> MP:
> "Experience" however requires an "experiencee" does it not? Else it is a
> meaningless word.
>
> Ron;
> Not necessarily, this is where you miss the mark. Experience composes
> existence, existence is interdependant on environment, the self is an illusion
> of the intersection of multiple interrelated phenomena of inorganic, organic
> cultural and intellectual patterns of value.
MP: Nonetheless, as you say "the self *is*" and as such *is* a pattern of value
which can value having an experience over not having it. Pirsig specifically
noted (in Lila, I believe) that "object" remains the same only is better
referred to
as (pardon any error in quoting, my Lila is in LA and I'm in CT) "an inorganic
static pattern of values" right? The way in which we understand it changes in
MoQ, but the thing, whatever the hell it actually is, still *is.* So
"experience" still
requires something to have any meaning, no? Even if its a pattern of values
valuing beingon the experienced side of a valuation, the experience still
occurs
to *something.*
Ron:
This is the rub, what does it mean to say that something"is"? Aristotle said
that to say that something "is" is an arguement from the particular expereince
to a universal understanding. Essentialism is the view that objects are isolated
entities in a vacuum. Quantum physics changed all this.. Atoms and particles
are not isolated units like billiard balls. more accurately understood as
oscillations
of fields of energy, physical reality is now understood relativistically.
MP:
I'm not trying to be contrarian here... I really don't see how an MoQ view of
"object" in SOM changes the fact that this thing SOM calls "object" still *is*
in
some way, even if its not real in an SOM sense, and is nothing but an MoQ
"organic/inorganic static pattern of values." It still *is* and still undergoes
"experience."
Ron:
Well, it is conventional to view it like this, but when you view it all as
different forms
of expereince, you begin to realize there is no space, as a vacuum seperating us
from the things we experience we tend to ignore the expereinces of temperature
atmosphere and gravity unless in their extreme, we seem to ignore
The expereinces of
blood pumping through your veins, air exchanging in your lungs. The
status of thirst, hunger and excremental sensation, thoughts and feelings all
exchanging
with environment. Skin ceaselessly exchanging particles, from the thoughts in
our head
to the farest star. Where is the seperation of expereince from experiencer?
Arent they one in the same? MoQ is realizing that the distinction between
subject and object, the experience from the experiencer does not exist.
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/
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/
