Quotes (in " ") from SA's Post of Dec. 30:
"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."
I quite agree with you. Moreover, in children education and in many
academic debates, being objective means to have both feet firmly on the ground
and being subjective "to ''have one's head in the clouds".
The way we educate our children (which is pretty well the same way we
were educated) has much to do with what I said earlier about the S/O
distinction being ingrained in us (us: clients of the Euroamerican culture) and
your question:
"Ingrained" says who?"
I do, for one. As opposed to other cultures we eat with fork and knife,
cover most of our bodies and think of "the real world" as objective and "the
imagined world as subjective". Our educational system (which includes us
parents) from kindergarten onwards is especially designed to repress
imagination and foster the importance of facts. The result of such education
is that the S/O becomes ingrained and with the addition, as you well say, of
objectivity being a most cherished value.
You ask: "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."
Yes, I mean far more than a mere two letters separated by a slash. Not easy
to put what I think in a few sentences; running the risk of being too schematic
: The S/O distinction is at the root of how we think the world: We live in a
"real" world that functions according to pre-given natural laws; whatever
doesn't conform to said laws, belongs to the realm of the subjective. But the S
is a temporary compartment, once Science advances enough, there would be no S
left. ( I hope you are keeping in mind that when I say 'we' I mean the people
in the mainstream of our culture; I gather you don't place yourself in that
mainstream and neither do I ) .
" How did this "oddities" come up with "alternative ways to 'thinking the
world", if S/O is "hammered" and "ingrained" in them?
Although not easy, it is possible to rebel against ingrained beliefs. Thus
the innovators, the really original thinkers that propose radically new ways of
'thinking the world' or, at least part of it. Not an easy feat by all means.
It requires not only exceptional intelligence but courage to pursue your views
against the established ones. I've said earlier that I read Zen&AMM as an
allegory of a person rebelling against established patterns of thought. By
reading the book you can realize how difficult and anguishing that could be.
Since one is rebelling against established patterns of thought (that is,
patterns established among the society you are inserted-in) one cannot expect
but to be perceived by the mainstream as an 'oddity'. As W. Kandinsky writes in
"Concerning the Spiritual in Art", commenting on those that open new frontiers:
"Real spiritual gains are at best under-valued, at worst entirely ignored".
"The solitary visionaries are despised or regarded as
abnormal or eccentric"
" 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?"
SA: I've been trying to. I'm afraid it would take me pages and pages to
explain myself better. To put my position very succinctly:-- I don't like the
S/O distinction. I don't like rainy weather either; which doesn't mean I'd go
out without an umbrella.--
---------------------------------
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/
