[SA previously]
> "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."
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
This is why I have a problem with broad-edged
swords that are so big, the muscle that tries to swing
them can't control them very well. This is a very
general last sentence you give above Jorge. I follow
along with you, and I understand what your saying, but
my father was a very spiritual person and an artist.
My mother was a very family oriented person and didn't
get into the long winded (worded) philosophical
discussions my father and I used to have. I did well
in math until 9th grade, and then it disinterested me
so much. Actually, I was a straight A student until
10th grade. I received a D. I can't remember what it
was in, but I didn't like high school with all its'
hopla of popularity. I moved in from out of state,
and was courted by the popular kids, but when I tried
to talk with them, they were - da. The front, the
fake exterior, however you want to call it was an
image to keep in fear of what others might think. I
never went for it. I went to school in ripped jeans,
and soon others were doing it. I cut half my hair
off, and the other half grew almost to my shoulder. I
went to college and dropped out and lived in the woods
most of the time (sleep mostly at my parents house,
but still found other places to live). I ended up
going back to the university and getting a degree. I
currently work with troubled youth, and I'm on the
peripheral again. About three more weeks and I'm done
working at this place, after over 2 years. I can't
wait - the negativity is vicious. So, with your
blanket statements on how people are, and their modern
ways - Dwai does the same thing - I would suggest
first learn who your talking with, and then you can
stereotype all you want after you've made some
pertinent points that really do have to do with
somebody. I say this due to your blanket statement as
follows:
"Our educational system (which includes us
parents)..."
"us" Have we not learned anything? My
grandfather was a farmer, and my grandmother taught me
how to meditate and she performed yogi (from a
teacher) way back, and the woods are more innocent
than the usual stereotypes. Our backgrounds are too
diverse for these broad-edged sword statements. Is
some of nasty things of this culture present in my
life? You bet cha! and I feel miserable at times due
to this, but I continue to shock myself into this
quietness.
[Jorge]
> 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.
[SA currently]
Yes, I well say, for certain people, "certain",
and who they are on this forum I can only pick out two
that profess it - Bo and Ham. It was either Peter or
Steve that said anybody that is trying to learn the
Pirsig's moq can't be labeled a SOMist. I agree with
that person.
[Jorge]
> 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:
[SA currently]
Again "how WE think the world" (caps mine)? If
you can't avoid it or try not to, then that's your
effort. I think the world is more than mere s's and
o's.
[Jorge]
> 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 )
[SA currently]
Ahhhh, thankfully you made this point. I was
beginning to wonder about this "we" again. Quite
frankly, maybe it's due to me participating in this
forum, but I couldn't point out a somist, unless they
come out and say - subjective bad, objective good or
'we must split and separate the world in us's and
them's, etc... Compassion and empathy are difficult
to practice, but worthwhile. It's as Marsha says,
this is my sanga, and any social support group (like
AA, hahaha) is helpful as long as many seem to find a
way to support your effort.
[Jorge]
> " 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"
[SA currently]
Sounds like a shaman. They were in a certain
culture, but their feats were always new. The shaman
teacher was different than the shaman student for one
to be a shaman, one needs to live their dream, and
thus why priests don't like shaman's. For priests
have a message to give from the established order.
anyways...
blue and white,
SA
P.S. You explained yourself very well, and I'm glad
you responded back on this issue. Dialogue helps...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
