Ron, we're just talking, right? SA
> Hi Ron > > Because we can cut experience up.We impose a > plurality of > differentiations, experience has the potential to be > divided in many > ways. They are actively uncovered and not simply > given. > > David M > > [Ron] > even the electric eye senses light and not light. > Your not understanding a word of what I'm saying. > lets just drop it. > all of it. It's really not worth all the bullshit > involved, > SA too. It's just not worth alienating you guys over > a > a concept that simply can not be communicated. > I value both of you more than some concept about > pre-intellect. > I choose my relationship with you > over any idea I may have, ultimately. > > This is what I value, not being understood, but the > relationship > with people I admire and respect. > this is not some egotistical garbage. I simply > refuse > to let this get in the way of our friendship. > lets move on. > > I value the good standing with both of you more than > being correct by > any means. > > with love > and respect. > > woods > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David M > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:57 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > > > > Hi Ron > > > > Direct/unconceptualised experience knows nothing > of subjects and > > objects. > > > > > > regards > > David M > > > > [Ron] > > Right you are Dave, but unconceptualized > experience is sensual > > distinction. How can we > > have concepts about anything if it not distinct. > > > > > > ----- 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.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/
