[Ron]
> ...there is this state of awareness then there is thinking about
> things. I'm saying that even in my awareness of continual stream of
> events I sense objects other than me ie. cricket chirping. which I
> allow to pass through me.
[SA]
Sure. I agree with this, but what I also notice that when you state
'cricking chirping' you have also taken a step back and pointed out that
you, "...sense objects other than..." you. I breath. This air that I
breath, that I can't live without, is this air thus me too? Sure, why
not? Thinking is flexible.
[Ron]
Here we're on to somethng, immediatly sensed experience. My whole
statement is that perhaps Bo
and Ham have something in the value sense term that it presents itself
as self and other in
basic spacial relationships that manifest in hearing and sight and the
other senses that distinguish
one sensation from another, any being that senses anything makes
distinctions. because it makes
distinctions it can be said that there is a certain amount of value
awareness.
The question is when one is in zazen is one value aware?
If you are you are making distinctions. If you are not value aware and
making no distinction
you are not aware of anything, blank, no distinction whatsoever. No
sensing no experiencing.
Subject and object are required to have value. Value requires subjects
and objects.
they are one. I say you can not separate subject and object from value.
you can however
balance subject and object perfectly in the center of value using zazen.
This is not dropping
s/o distinction this is perfectly balanced s/o distinction where things
are sensed but flow as one.
This is the difference.
[SA]
I guess subject and object talk has historical hang-ups, and even
trying to explain ourselves in this thread becomes loopy and difficult,
I would say for one, simply by trying to explain ourselves by using
subject/object (s/o). I get hung-up on the / between the s and o.
[Ron]
I think this is what happened to the MOQ , it got hung up on the / .
[Ron]
> It's just curious. I get confused when Pirsig says there is dynamic
> quality of the immediate experience and SOM nothing else, to which I
> ask well what the heck was before the greeks invention of SOM?
When does Pirsig say there is dq and SOM and nothing else? I
thought he discusses static quality, too.
[Ron]
He does, SOM is an interpretation of static Quality. One he states was
invented by the Greeks.
[Ron]previously:
> someone list the OTHER brands of metaphysics and if it's cultural then
> it should be easy to point to
OTHER cultural
> metaphysics should'nt it?
[SA]
Zen
[Ron]
is zen cultural or is zen MOQ?
[SA]
Let's keep discussing.
I also feel I need to say this. When I say I'm tired and bogged
down with SOM, understand,
I blame this on SOM and not you. This is an interesting discussion, so
don't think I'm ending it now.
[Ron]
Trying to explain an abstract concept in common language is rather
difficult. I'm probably
being interpreted as being caught up in a dualistic dilemma. I feel
there is an area MOQ is
overlooking by concentration on value alone. I feel perhaps Pirsig takes
it to a subjective tilt
by positing that value comes before subjects and objects and subjects
and objects can be
dropped or seperated from value. Subjects and objects do not cause
value. Value does not cause subjects and objects. They are one in the
same.
Thank you for your ears SA.
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
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/
