You 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.
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. [Krimel] I think this ability to see subjects and object (in a totally nonmetaphysical sense) it one of the things that sets our species apart from other primates. Arlo has brought this up several time in other contexts. We can see ourselves as either subject or objects as static or dynamic beings. We can see others as objects or identify with them as other subjects. But I do think that experience and the differentiation of subjects and object from experience only makes sense in the context of someone making the differentiation. Meaning and purpose and understanding do not reside in the inorganic level. They arise from biological processes which do have goals and purposes. 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/
