Hello everyone >From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:47:15 -0400 > > >Dan: >Subjects and objects are intellectual patterns of values... ideas. So it >seems pretty simple to see that ideas come before matter, which Mr. >Pirsig has said numerous times: > > > >Ron: >Dan, I re-read "Clash of the Pragmatists by David Buchanan last night, I >hope he does not mind my >reproducing a snip from it to post here. > >"For Rorty, "nothing pre-linguistic is conceivable" (Hildebrand 2003, >186). He shares the view with many that the world as we know it is "text >all the way down". Interpretation is bottomless, so to speak. But that >is exactly what Dewey and the radical empiricists are willing to defy. >It hardly matters whether we call it "pure experience" as James did, the >"undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" as Northrop did, the "whole >situation" as Dewey did or the "primary empirical reality" as Pirsig >does. A rose is a rose. The idea is simply that everything follows from >that first and most basic experience. All the conceptual distinctions >are secondary to that, are derived from that. We are not talking about >some other realm or any kind of >thing. And this is not meant to suggest that the world as we know it >suddenly pops into existence the >moment a subject conceptualizes it. We are simply talking about >experience before one has a chance to >think about it, before it has been interpreted by our conceptual >schemes. > > This pre-linguistic moment of experience has gone unnoticed as James >says, because only "only new born babes" and people in extraordinary >circumstances have access to pure experience (James 1912, 93). The >infant also appears as an example in Pirsig's explanations (Pirsig 1991, >118-9). The "unverbalized sensations" of experience are "identified and >fixed and abstracted" into the shapes we recognize as the world of >things (James 1912, 94). For adults, arguably like myself, these >abstractions have been fixed for so long and are used so automatically >and habitually that they are invisible. This habits of mind have >developed and >evolved over long periods and are inherited by us from the culture in >the normal maturation processes, >in the process of acquiring language in childhood. I think this explains >why SOM has assumed such a >powerful role in Western conceptions of reality. The radical empiricists >are saying they are not reality, that SOM is a theory that doesn't look >like a theory. Its a metaphysical abstraction so old and pervasive that >it has become common sense." > >Ron: >I think perhaps where we are missing each other is my lack of >describing of where my main >focus is on in this concept. For me, The idea that what is being >reffered to as "pure experience" >as James terms it in refference to a infant, is presented as objects to >the subject, >even if in a purely spacial relational way (ie. object is close to me, >or object is far from >me.)
Dan: It seems impossible to present an idea such as "pure experience" any way other than in subject-object terms since our cultural language is constructed on a foundation of those terms. But that doesn't necessarily mean reality corresponds to said terms. >Ron: >when DMB quoted James as saying ""only new born babes and people in >extraordinary >circumstances have access to pure experience (James 1912, 93). I agree >and >this is where I say changing this spacial awareness of objects is >difficult (unless you >consider a full frontal lobotomy easy also and I'm still projecting my >own difficulties). Dan: I would say that the spacial awareness of objects that you refer to is your imagination at work; there is no way to prove spacial awareness (or objects) exists. >Ron: >I understand your point that all one can ever really know about >objective reality is our >own ideas about it, I think most of us here can agree to that much. But >to say strictly >that ideas are the genesis of reality is a reversion to a kind of MOQ >Solopsism. Dan: If ideas are not the genesis of reality then in your subject/object world you're back to matter. Are you saying matter is the genesis of reality? If so, how? How do ideas arise from matter? >Ron: >I understand Mr. Buchanan, James and Pirsig as saying that ultimatly it >is both >subjective ideas and objective matter which form the reality we >experience. Dan: I see Mr. Pirsig saying that Quality is reality. Subjects and objects are convenient shorthand for static quality patterns of value. >Ron: >When james gets to the root of this process of culture and knowledge in >his >description of the infant and "extra ordinary" people, he interpolates a > >"pure experience" and this is where my focus is on. > >My argument lies within the projection of pure experience, that even >this is >subject/object spacial-relationaly based. Dan: This is a presumption that has no proof. >Ron: >I think it is important to take note that objectively, we posess many >brains >within our heads. Dan: I think this is an interpretation that may or may not be correct though in MOQ terms it might be better if you said "biologically we possess many brains..." >Ron: >The autonomic nervouse systen at the spinal chord, the >medula oblongota, >cerebellum and the several lobes which control the senses not to mention >the >over develeoped cerebral cortex which some may argue ultimately defines >human beings, which is also divided into two lobes. Subjectivly, the >brain >is just as complex. Dan: Where is the subjective part of the brain? How does one point to something subjective? >Ron: >When it comes down to brass tacks, our brains create the world we live >in utilizing >a combination of pure objective sensory data and subjectivly recalled >stored data >of the same source. The brain exaggerates and simplifies stored data for >easier recall >and compression. Now there are two limits, that of limited memory recall >and that >of limited sensory data reception, which both play a role in the >creation of the >universe we commonly percieve. I maintain that sensory limits preceed >recall limits. >I also maintain that sensory data ultimately preceeds recall data. >(otherwise >what would we be recalling). This is where I make the distinction >between >stored preconception and pure objective experience. I maintain that >Pure objective experience is s/o sensed for purposes of basic spacial >relation >before it is relegated to conception and memory recall therefore I see >the process as a continuous mixture of objective sense with memory >recall >then a recommitment to memory stored, feeding back into itself moment by >moment. Dan: This is what subject/object thinking will do... twist a person into loops. You seem to be maintaining that there really is an objective reality which can be subjectively sensed and building your hypothesis to support that end. The MOQ states that the idea of matter before ideas is a high quality idea, nothing more. >Ron: >This is why I comment that dropping s/o distinction is not as easy as >dosing and zazen. Dan: Once a person has made the perceptual shift it is indeed that easy. IMO, of course. >Ron: >This is why Ham maintains that the only way to >sense reality is relational from data to the data receptor >or what he calls value sensability. The Quality moment. Dan: Ham is a wonderful person. He does not (in my opinion) seem to have a handle on the MOQ, however. If you want to talk Essence, he's the guy. If you want to talk MOQ, then gav, Platt, Anthony McWatt, DMB, etc., are the guys. >Ron: >to talk of Quality objectivly is projecting a subjectivity on the >objective. >Quality only has meaning in relation to a subject. >I think this is what Bohr was driving at, the fact that absolutly >isolating >the objective is ultimately meaningless. > > The greeks invented a metaphysics in which to interpret s/o >distinction and thus shaped our perception of it but To me, >saying the greeks invented s/o distinction is like saying they >created the universe. Dan: Not being a historical scholar (only a hysterical scholar) I have no idea what the Greeks did or did not do. For what it's worth, Julian Jaynes in his THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND specuates that prior to the Greeks there was no conception of subject vs object as such. >Ron: >If anyone hung in there and read all this, I appreciate it. >-Thanks Thank you too, 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/
