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] When Dmb, stated :" "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." -I agree, where I disagree is where Dmb then states:"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." Dmb seems to be saying that language interprets experience here, perhaps I'm mistaken, I argue that the brain collects data and presents a referential setting for linguistic interpretation. I'm with him until: "This way of interpreting experience is given to us through language." strictly speaking, matter does come before ideas, it's the basis of ideas it's the common referent to every living things ideas otherwise I think It would be very difficult to communicate without any common reference, how that matter is percieved is universial to some extent how that perception is interpreted is where I join you with influence of language and culture and knowledge on that interpretation. Dan stated :"MOQ states that ideas come before matter." Ron: Are you stating this strictly? Because then MOQ would be placed in the Solopsism category. Dan: Once experience is understood as experience it is no longer immediate. Ron: I agree, this is where I think intellection occurs. Dan: In the MOQ there are various definitions of experience. Here you seem to be using the intellectual definition. Ron: I'm using the intellectual definition in relation to thought and symbol manipulation. I'm refering to objective experience as that which is presented by the brain and supplies a setting for thought and subjective experience. I'm defining intellect as symbol manipulation and direct experience as symbol creation. ie. our eyes receive images from the outside world upside down,the brain corrects this and presents it right side up ( for lack of better descriptive words) there seems to be a part of the brain that collects all experiential data and presents it as conscious awareness, the level of immediate experience that intellect manipulates. 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: I'm sorry you think I'd project my inabilities outward. I'm trying to separate what we experience as reality versus what we think about reality. Zazen can bring you to that level of immediate awareness while peyote will alter/disrupt the signal data. I've tripped before, and I still had my intellect intact while experiencing all sorts of sensory disruption. In fact the intellect could influence and form what I sensed,I'll grant that. for the intellect can influence experience just as well as direct experience can. Zazen stops intellection but a bird was still a bird when it flew past me, although I allow all to pass through me with out intellect, all was still recognizeable as what it is. Experience did not stop when I stopped thinking about it. What we think can influence how we experience but all over the world all peoples can agree no matter the culture, that a bird is a bird, called differing names, percieved as a god or as a pest, but none the less a bird, not mistaken for a tree. Although in poor linguistic translations often this occurs. In conclusion I think base experience is presented by the brain as subject/object reality which is then interpreted intellectualy. They are relational and influence one another but the prime experience is subject/object. I think Bo and Ham have a viable point. I also argue this is what James was getting at in "Does consciousness exist?" My apologies for having brought it up. I sense you are perhaps growing tired of this thread. Thanks for your time, It was much appreciated. 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/ 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/
