Dan said to Ron: I think that's what the MOQ brings to the table: a way of ordering reality that doesn't begin by separating subject from object but rather uniting them under one umbrella.
Ron replied: I'm not arguing this intellectual assertion, I argue that subject object distinction also lies in immediate experience and not just an intellection. By your rationale, if one observes an object never experienced before, that object can not exist. dmb says: I understand your frustration with this idea. It defies common sense. The notion that the world of things (objects) is already out there waiting for us (subjects) to experience it is so thoroughly ingrained in our language and culture that contradicting it seems insane or even (gasp) stupid. And I realize that it seems absurd to say that a thing can't exist unless it is first experienced, but that's actually what the MOQ says. The MOQ says that experience brings "things" into existence. Instead of the usual view, it says that "things" are given reality by virtue of the distinctions we discover in experience. If memory serves Pirsig says something like, if a thing has no value (negative or positive) then it is not distinquished from anything else and so does not exist. Ron: Hello DMB, thanks for helping me out on this, I think I pissed Dan off, which I regret. Maybe you can straighten me out on this. To re-cap, My original argument with Dan was the idea of subject/object distinction and SOM being two separate processes. snip: "things" are given reality by virtue of the distinctions we discover in experience." Ron: It's these distinctions which present an s/o world to us which is then overlayed by knowledge,culture,experience forming an intellection. which I support with quoting you above "if a thing has no value (negative or positive) then it is not distinquished from anything else and so does not exist." I stated to Dan that the intellection may be changed but the immediate distinction remains s/o which is why it seems so embedded. I commented how MOQ can change how we percieve the s/o distinction but the s/o distinction remains the same and can not be dropped. Thus the appearent paradox. I read Bo Skutviks SOL and thought he was talking about the same thing. I got the impression from Dan that SOM was direct experience and can be changed out with MOQ and see all as one, easily. I maintained that we still experience an s/o reality but we may have an MOQ understanding that it is all one. In the process of this the "idea before matter" subject arose. which cropped up a whole new bunch of questions. DMB: We create the notion of external objects because it works. It works cause we duck when sharp "objects" are flying at us, In that sense, nobody is suggesting we abandon common sense distinctions in ordinary life. Ron: This is where I see a possible problem with bunching intellect with cutting edge immediate experience. This statement seems to be a contradiction. If we create external objects why would we need to duck anything, why not abandon common sense distinctions if they are merely cultural ideas? My argument lies in experiential loops if all experience is constucted idea. my question is how does one learn anything new? how does one experience surprises, shock, horror when their perception does not fit with what is happening? since there are no out side influences how then does anyone have any common ground of reference? how then does MOQ not stray into solopsism if nothing truly exists out side of our perception. MOQ levels would be worthless, for it is all intellect and social. it lapses to solopsists loops which leave no room for any dynamic experiences. What I interpreted Pirsig as saying is that experience in an amalgom of objective reality and subjective recognitional experience. In this way, we all have a frame of refference yet have distinct interpretations of it. True, all we can ever know comes filtered through past experience...filtered being the pivotal word. SA hit it when he stated that niether preceeds the other in this regard, it is the process of both, But this in no way validates that either does not exist. There has to be an out there, out there. Whether it be static lumps of energy percieved as matter or what. If there was no "out there" out there then it can only be me. An insane me who can create new experiences and other minds unknowingly. I mean come on DMB, don't tell me I'm god, I'd make a lousy god. All that smiting and stuff, I can't even stack a dishwasher to my wifes liking. DMB continues: But this sort of naive realism has limits and leads to all sorts of trouble. The metaphysical assumptions of SOM are intimately tied up with our scientific and technological society. In many ways it has worked all too well so that we find ourselves living in a degraded enviroment, an artificial, machine-like world, alienation from our lives and from ourselves - and quite alot of this has to do with the over-emphasis on the so-called objective truths and realities and, at the same time, a denegration of so-called subjective experience such as we might enjoy in the arts or personal relations, etc. Ron asked: ...whatever happened to radical empiricism. dmb says: I'm predicting a big come-back. But seriously, if I lost track and failed to answer don't take it personally. I'm just busy with other things. Ron: I'm certainly thankful you are taking the time with me, I really do appreciate it. DMB posted Emerson quotes: He says, "The one thing in the world, of value, is the active soul." The sort of creative genius, he says, "is the sound estate of every man, In its essence it is progressive. ...springing spontaneous from the mind's own sense of good and fair." (Need we ask anyone, Phaedrus?) "In the right state he is Man Thinking. In the degenerate state ...a mere thinker, or still worse, the parrot of other men's thinking." (Yes, i see the irony in quoting that.) Books, he says, "are for nothing but to inspire". "Undoubtedly there is a right way of reading, so it be sternly subordinated. Man Thinking must not be subdued by his instruments." dmb says to Ron: The main distinction here, even though Emerson doesn't us the terms, is between static and dynamic. Notice what Emerson says about this "active soul"; that everybody has it, it is spontaneous, can't be found in books or other instruments of the intellect. This spontaneous sense of what's good and fair is our pre-intellectual experience, the primary empirical reality. Ron: Don't you think if anything is a cultural idea it's the sense of whats good and fair, for it changes from culture to culture, or are you speaking of the impetus or the urge of a goodness and fairness. DMB: I think that guys like Emerson and Pirsig are saying that we have to learn to trust our spontaneous nature. Even in activities that seems to also require structure, practice and precision - things like archery, motorcycling and sailing - we ought to trust that dynamic mode of perception. This sort of thing is legendary in the arts (including the martial arts) and writers are especially good at talking about this kind of thing but golfers will tell you too. Hell, Luke Skywalker showed everybody a version of this when he shut off the computers and nailed the Deathstar with one perfect shot. I know its corny, but everybody has that image already. Ron: I'm with you, nothing corny about it. I have practiced martial arts for 30yrs, all focus on the pre-intellectual. In fact you condition yourself to respond pre-intellectually in combative situations. DMB: Among other things, Radical Empiricism says this kind of experience ought not be excluded from our account of reality. Such things are not dismissed or denegraded for being "just" subjective. If I understand Emerson, he thinks it is the most valuable thing in the world. And if I understand Pirsig, this is what the mystics, zen monks and artist all seek to cultivate. That's pretty big stuff. A metaphysics that's dumb and/or blind to all that definately has some problems. So, its quite alright to duck when shit is coming at you. That's not the problem. SOM works well enough to split atoms and go to the moon. When it comes to handling that level of reality, SOM really rocks. Its not that its wrong so much as it is limited. It has a way of putting all the emphasis on those lower levels of reality and/or reducing human things to those levels. Ron: I agree. But Moq does not invalidate SOM it adds to it. I still do not think SO can be dropped easily like an unstylish hat as Dan said he could do by Zazen, Especially if SOM is responsible for creating the perceptual universe as stated previously. Dmb: I'm told the romantics were among the first to complain, starting after the American and French revolutions, when it became apparent that the ideals of the enlightenment and the scientific revolution weren't necessarily going to lead to a rational utopia. In fact, the terms "subject-object metaphysics" and well as "static" and "dynamic" theories of truth came up in a class on 19th century philosophy. And we're just getting warmed up, talking about a guy who died in 1805 (Schiller). James's Radical Empiricism was still a hundred years in the future. (I'm told Emerson and Schiller both influence James in a big way.) My point here is simply that SOM has many critics and it seems that doubting it is a fairly normal thing for a philosopher or even a philosophologist to do. Ron: Great post,Thanks for taking the time with my questions. _________________________________________________________________ See what you're getting into...before you go there http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_050 7 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/
