From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2005 - 19:28:30 GMT
Hey Winch:
Looks like it'll be me putting on the cheerleader's uniform this time.
Rah, rah, ree.
kick 'em in the knee.
Rah, rah, rass.
kick 'em in the other knee.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Winchester [mailto:phaedruswolff@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 6:59 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
Scott;
Kant is SOM, to be sure. He holds that the subject creates an appearance of
things from a pre-existing reality-in-itself, which is unknowable (since it
is always put into the conceptual structures of the subject). So Kant would
say that experience comes from the object to the subject, but by being
forced into the conceptual structures of the subject, the object as it is in
itself is not experienced.
The question is, has the MOQ really overcome SOM or not? I don't think it
has, in the sense that its replacement of the SOM vocabulary with the DQ/SQ
vocabulary is done in a way that, in my opinion, leaves too much unsettled.
In particular, I consider that it has no philosophy of mind worth anything.
Hi Scott and all,
The reason I feel it leaves too much unsettled is that before Quantum
Physics, Western Philosophy would not consider anything that was not object
related. There is a separation of mind and matter, and mind can only
experience matter; anything that is not matter was unreal.
What was once scientific certainty is now uncertain. Once we split the atom,
and started trying to defince the objects within the atom, we realized it is
not all object at all. Our best 'guess'-timation of what we view is only
that; a guess. We view what is an object, but doesn't remain an object.
Particles and waves do a dance that is unpredictable, and the particles and
waves do not even remain particles and waves; particles become waves, and
waves, particles.
Both the subject and object are creations of the mind, and the mind is not
separate from matter, so there is nothing to be experienced except for
experience itself. There is no object that we focus on, and there is not
subject prior to experience. As opposed to mind and/or matter, Quality
(Value) is is the fundamental element of reality. The mind is no more than
an evolutionary advancement, and intellect is part of this evolutionary
advancement. We do not create our world by thinking about it, our world
creates our thinking. When I say world, I do not mean earth and rivers, but
grains of sand to stars, or particles to the black hole, or waves that
extend to the furthest reaches of the universe.
This is where nothingness comes in. When you strip away the ego and the
cultural beliefs, there is nothing left. This is when we experience; pure
(raw) experience. This is our mysticism; it is our letting go of the tired
old beliefs that leave us wanting, and needing to justify our thoughts to
that of others who have gone before us. Our beliefs are what keeps us needy,
but we search for reality by asking those who made us needy to begin with.
Pure experience does not come from an effort to understand, but from reality
itself. We just have to open up to it.
DQ and SQ are not separate in an S/O world, as there would be no DQ. Once DQ
is experienced, it is then SQ; the very moment you experience it. To try to
put it into Kantian terms, SQ is S/O; DQ does not exist after the fact;
after it is experienced. S/O just points to the experience DQ provided,
which now is real in our thinking, but was never unreal; just our thinking
was unreal.
Anyone interested, let me know how bad I screwed this up.
Ron
>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:16:56 -0700
>
>Ron,
>
> > Have the philosophies of mysticism recognized that experience is before
> > subject and object, and therefore before conceptual and reality instead
>of
> > between conceptual and reality?
>
>Pirsig's philosophy of mysticism says this. I disagree with it, as I think
>that experience, subject[2] and object[2] arise together in a tri-unity.
>(The "subject[2]" refers to the distinction I made in yesterday's post,
>where subject[1] is, in MOQ terms, social and intellectual SPOV, while
>subject[2] is that which is aware of any SPOV, inorganic, biological,
>social, or intellectual.)
>
> >
> > In your Kant problematic, is it a matter of placing subject before
>object,
> > but still a matter of all experience coming from subject or object?
> >
> > Please forgive me as I am trying to undestand exactly what it is that is
> > Kant problematic. My thinking here is that what is Kant problematic is
>SOM
> > based to where the MOQ is not SOM based, but of course, I know that is
>much
> > to simple.
>
>Kant is SOM, to be sure. He holds that the subject creates an appearance of
>things from a pre-existing reality-in-itself, which is unknowable (since it
>is always put into the conceptual structures of the subject). So Kant would
>say that experience comes from the object to the subject, but by being
>forced into the conceptual structures of the subject, the object as it is
>in
>itself is not experienced.
>
>The question is, has the MOQ really overcome SOM or not? I don't think it
>has, in the sense that its replacement of the SOM vocabulary with the DQ/SQ
>vocabulary is done in a way that, in my opinion, leaves too much unsettled.
>In particular, I consider that it has no philosophy of mind worth anything.
>
>For the record, this does not mean that I find Pirsig's books of little
>value. Like Mark SH, I think his discussion of morality, and general
>insight
>(technology, celebrity, the Giant, etc.) is first-rate. It is his
>metaphysics that I find fault with, and I have a somewhat different view of
>mysticism than he has.
>
>- Scott
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 30 2005 - 19:41:29 GMT