so.
The meaning of concept and conceptual is indeed blurry. For, when we
feel exhilarated going down on a roller coaster, is that a concept? I
would claim that it is once we relfect on it. However, before that it
is not. The transition between dynamic and static is a dynamic
process. As we start to conceptualize, we are using dynamic quality,
if you will. Once we present it to ourselves or others it becomes
static. Most of our day is in DQ.
Perhaps a good description of a concept is as a reflection; I have
proposed this to Andre, and possibly it has been proposed before. We
are dynamic quality until we consider ourselves in a mirror.
This is akin to my perspective approach differentiating between the
view "inside to out", and the view "outside to in".
Let me know what you think.
On 1/25/12, david buchanan <dmbuchanan@hotm...> wrote:
> Ron said to dmb:
> ...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...
> dmb says:
> If Steve and Matt follow Rorty, then they would say that there is no such
> thing as pre-conceptual experience. The notion that DQ is a "place holder"
> or "a compliment we pay to sentences" are both ways of sweeping DQ under the
> rug or otherwise transforming it into something inert. I totally disagree
> with our resident Rortarians about this. Been telling Matt this his view
> eviscerates the MOQ - for several years now.
> Ron said:
> ...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.
> dmb says:
> Elaborate and clarify? It's almost hard to believe that anyone is still
> confused about this.
> Yes, pre-conceptual means prior to concepts. DQ is pre-conceptual
> experience. Experience is something you "know" in the sense that you go
> through it, you suffer or enjoy it. It happens to you and so of course you
> know it. Hopefully you know what it's like to be you from first hand
> experience. This is an intimate sort of thing.
> Concepts, on the other hand, are products of reflective thought. This sort
> of verbal and conceptual knowledge is public and can be passed around, etc..
> Ron said:
> ...Caught like this, in a serious debate with a formidable critic would be
> embarrassing I would imagine. One that would be difficult to clarify once
> stepping into it. ...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 to be.
> dmb says:
> I don't really see the problem. Pirsig language seems as clear and plain as
> it can be. Like I said, I'm astonished at the level of confusion around this
> basic distinction. It seems kinda crazy. Seriously, please tell me if the
> distinction is clear or not. And if not, please explain why. Is Pirsig
> confusing when he says...
> "Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition,
> ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior
> to intellectual abstractions." "Quality is essentially outside definition"
> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
> metaphysics. ..metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical
> That's all there is to it. Pre-conceptual and then conceptual. There are
> just two elements and the latter follows from the former. "Quality comes
> first, then you figure out why."
> 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 >
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.