From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 20:18:10 BST
squonk: In the sense that the computer and 'I' share a
gravitational-electromagnetic relationships, we are not distinct. That is a
scientific fact. On the social and intellectual levels, the computer and me
and you share all the time, and the boundaries are impositions of your
cultural inheritance.
Hey squonk, can you feel this? MMMFDJSFOISHDFH KJDSHFKLHSFLJDHSDFHFJHSFD
I'm hitting the keys REALLY HARD to break through the cultural inheritance
:)
squonk: Subjects and Objects are aesthetic creations of the intellect.
I think it's better to describe them as creations of Quality (or Morality).
The intellect can't create an object or a subject that shouldn't exist
morally. If it should exist morally, the intellect can't help but create
it. Also, there is no intellect "prior" or apart from the creations of it,
all three are created simultaneously. (Thanks for turning me on to
Plotinus)
I think saying it's a creation of intellect without qualifying that
intellect is directed by morality (and without moralizing that intellect is
directed by quality) makes subjects and objects a little too ephemeral, as
though we could change our minds about the aesthetic of it existing or not.
We can, of course, but only if we are led to do so morally.
Johnny
>From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Pirsig and Peirce
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 07:32:41 EDT
>
>Squonk,
>
>Steve:
>An artisitic creation is something like the Mona Lisa. Subjects and
>objects,
>on the other hand, are our reality at this time. Although we can recognize
>that they are not fundamental, we can't wish them away.
>
>squonk: I suggest you have an exceptionally poor view of ZMM and Lila
>Steve.
>This is not a personal attack or anything of that sort, i assure you. I
>wish
>to help, and offer my unreserved service in this regard.
>
>squonk: The MoQ is not useless without subjects and objects - it is more
>coherent without them.
>
>As I said to Bo, a philosophy that ignores them is like a theology that
>ignores sin. Perhaps you don't experience yourself as at all distinct from
>the
>computer in front of you, but most people do.
>
>squonk: In the sense that the computer and 'I' share a
>gravitational-electromagnetic relationships, we are not distinct. That is a
>scientific fact.
>On the social and intellectual levels, the computer and me and you share
>all
>the time, and the boundaries are impositions of your cultural inheritance.
>
>Steve:
>A metaphysics that ignores that fact is useless. If subjects and objects
>are
>not primary reality, why does it seem that they are? A useful metaphysics
>must
>address that question.
>
>- Scott
>
>squonk: The MoQ in no way ignores subjects and objects. The MoQ explains
>why
>they appear primary. Subjects and Objects are aesthetic creations of the
>intellect.
>If your view of art is a painting on a wall then you have allot to learn.
>Every moment of your experience is a creative activity - there is the
>potential
>for you to do well.
>Although i do sincerely wish to help, it's a bit of a drag banging one's
>head
>against a wall. And i assure of this; bantering with wishy washy ideas over
>and over again about subjects and objects is going to get you precisely
>nowhere.
>
>All the best,
>squonk
>
_________________________________________________________________
<b>Help protect your PC:</b> Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 20:19:14 BST