>From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
>Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:54:46 -0400
>
>
>
>[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,
Dan:
I am familiar with James.
>Ron:
>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.
Dan:
I tend to disagree with you here and I believe the MOQ does too. You seem to
be saying that matter comes before ideas while the MOQ states that ideas
come before matter. Please re-read what DMB writes above as it makes a lot
of sense. You may agree but your words here do not, so far as I can see.
>Ron:
>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.
Dan:
Again I disagree. Once experience is understood as experience it is no
longer immediate. In the MOQ there are various definitions of experience.
Here you seem to be using the intellectual definition.
>Ron:
>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.
Dan:
Robert Pirsig describes in LILA how his peyote experience changed his
perception so I would argue it is not difficult at all. Myself, when I sit
in zazen or meditation my perception changes. Again, not difficult at all.
Now it may well be difficult for you but I think it a mistake to attribute
your own difficulty to an objective reality affecting everyone.
>Ron:
>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.
Dan:
Moped problems solved, thank you for your concern. It required great peace
of mind.
Thank you for your thoughts,
Dan
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/
