Krimel said: Even Ham knows that experience is a personal thing. On this particular point the MoQ is entirely in the realm of subjective. When each of us has an experience that experience is primary and we as individuals infer subjects and objects from it.
dmb says: Um, I think what DM is trying to say (below) is that you've undercut the whole point even as you make it. Pirsig says that subjects and objects are derived from experience and you say, yea, the subjects are derived from the experience OF THE SUBJECT. That doesn't just undercut the point. You've reserved it so that it becomes an endorsement of SOM rather than a rejection of it and an alternative to it. And many, many misconceptions would naturally follow from this crucial mistake. I'm beginning to think that you don't really know what you're talking about here, Krimel. DM: I'd suggest that as we can only derive subjects and objects out of > experience as two categories that oppose each other then experience > cannot be taken as monologically subjective. If subjective and objective > are a division of what we experience, experience is the context of both > and it would be very odd to try and reduce experience to either one > of these terms as that would be to cut something up and claim a part > is the whole. _________________________________________________________________ See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts. http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008 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/
