Mark:
'The survival of the fittest because the fittest survive' Total nonsense in my opinion.

Andre:
That's why it is not used in the MOQ as such. I thought Phaedrus pointed that out very clearly in LILA. Seems to me that you are making nonsense of my statement that concepts are static intellectual patterns of quality by saying that "The concept of sq cannot contain the fact that it is sq itself".

Mark:
Yes, but would you not say that the "formation of a concept" is experience?

Andre:
No. The formation of a concept is that which happens after the experience has occurred. The experience is pre-intellectual. The formation of a concept is an intellectual activity.
 
Ron:
Hello Andre, Mark,
Been having this same discussion and what is interesting me is exactly where we are drawing our distinction
as far as asking the questions: Do the terms "conceptual" and "intellectual" roughly equate to the same
meaning? the term "understanding" is characterized by the meaning of the term " comprehension"  a synonym
being "perception" comprehension meaning to compose. What is being composed? an idea a concept.
 
The problem in attempting to lend primacy to one aspect, that is,  experience and concepts arise
together is that once distinction is drawn and primacy endowed, people start getting the wrong impression
on why we make the distinction and the uses that distinction has. It's an old distinction the abstract/concrete
some try to compare it with appearences/truth which pisses some folks off and elicits a huge mellowdramatic
monologue on how such questions could be asked. But I think these are the sorts of questions and conversations
we should be having and some folks should be challenging their current conceptions a bit more than than they do.
 
The response to this problem is the ability to discuss and explain it in its proper context. THAT being said,
A nice conversation about how this distinction effects what we mean by our "cultural glasses" and if we are raised
interpreting and percieving and preconceptually understanding experience through those glasses how does this
effect what we mean by SOM and the Intellectual level and the conceptual. When these ideas are strung
together when introduced
to other philosophers how are they all going to hang together best? How are they going to be the most
intelligible and the most consistant? Some have a hard time with the phrase "preconceptual understanding"
they see it as a contradiction in terms. They say that there is a distinction in understanding but they contend
that either you understand something or you dont. The criticism being drawn on it being unclear that how
can DQ both be connected with understanding and non-understanding DQ is either known or unknown
either it has value or it does not, if it is both it is contradictory and fails the first test of logic that it be
continuose. Now using the old rehtorical chestnut that DQ is beyond logic beyond meaning, is just
a rhetorical bullshit slight of hand to not have to answer the question it is not clarifying the question
in the context of the conversation. The way to answer this is to explain it terms of the now of experience.
 
..
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