Joe said to DMB:
I guess in my last post I didn't include all the caps, but I am curious. Am I being guided to a particular interpretation? Or are you just having fun with emphasis?
I'm explaining the problem with Marsha's misconception of key terms, especially the scope and meaning of terms like "undifferentiated". Yesterday in this thread, it went like this....
Marsha said:I am saying if Dynamic Quality is undifferentiated, it cannot be about perceptions (smells, sounds, tastes, visions, and feelings) which are differentiated, which require a spacial-temporal framework; and which are dependent on human sense apparatus? Neither you nor the paper that you were unable to explain, addressed this issues.
dmb says:Yea, I know what you're saying and I've already explained that you have misunderstood the scope and meaning of the term "undifferentiated". ...
And that's about where Dan helpfully joined in....
Dan said to Marsha:
As I read it, your question is explained right here in the snippet Dave provided: "For our ability to describe or report a wide-range of tastes and smells lags far behind our capacity to actually have an experience of a nearly infinite spectrum of tastes and smells. In other words, the deliverances of our senses continually run ahead of both our descriptive vocabularies as well as our conceptual abilities."
Pirsig says very much the same thing... THE EMPHASIS IS MINE...
> > "... at the cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there
> > must be a kind of non-intellectual awareness, which he called awareness of
> > Quality. You can't be aware that you've seen a tree until after you've SEEN
> > the tree, and between the instant of VISION and instant of awareness there
> > must be a time lag. We sometimes think of that time lag as unimportant, But
> > there's no justification for thinking that the time lag is unimportant... none
> > whatsoever." --Pirsig in ZAMM
> > "...The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of that small time
> > lag, is always in the past and therefore is always unreal. Any INTELLECTUALLY
> > CONCEIVED object is always in the past and therefore unreal. REALITY is always
> > the MOMENT OF VISION BEFORE the intellectualization takes place. There is no
> > other reality. This PRE-INTELLECTUAL REALITY is what Phædrus felt he had
> > properly identified as Quality. Since all intellectually identifiable things
> > must emerge from this pre-intellectual reality, Quality is the parent, the
> > source of all subjects and objects." --Pirsig in ZAMM
> > "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
> > 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. 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 ABSTRACTION. Quality is indivisible, undefinable and
> > unknowable IN THE SENSE that there is a KNOWER AND A KNOWN, but a metaphysics
> > can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and
> > knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." --Pirsig in LILA