Hi Ron You talk about objects that are not you, I wonder, how do you extract this subject and separate it from the objects. Just examine your experience. If you extract all the 'objects' of experience from your experience what is left? What is this subject that is separate from these objects? Is the subject a 'nothing'? Is this a good process for trying to identifythe subject that you are? I think not. Are objects of experience something seperate from what you are? What about when both you and I are experiencing the same table: is it the same experience that we are having? For one thing we cannot stand in the same place so as to experience the same perspective, so our experience is different. The experience of a table you have is unique to you. The so called object of experience that is meant to be other from you is unique to you and it is this uniqueness that givesyou an idea that when it comes to 'you' there is only one such 'you'. Experience and allits 'objects' are always individual. Why then, how then, can you seperate out a you/subject and an other/object in this experience? I'd suggest it is only through communicating with other people that you discover that some aspects of experience are shared, and in this sense go beyond what is simply your unique experience. There are patterns or objects in experience, we discover that these can be experienced by others and are not unique. Only through communication and language, and not through direct experience, do we discover that we are not the whole world, we form an ego. This is the form of development all children go through, all society too when it overcomes the 'participation mystique'. Direct/unconceptualised experience knows nothing of subjects and objects.
regards David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > > > > [Ron] >> ...the focus being on the recognition of things > before >> one can think about it. > > > Again, how do you 'know'/'recognize' "things before one can think"? > This kind of loop, where 'know' is before 'know' is a trapping of SOM > thinking I believe. > > > [Ron] >> Again my suspicion is that preintellectual recognition has s/o >> distinction and naturally leads to s/o intellection, simply on the >> merit that we sense the phenomenal world as objects in relation to >> ourselves before we even think about it. > > I disagree. I really don't think about that and I being separate. > I could if I wanted to, but my mind is accepting these cricket sounds, > they pass through me, and I'm really not trying to define a this and > that, just a continual stream of events. > > [Ron] >> I have ducked objects thrown at me before I was aware of the whats >> whys and hows of any of it. > > I duck all the time to bad, disturbing, immoral, and unvaluable > thoughts, are those thoughts not mine? > > > [Ron] > I guess what I'm saying is my personel experience has been a level of > awareness you describe > as a continual stream of events where I'm aware of things without > actually thinking about them. > 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. I just feel that there are two differing > levels of awareness > that seem to be getting lumped together somehow in the MOQ perpective. > If you ever got > "sucker punched" or been > hit by something you were not aware of, there is this split second of > pure awareness before > the pain sets in and you begin to rationalize just what hit you and how. > if you've been hit in the > back of the head, your vision becomes jumbled and nothing visually makes > sense for a few moments. > experience tells you if this has happened before that more than likely > you're going to get hit again > and head for cover if you are unexperienced you are going to pop your > head up and look around > for what hit you, probably getting it in the face this time. With out > intellection and SOM > I feel the fist,bottle,shoe hit my face,me. And you have s/o distinction > before I can think about it. > 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? > 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? > > Thanks SA, I'm just askin questions, any help would be appreciated. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! > FareChase. > http://farechase.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/ > 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/
