[SA] Ron, we're just talking, right?
[Ron] right, Its just it really doesent matter more to me than our relationship. I'm just not willing to argue anymore. I'd like to hear more about your thoughts. usually when explaination reaches it's limit it is time to open your ears. I know no other way to explain. woods > 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/ 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/
