I am not asking for somebody else's opinion, I am asking for yours.
Please explain in your own words what you mean by "direct experience"
so that I can understand where you are coming from. If you use
Wittgenstein I have to assume that you find his method of analysis as
enlightening. His method, at least in its first incarnation,
speculated that all awareness was through the prism of language.
Having established that for his own continuation of exposition, he
then analyzed "being" through a rigorous analysis of the structure of
language. he later became less structural and more specific,
analyzing problems in isolation.
This deconstruction is similar to existentialism, which prefers a
mechanical world that we must find ourselves extranged within. This
would be similar to the pattern approach which you provide, it would
seem. Indeed, the existential movement which perhaps began with
Kierkegaard, minimizes the importance of Self, but in a nihilistic
fashion (IMO), unlike the presentations of Hume or Buddha, which, of
course, Kant was against. With such effort comes a decrease in
responsibility. With many of these philosophers there is a distiction
between Value and Fact. It is my understanding that MoQ seeks to
place things under the umbrella of Value (thus the "Q"). If your
pattern approach is indeed a Value approach, some explanation is
The deconstruction provided by modern science does the same thing.
For example, the promises of evolutionary theory, puts us in a
determinsistic world of the "Selfish Gene". However, we know that the
parts are not the whole. We act as if personal Will is present, which
should be proof enough that it is. For even a newborn infant has
I am not sure if this deconstruction is the direction in which MoQ can
most fruitfully proceed, but that is obviously my opinion. As I learn
more of what you are proposing, perhaps I will become more comfortable
On 2/1/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:30 AM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
>>>>>> There is a format to
>>>>>> this after all, unless you create your own rules about metaphysics
>>>>>> (which of course you are free to do). It would be good, however, if
>>>>>> we stick to the formal presentation of Metaphysics so that we do not
>>>>>> confuse others, imo.
>>>>> I would be most grateful if you would present what you take to be "the
>>>>> formal presentation of Metaphysics" with the proper "format" and proper
>>>> Well, honestly I am not a formal philosopher, so your question on the
>>>> rules of metaphysics in Western terms would be better asked of
>>> And your original comment is just more of you presenting yourself as a
>>> know-it-all, baloney vender.
>> David Harding:
>> Mark clearly just wants to understand what you're writing. Why do you
>> just ignore his questions and attack his personality?
> Then he should try reading. For instance, the paper that I recently posted
> was on 'direct experience' not Wittgenstein, yet he asked "Perhaps you could
> explain how Wittgenstein views are related to MoQ?" And the above exchange
> makes me think he has an agenda different than trying to understand what I'm
> 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.