Greetings Ham, May I ask how performing functions for the purpose of a primary source is freedom?
Marsha At 02:14 AM 2/3/2008, you wrote: >David -- > >I wonder if you realize what you are saying. > > > For me the meaning of experience-quality prior to > > any notion of the individual or perceiver is this: > > > > a living experience full of trees and sky and sunshine and animals > > and clouds and people and grass, etc is what it is to exist and be alive, > > experience-life is not confined to some boundary called a perceiver, > > experience only exists when trees and birds and sun's are interacting > > with human organisms, the human alone and isolated does not > > have experience, experience is what occurs when much more > > is going on, experience is a process between organisms and > > light and heat and energy and their changes, experience transcends > > an isolated perceiver, experience is only possible when suns shine > > and birds sing and eyes flash and photons are absorbed, so > > experience requires not a perceiver but a cosmos. > >If there is no notion of a perceiver, who or what do you think has the >experience that you so poetically describe? Is it not the individual, David >Morey, who recalls these images from his own experience? Those trees and >clouds and animals are no more real than the subject who is aware of them. > >I may have misconstrued Pirsig, and my days on this forum may be limited, >but I cannot let your full heading "The isolated perceiver is an abstraction >that dissects and kills experience" stand without logical scrutiny. Your >assertion that the perceiver kills experience is an absurdity. The isolated >perceiver is PRECISELY what experiences. The cosmos doesn't perceive; it >has no neurons or brain to serve as a faculty for cognizance. Neither does >Quality, for that matter. Value is the province of the proprietary >individual, without whose sensibility it could not become aware. Social >morality and collective knowledge are only codified by-products of >individual experience. > >I'm well aware that this SOM epistemology makes me a "sinner" in your view. >Well, so be it. Personally, I'm growing tired of defending the autonomous >individual against a corps of elitists who insist that human beings are only >"abstracted patterns" and that freedom is "negative and bad". How can a >philosophy that decries human individuality and freedom enlighten our >society? The most left-leaning politicians in the free world would see such >a belief system as endemic of a stagnant culture like Islam as opposed to >that of any any western ideology. > >If this kind of thinking is what you folks consider intellectually >"progressive", heaven help us! > >Respectfully, >Ham > > >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/ ************* DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. 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/
