Hi Joe I'm really not sure what you are trying to say below?
Ta David M Hi David M, Ron, DMB, and all, IMO opinion the S/O division has to be distinguished first. Aristotle’s theory of knowledge describes a division between ‘intentional existence’ and ‘real existence’ S/O. This division between the body/soul, with mind/will as functions of the soul, has so permeated thought that I cannot distinguish mechanical/conscious behavior. I unconsciously speak of my mind. Until I realize that my behavior follows cosmic/conscious values, I have no way of distinguishing mechanical/conscious activity. I assume all my actions are from my own intentions. This is contrary to experience. I do what I do not want to do. Joe Hi Ron/DMB And when we come to describe and divide this reality there are many ways to do so. Subject/object is one way and has some uses, its latches onto certain qualities of our experience, there are many others to be dscribed. There are qualities that are more pertinent than those described by the subject-object division. MOQ notices that all our experiences are based in values. What we experience/notice we experience as having a value from the horrific through to bliss. And MOQ notices that the flux and change dominate our experience, yet there are also some patterns and order to notice and desribe. It is a long way down the road of conceptual evolution that we might suggest such generalities as subjects and objects. People and stuff must get noticed a long time before such conceptual peculiarities as subjects and objects. And when you look hard, SOM causes many conceptual problems but has been very useful for dominance over nature and is now costing us dearly. If you can't grasp this via Pirsig, try James, or Dewey, or even Heidegger. Regards David M 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/
