From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 02:14:07 GMT
First, may I introduce myself. I found this forum by looking for a free copy
of "LILA" on the internet, as it has been a while since I read it, and I am
one cheap individual. Pirsig's thoughts are not fresh in my mind, but some of
them have evidently embedded themselves into my thinking processes.
I am not an extremely intelligent individual on academic terms, as I dropped
out of the ninth grade, then dropped out of college while trying for an
accounting degree, and have only audited courses in equity valuation and
corporate finance just as a learning experience.
Don't expect me to be able to keep up, and if you simplify the terms in your
replies, I will not think you are talking down to me, but appreciate it as I
speak on the more 'Plains spoken' terms Pirsig has mentioned.
I would like to offer one thought here;
<<<i>The problem, I assume, is that we are unable to think of consciousness
except in S/O terms. There are two possible answers to this, as I see it.
One is to assume that there is always some subject and some object, so back
when all there was only the inorganic (as far as we can tell empirically),
then there must have also been some non-material consciousness observing
the inorganic and thinking "this is good". The other answer is to assume
that it is somehow meaningful to speak of consciousness without an object
and without a subject. Since this is how Franklin Merrell-Wolff describes
his mystical experience, I consider him worth listening to on this
question. If we accept this answer, then our inability to think of
consciousness except in S/O terms just means that we are not finished in
terms of the evolution of thinking. That is, we are currently evolved to a
state where consciousness has taken a strictly S/O form. Now if we follow
Barfield and accept that in earlier times the S/O form was not strict, and
the mystical claim that the S/O form is transcendable, then the ability to
speak meaningfully of consciousness without S/O lies in our future.</i>>>
This "non-material consciousness" kinda peaks my interest in where you are
going with this. I'm not thinking of non-material per se, but masterful, or
unimaginable. By "S/O" I feel comfortable assuming you mean subject and object,
and if I remember correctly, Pirsig in "Zen" stated he preferred to find his
realities in subject and objects, or those things around him, in an
Aristotle slicing and dicing of the universe. Maybe I am wrong, but he didn't seem to
share the views of Phaedrus at that time.
May I ask if you have already determined that subject and object is not an
invention of man? Is there philosophical value to S/O?
You stated;
<<<i>"I believe current psychological research shows that babies are born
with
the ability to detect some patterns -- faces, for instance. So this
statement needs, at least, refinement.</i>>>
I feel you are correct, in that it does need refinement, but I personally
wouldn't trust psychological research as much as I would my own experiences, or
that of the collective experiences of all participants in the current logos
(or Mythos).
I have had a few experiences which cause doubt in the ability of the
academics to 'Know' anything. One, which relates to what you are speaking, is a
child who came out of the womb recognizing my voice (my youngest, and first that
showed signs of doing so). There are many reasonable explanations for this, as
my voice is deep, creating the first, but as I stated, I did not recognize
this as early with either of two sisters and a brother who went before him.
This same child went through school, dropping out in the 9th as I did, even
with my extreme persistence in trying to force the school systems to find a way
to allow him to continue his education without the demands that caused him to
drop out.
I used many different level Ph.D.s who offered a number of diagnoses of
which they felt sure enough of to medicate him for, just to change the diagnoses
again-and-again. Through all of this, the one persistent nature he always had
-- not putting pencil to paper -- never changed. Even though he did no
homework, or any type of visible participation in class, or any visual
reinforcement of the materials, he continuously managed End-of-grade scores at levels
highest of his classmates until missing the eighth grade completely in favor of
a 'Wilderness Camp' for troubled teens -- still, with extremely limited
academic study, as the camp was more focused on behavioral problems (his being not
putting pen to paper, which he did very little there as well), he managed to
score plenty high enough to move on to the 9th grade, where he still managed
to keep up intellectually, but his heart was just not in it.
I'll cut this example short by simply stating the Ph.D.s added nothing to
his development, and may have even hindered it compared to what he may have
accomplished if we weren't forced to follow their well thought out advise.
Another example is I spent 5 years searching for value in investing. During
this period I was afforded participation from Ph.D.s, MBAs, CPAs, Professors
of economics, money managers, and writers of the "What Works on Wall Street"
books. To cut this one even shorter, I found that these educated individuals
could not see the "Forest for the trees." It seems to me, they were incapable
of making even simple distinctions between what should work, to what does
actually work in their investment ponderings. The one, Warren Buffett, who
managed to succeed in this quest did so (by my opinion) more from his philosophy
of value in investing than from his education under "The Father of Value
Investing," Benjamin Graham.
My preconceived, uneducated opinion is that we cannot readily accept that
subject and object itself as more than imaginary poetry that has been passed
down generation-to-generation from the original origins of 'Thought' dating back
to ancient times when what you appear to be doing here now was the order of
the day -- that man should spend a part of his day searching for this
reality, value, or quality. Is there a masterful mind at the center of the
universe, and our mind holds only a microscopic connection to it? Maybe the more we
rust this connection from the realities passed down from experience, the more
we hinder our abilities to use this connection -- the less connected we are,
the less ability we have to find what it is we are searching for.
Is it possible that in order to find philosophical excellence, or MOQ, that
we may be better to step aside, and allow the new eyes of our children, or
use our own new eyes to find these Dynamic patterns?
Just some thoughts -- feet first, and in case you were wondering, no, I am
not drunk or on drugs. :o)
Please just call me Chin.
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 : Thu Nov 11 2004 - 13:04:32 GMT