Hi Joe I can't see how you can become aware of anything other than by how it changes you. We can postulate a beyond the self that causes this change and why the changes come and go, but we cannot find in our experience something that is not 'our' experience.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic > On Sunday 9 September 2007 2:39:28 AM David M quotes Joe: > > Hi Joe > > I'm really not sure what you are trying to say below? > > Ta > David M > > [Joe] > 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 David M, and All, > > You have thrown down the gauntlet! Are you interested? Subject/Object was > misinterpreted by Aristotle. Existence cannot be divided rationally into > an intentional existence of an essence in a mind, and an objective > (outside the knower) existence of an essence. Too many errors capped by > "Why should I care?" > > I love the two aspects of sex, the physical act, and the consciousness of > intimacy with another. This includes two forms of evolution the cosmic > (mechanical actions) and the conscious evolution of heightened awareness. > That distinction underlies all behavior, and is primary S/O evolution. Sex > highlights the evolution of proprietary awareness. When you used the > example of scoring the goal!!!!!!!!!!!, I thought that is what you were > getting at. > > Joe > > > > > > [David M] > 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/ > 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/
