SA wrote in Dec.23rd:
"Exactly! I've tried this before. This is what I
mean by 'woods'. The woods are an experience that
includes me, my wife, the deer, my son, cities,
woodpeckers - it is the ecosystem approach. Some took
this as raw biological, but I notice wits, I notice
intellect working in the woods. When I walk in the
woods, I don't leave my intellect at the house. I
bring it with me. How does intellect relate to the
woods? This is an original question of life. How
does any component relate to anything? I'm glad this
is being brought back up. Thanks Marsha and
Tittivulus for keeping this pattern going.
Ok, so what they do. The s/o experience seems
flat to me. This is why I've had difficulty with s/o.
What difference is an s/o experience from walking in
the woods? Call it what you want to, but I don't see
s/o as an impact at all on how we understand reality.
For s and o are interchangeable. So, reality is more
specific and has information to share if we mention a
worm and the holes the worms dig. This is also why
I've said before that I don't see s's and o's dancing
about. What information are s's and o's sharing?
I've say nothing. It is the further inquiry into a
rock and noticing atoms that shares more information,
or discussing how one sat on a hill and watched the
sunset, or even if one wants to discuss how they read
a book and the information the book shared, or doing a
math problem, etc... These experiences are
interrelating with our growth as human beings, the
earth, and the Amazon rainforest. What comes of these
components and what are they doing?"
SA: I commented on the first part of your Post on Dec. 28., and now to the
second part (and my apologies for taking so long in answering)
I think you are too harsh on S&O . You write, for instance, " Call it what
you want to, but I don't see s/o as an impact at all on how we understand
reality." Allow me to differ in this. If by 'we' you mean us, clients of the
so-called Western culture (better, Euroamerican culture) I would say that that
impact is quite strong, decisive, unavoidable.
One could disagree with the S&O distinction, criticize it, even refute it,
but one thing is, IMO, inadequate: to ignore that distinction. This because,
whatever its merits, it is ingrained in our way of 'thinking the world'.
Ingrained since childhood, adolescence and also in maturity. What are called
our 'formative experiences', during childhood and later on, have much to do
with the S&O distinction; I don't think it's innate but it is hammered on us by
parents and teachers.
True a fair number of 20th century thinkers had put forward valid
criticisms and alternative ways to 'thinking the world' and it's encouraging to
know that their number seems to be increasing. But by and large, they remain
'oddities' . Let's face it, Pirsig is an oddity within our present culture, as
much as Merleau-Ponty is an oddity, as much as Schroedinger or Heisenberg and
all the rest are oddities. Some people may talk about and even understand the
revolution in Physics, but in their daily lives they think in terms of
Classical Physics. So, all in all I am skeptical that when 'walking in the
woods', in the meaning you give to it, one could live this piece of
intellectual luggage behind.
I don't want to sound as endorsing absolute cultural determinism. I
believe that we can escape reasoning inside the S&O distinction (and, I
believe, that the better for us if we do) but we'd do ourselves an small favor
by pretending that we can make it disappear from our minds and that it's not
there, 'lurking in the background', so to speak, ready to catch us unaware
when we least expect it.
---------------------------------
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
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/
