Quoting Jorge Goldfarb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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"
Excellent. You have nailed the problem with Western culture. The immoral S/O pattern of thinking is sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Thanks for spelling out the problem so clearly and succinctly. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
