> [SA previously]
> Experience is NOT locked into the intellectual
> level only, but is this
> whole reality of social, organic, inorganic, and
> dynamic. the sacred
> is everywhere
> [Ron]
> I agree SA, this is what started me off. I was
> getting the impression
> from others and some of
> what I read of Pirsig, is that experience is locked
> into the intellectual level only.
> That it emerges from the social level and is
> exclusivly cultural.
Yeah, I don't see experience being totally culture
and/or intellectual. I see each level as defining an
experience, and dynamic quality is an effort to define
another experience.
[Ron]
> I tend to think that
> there is an awareness preceeding social and
> intellectual and it
> differentiates experience.
> this is raw differential experience itself, on the
> organic level,the
> cutting edge experience.
> Being differential it makes distinctions and any
> distinction is s/o.
You see this is where I differ. I don't see how
the organic level has to be s/o. We can divide
reality up into objects and subjects all over the
place. A rock can be object. My thought can be an
object. I know two ways to discuss subject. Subject
can be a rock in a painting. Subject can be what
humans or other animals perceive of objects. S and
O's bounce all over the place. You can interchange an
s for an o and an o for an s.
[Ron]
> The value comes in at the social and intellectual
but the base
> distinction is raw relational s/o.
How come value doesn't come in at the organic and
inorganic level? Value means something liking
something else, right? How come we can't say the
brain values blood? What's the difference? The only
difference I see is that we've gotten used to thinking
that value is only human derived. I fish will flop
until it finds water and then will swim away. Gravity
goes where the mass is.
[Ron]
> Moq may replace intellectual SOM, social I argue is
> a bit tougher to change and the basic
> raw distintion impossible for it is experience
> itself.
Thoughts are experiencing reality, aren't they?
Thoughts are not somewhere far away from reality. You
see I perceive experience to be the only reality
possible. This does not mean my experience is the
only reality possible. I just perceive any reality as
an experience or any experience or existent as
reality, now whether that reality is true or good
depends on the value of the experience determined by
the experience itself. Also, experiences are only
comparative. A person dying is valuable to the soil
where a tree may grow. Generative and degenerative
depends on what 'something' is trying to be or not to
be. It doesn't necessary have to do with right or
wrong. A good rock is a rock. A not so good rock is
me trying to impersonate a rock.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
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/
