[DMB]
The phrase that really caught my eye here was, "Experience, then, is not
an 'interaction' but a 'transaction'." If I understand this rightly,
this is what Pirsig means when he says that experience is not caused by
subjects and objects but rather subjects and objects are caused by
experience. They are derived from that primal, pure experience. They are
a product of reflection.
They're inventions of the intellect. Of course we don't have to
re-invent this interpretation after every blink. This way of
interpreting experience is given to us through language. This way of
understanding the nature of experience has become common sense and we
all do it so habitually and so automatically that most folks never doubt
it for a moment. One need not become a mystic to overcome this
inheritance, although I would welcome that route too. In a way its as
simple as noticing that our thoughts and theories about experience are
always going to come after the experience. And when we realize that
subjects and objects are among those thoughts and theories it seems an
obvious thing to say they are derived from experience. Saying that
subjects and objects are the cause of experience, then, is a bit like
saying books are caused by book reviews.
{Dan said}
I think what Mr. Pirsig is driving at lies deeper. 'It' is masked by
biological patterns to which we're accustomed. I think it's the same
with our system of sight. We are so accustomed to sight we forget what a
miracle it really is, how Dynamic. It is only later that we categorize
and intellectualize that Dynamic process into those static patterns of
value to which we're accustomed.
[Ron]
Dan, Dave,
I don't know if you caught that snip of James essay I posted earlier,
I'm
not argueing your points above, I'm right with you, I think
subject/object
perception is embeded in thought rather autonomicly,
That's my point, what we experience as immediate cutting edge experience
is a construct of the brain.
Autonomic functions have already taken place to present this to you,
this is why certain immediate
experience can shock, horrify and arouse. The immediate experience we
experience has already been
processed before it is consciously thought about and intellectualized.
It has already gone through
a complicated system of data essembly and symbol recognition related to
past experience before
it is even understood as immediate experience by the conscious mind. The
brain presents a spacial
relational universe of objects to you (the subject) as immediate
experience. Thus my theory of
subject object perception. This why SOM can seem inescapable and
intellectual awareness of
this fact described in common relational communicative language can seem
mystical.
Conclusion is I think there is a difference between the terms subject
object metaphysics
and subject object perception. You can change a metaphysics
intellectually, I agree.
I argue changing a perception is much more difficult. This is why I'm
Interested
trance like states of awareness and exploring what Pirsig had to say
about falling away
from social and cultural norms and why it is interpreted as insanity.
Thanks David, good to have your input. I look forward to your focus on
Pragmatism.
Sorry to hear about the scooter problems Dan, they are buggers to work
on, everybody
thinks their easy. I've had a few in-laws want me to "take a look" at
theirs, no way.
give me something big I can get my hands into.
Best wishes.
-R
_________________________________________________________________
More photos, more messages, more storage-get 2GB with Windows Live
Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr
ation_HM_mini_2G_0507
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
