Hi Ron One thought. You talk below of the senses and seem to think that 'what we are aware of' is some how created in the brain.
I do not think of awareness like this. I think change and awareness/experience go together. We are aware of what is other to us, our environment, in so far as it changes us. Even the single living cell has to respond and interact with its environment in so far as their environment affects and changes it. This recognition and response to change is awareness. Now cells develop compex organs but these organs do not break the awareness/change link or create something that was not already there. To a large extent an organ is a way to filter the effects that the environment is having on the organism, to filter out the bombardment of change to pick out those bits that are of most use and interest in terms of responding to the changes in the environment that are going to help the organism endure in its present order. Any use? Ta DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > > [David M] > Hi Ron > > I sense that we are failing to communicate too. > We can only exchange words and hope that we uncover a way to communicate > better. > I offered ny thoughts to see if they helped with your problem but > apparently they do not. > But if you want to keep trying feel free. But yes I fail to see that > what you are calling a problem is one. You may have a > perspective/experience I do not have, or maybe I have solved the problem > and have the tools you lack. So far I can't tell. > > [SA] > Yes, when you get to this point, then it will seem as if we're > arguing to the point where our relationship is in jeopardy, but our > relationship is not in jeopardy from where I sit. I really did not see > this as an argument threatening our relationship, a philosophical > argument yes, but our relationship, no. This is why the MoQ has no > Truth, but it does have a bunch a little truths runnin' around. > > [Ron] > David, SA, > I do not see it as a problem so much as something to consider. Language > at this level of communication > has become difficult for me. I'm attempting to express a consideration > along with questioning an idea. > I was not really stating that communication is useless or that the > relationship is in jeopardy, only that it, > at this level, it has lost it's meaning for me, and to push it further > was to risk a conflict based on emotions > rather than ideas. > On the way to Ocean city MD for the annual bike week Saturday, I had a > lot of time to think and regroup. > I thought about experience as I was rolling along DE rte 1 south bound > at 80 mph trying to catch up > with the rest of the group who have newer machines and a 5 speed tranny. > During this dynamic experience > I was very aware of our discussions, the rush was overwhelming. I began > to chuckle when the thought of > the old cartoons of the coyote and the roadrunner popped into my head. > Coyote was static and used SOM. > Roadrunner is dynamic, reminded me of Intellect and experience. > > We can only know reality by what the senses (those of sight, smell, > taste, hearing, touch .ad infinum) > express to the brain which is another complex system of processes to > produce awareness. > One can argue that in the process of essembly in the brain, shape,color, > description from memory > comes together to form pre-intellectual experience. > > To go even deeper, we see sense data itself is differental > in nature also and falls within the limits of the organ. That which is > sensable by the organ > and that which is not. (ie. a deaf person may still feel vibration of > sound even though their ears > can not) > I'm not saying reality and existence rests on this differential quality, > I'm saying experience rests within > the ability of the organ, the differential data itself. We really can't > know what reality is or existence > other than through the senses . > > So when people say you can drop subject object distinction, I say you > can not drop it all together. > Pirsigs exact words are ""Zen Buddhists talk about 'just sitting,' a > meditative practice in which the > idea of a duality of self and object does not dominate one's > consciousness. > What I'm talking about here in motorcycle maintenance is 'just fixing,' > in which the idea of a > duality of self and object doesn't dominate one's consciousness. When > one isn't dominated by > feelings of separateness from what he's working on, then one can be said > to 'care' about what > he's doing.(ZMM, Chapter 25) > > Not Dominating one's consciousness, hardly "dropping" it. When people > glibbly talk of being caught up > in SOM I argue we are all caught up in SOM we are emmersed in it. The > intellection of Quality > is not allowing duality to dominate consciousness. > > Thanks for listening, SA, David, I think I understand why monks will > take a vow of silence because > of the difficulty language can present. > > > > 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/
