Ron,
Another way to state this question:
> Continues:
> > But the MOQ does agree with
> > Steiner when he says consciousness transcends the
> > distinction between
> > subject and object because the MOQ says that' not
> > all consciousness is
> > thinking. Artistic consciousness precedes thinking
> > and is separate from
> > it both in the judgment of Freshman composition
> and
> > in jumping up from a
> > hot stove, and also, I think, in the making of
> > scientific discoveries.
SA: If ones thinking is just parsing out s's and o's,
and while I think I'm not slicing and dicing out s's
and o's, I'm contemplating, oh, let's say putting bird
seed in the feeder or when I was recently outside
listening to the birds sing, feeling the warm sun,
relaxing, and I was being very mindful of this event,
thus, my mind was fully occupied with what was
happening. My reasoning wasn't concerned with the s's
and o's. My reasoning was not dead, but very alive
and fully participating with the event. Is this kind
of activity not thinking? What is my mind doing when
contemplating, mindful, and fully engaged with what is
happening? Where do my thoughts go? My thoughts are
not actively defining what is subjective or objective
or being either one. My thoughts are so fully engaged
with what is happening I don't notice any type of
parsing. It is a conscious activity, as noted by
Pirsig above, but my thoughts are engaged and dancing
with this conscious activity, coming and going, and
thus, the thoughts are bringing as they come a certain
picture while I hear the birds singing, even if the
picture is of what I did earlier in the day, then this
image leaves, or my thoughts may activity add 1+1, but
then this thought activity will leave, in the meantime
I'm enjoying the warmth, I feel the warmth at the same
time, even if my mind takes over and I find the world
disappears, but then this rush of mind taking over the
event leaves and I may hear and notice nothing but the
wind, all an event tied together with no parsing out
of what is an s or an o, the thoughts are as the
birds, just an event in this universe. I'm talking
about how thoughts are a presence, a bird is a
presence, this wind is a presence, all is a presence
in this universal event. This kind of reasoning seems
to be very different than simply wondering what is
subjective and what is objective about this universal
event. I'm not engaging in that kind of intellectual
activity.
What do you think?
Ron:
SA, I think you're on the money. When I was explaining
My own experiences to Marsha in the "into the wild"
Thread, I remembered that the longer I was out in the wild
The more I ceased to think in what we call intellectual terms.
What exerted itself more and more was immediate awareness.
Linguistic thought diminished and visual thought began to dominate.
This happens when I create art and when I'm building or creating,
I visualize mentally when "thinking" this is symbol manipulation
But manipulation in constructive terms, literally.
I think s/o is a linguistically emergent phenomena, once we begin
To define references for purposes of understandable communication
And generate rules that govern their use "me Tarzan, you Jane"
Seeing and understanding the world in those terms generates and
Evolves naturally into intellectual common sense. What I am trying
To express to Bo is this very point, that different grammatical
Context emotes different systems of thought.
When Bo says:
To repeat: In a metaphysics that rejects the subject/object distinction
(and all its derivative) "mind" can't survive, nor can "consciousness"
But that's not what Pirsig states, again to repeat
Mr. Pirsig:
MOQ says that' not
> > all consciousness is
> > thinking. Artistic consciousness precedes thinking
> > and is separate from
> > it both in the judgment of Freshman composition and
> > in jumping up from a
> > hot stove, and also, I think, in the making of
> > scientific discoveries.
Ron:
Clearly Bo's interpretation, as it stands now, is in direct conflict
With Pirsigs MoQ. It leaves little to interpretation. Bo's SOL
Is obviously based on Bo's MoQ. Which consists of a selective cherry
picking
Of Pirsigs work.
But....
If he were to concede to Pirsig and revise his understanding, his
SOL would still have explanation power and would be a integral part
Of implementing MoQ. Bringing it from a zen mode of experience
To a Pragmatic one of use.
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/
