Jorge, comments below:
[SA previously]
> "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?"
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
I am harsh on s/o type thinking for it is always
one side pushing another side away. It is conflict
and contrast. At low levels of usage s/o is calmed by
the ten thousand things, but when it levels the
playing field into an only S or only an O type of
categorizing where something MUST fit into either an S
or an O, this is the broad-edged sword of generalizing
that trivializes everything that is not on the agenda.
S can be O and O can be S, it all depends on how one
divides the S and O. This "how one divides" is the
agenda. Therefore in more modern connotation
subjective has become the "them" or the "enemy", and
objective is the "us" or "righteous". If one can
prove ones' perspective belongs in the objective
category, then ones' agenda proves more right and
true. But evidence can slant towards objective, and
prove more true, but this only pushes creativity and
ones own free-thinking as something that doesn't
count. I'd say behind all this categorizing of
'something' being an S or an O finds deeper roots in
an agenda.
[Jorge]
> One could disagree with the S&O distinction,
> criticize it, even refute it, but one thing is, IMO,
> inadequate: to ignore that distinction.
[SA currently]
The S/O distinction works that's for sure, but
towards what agenda? What meaning is the s/o
distinction trying to project? The s/o distinction
itself is somebody trying to force the ten thousand
things into two boxes. It would take a lot more
atomic bombs to do such that. It would be a force of
giants clashing. I don't see what meaning an s and an
o by themselves project other than reality being
separated into an either/or categorization. It is
either this or that. S/O carries a lot of baggage in
which the s/o distinction itself just means 'versus'
or 'conflict' or 'separation'. Unless you see this
another way?
I see this western s/o distinction as very
different from the yin/yang of the east. In the east,
yin is more precisely yin-becoming-yang and yang is
more precisely yang-becoming-yin. The western s/o
distinction holds no such "becoming" and joining. The
western notion is / (separation).
[Jorge]
> This because, whatever its merits, it is ingrained
in
> our way of 'thinking the world'.
[SA currently]
"Ingrained", who says?
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
What does S/O distinction mean to you? I just
see this S and an O with a slash them. It seems you
mean something more than this.
[Jorge]
> 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' .
[SA currently]
How did this "oddities" come up with "alternative
ways to 'thinking the world", if S/O is "hammered" and
"ingrained" in them?
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
This seems to be a very broad-edged sword you use
to slash "daily lives" with. This is your opinion.
Maybe the oddities are the philosophers that push s/o
thinking, and thus students of this philosophy find
application where? They demonstrate a life of what?
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
I really don't know where your coming from with
the s/o distinction. When I see this kind of
distinction I just think somebody's trying to separate
the world into two. Maybe you could explain yourself
better?
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
Sure I can understand us/them type thinking, but
in the back of my mind watching this us/them type
thinking is another kind of thinking that instantly
finds life more diverse than this.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
