[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.
[SA]
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]
Differential, maybe this is where I'm stuck, In distinction. I'm terming
distinction as synonomous with s/o
[Ron]
> The value comes in at the social and intellectual
but the base
> distinction is raw relational s/o.
[SA]
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]
This is where I see subjective projection possibly entering the picture,
does the brain actually value blood or is this
just an interesting metaphor to view the process differently. Does
Gravity actually value mass or is it a characteristic
of mass, mass warping space. I would'nt set it exclusivly in the human
category for I do think fish value through
differentiating. but the question is, does one require a brain to value?
is responding to stimuli value? possibly.
[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.
[SA]
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.
[Ron]
exactly, two processes.
[SA]
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.
[Ron]
I've impersonated a few trees, the squirrels did'nt buy it for a second,
but a few deer did. But your right.
It just strikes me as a projection sort of like how my daughter projects
what she feels the cat wants.
Personally I don't think the cat really wants to be dressed like a baby
and rolled about in a stoller, but
the old girl tolerates it..she's a good cat. I just feel that placing
our value patterns on phenomena
can be misleading.
woods,
Ron
________________________________________________________________________
____________
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/
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/
