Krimel said: Experiences is the "cause" of "things"? ... I think your claim that, "experience is the cause and things are the effect" is misguided. What Pirsig says is this: "By this he (James) meant that subjects and objects are not the starting points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories.'" James says the we derive subjects and objects from our experience, not that experience creates them. He also says we derive this from reflection on our experiences and that sometimes in our deriving we see ourselves as subject and sometimes as object. The same can be said of inanimate objects. Many here would like to see photons as subjects for example. The point is that experience doesn't happen and subjects and objects are not derived in a vacuum. They occur within entities capable of making distinctions.
dmb says: You really don't see how illogical this is? Do you really think it makes sense to say that subjects are derived from subjects? Do you really imagine that it is NOT completely preposterous to insist that experience begins within entities that are derived from that experience? Pirsig and James assert "that subjects and objects are NOT the starting points of experience". They are secondary, they are "concepts derived from something more fundamental". But you just keep repeating the very assumption they are rejecting here. You keep insisting that subjects and objects MUST be the starting points of experience, that experience can only "occur within entities capable of making distinctions". It just has to be subjective experience of an objective reality, you say, because they are "not derived in a vacuum". Clearly, you find it impossible to imagine experience in terms other than SOM, but you should at least be able to see that this is at odds with what Pirsig and James are saying. You should at least be able to check the logic in the statements you've made and see how that doesn't even come close to working. I mean, isn't it obviously wrong to say that subjects are secondary because they're derived from subjects? That's like saying you are your own son. Such a notion might work in a funny little song or down at the comedy club but, logically and philosophically speaking, its pure nonsense. _________________________________________________________________ Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/ 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/
