Anders Nielsen (joshu@diku.dk)
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:57:19 +0100
the subject of today:
Is MoQ based on Subject-Object thinking?
Diana:
> I have always thought of rational, categorical and subject-object
thinking as all
> being the same thing. But perhaps not. Platt says that subject object
thinking is > the only kind of thinking there is. I can see that thinking
has to be categorical
> otherwise the mind has nothing to grasp, but it's possible that these
categories > may be something other than subjects and objects.... can we
have some more > words from you
> on this Platt?
Subject-Object thinking is just a phrase that tries to describe the
multitude of non-MoQ thinking that you'll find in the (western) world. It's
always nice to have a clearcut phrase you can call your enemies, though
perhaps the full meaning of the words maybe quite vague (which in fact is
why we're having this discussion). It has been used here on TLS before as
meaning quite a bit more than just the Subject-Object Framework, which I
guess is the collective philosophies of Materialism, Idealism and all the
other -isms of traditional philosophy (possibly excluding a few of the more
esoteric ones). Rational thought is something different from that, even
logic and math is not connected to it other than the fact that rational
thought as such is most advanced here in the western world where all the
-isms philosophies have been developed as well. Also the -isms and rational
thought have pretty much nothing to say about spirituality, god, mysticism,
creativity, art (you get the drift), and I guess this may be the reason why
they can be a bit hard to differentiate, but I strongly believe them to be
seperate entities, and though rational thought since the 70'es have had a
bad rap, you can't really think about anything, let alone discuss anything
without it.
I may get ideas from my bones, but I use my brain to test if they hold
water. When I get an idea or hear of one from others, I get out my big
rational thought-hammer, put the idea on my idea-anvil and bang,bang,bang
as hard as I can on it, to see if it falls apart. Some ideas are adamant
like granite and require weeks of constant hammering before anything gives,
others are pulverized like eggshells by the first blow of the hammer, but
there's not a lot of porcelain-ideas on the top of my "mentalpiece" and
that I believe is an aspect of rational thinking that cannot be left behind
as we explore new territory in MoQ-land. And this is also why I hesitate to
accept the multiple-truths idea as such, because taken at word-value it
encourages philosophical lazyness when people can say "oh, you don't
believe me..well it's just a different truth than your used SOM-truth, you
bad old SOMite!".. If you know what I mean? And sometimes I feel that
everything that's bright and shiny is accepted outright here, without
anyone giving it a good whack first.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST