Hiya hiya hiya,
--On Thursday, April 25, 2002 6:10 PM +0200 skutvik@online.no wrote:rr
> BUT AFTERWARDS THIS S/O
> ARGUMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE MOQ because its
> starting point is something that is prior to both subjective and
> objective! I am not angry or anything, but just frustrated that this
> basic assertion never seems to take hold ......and that even P. spoils
> it somewhat by using the "in our minds only" argument.
Elliot:
Its important to note that subjet and object is entirely different from
subjective and objective. You yourself make a claim about an objective
reality (one that exsists outside of perception), falling into the same
distinction that you say should not be made. When you think subject and
object, think sentances (subjects and objects of sentances). Pirsig rebels
against the "I" vs"You" or "it" distinction (i think, i really could be
wrong here, please someone kick me hard if i am). The whole everything
exsists in the mind (the One Mind as Buddhists call it, i say this because
Pirsig is awfully close to Buddhist ideas), which is where the quality
event happens and draws an "I" and an object out of the abyss. Although
the One Mind is neither and both subjective and objective (because these
are just words, delusions and illusory distinctions), when we discuss this
world you need to use either a subjective or objective POV, or else please
define and describe a POV that is neither, id really like to know.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:12 BST