Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic

From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:01:25 GMT

  • Next message: Ron Winchester: "Re: MD Capitalism -vs- the Noble savage"

    Ian;
    After some words about the significance of "new physics" in bringing to the
    attention of the world a hundred years ago that "objectivity is overrated",
    in the next thread, Ron you make a statement using the words "xxxx is
    relegated to mere subjectivity". This is the crux for me.

    The problem is the words - relegated and mere - say that subjectivity is
    somehow inferior, showing the toxic meme of objectivity is preserved in
    usage. MoQ was (is) the antidote to that way of thinking - all experiences
    are interactions between S & O, and its the interactions that matter.
    Neither O nor S is the more important.

    Hi Ian,

    I don't remember exactly how I addressed subjectivity, but I'm thinking it
    was more in response to someone suggesting that someone they had read looked
    at things subjectively. Either way it doesn't really matter.

    FWIW, I agree with you on this. It is earlier sciences that wouldn't, and
    possibly still don't, accept the subjective results well, and I agree the
    MOQ addresses this well with the addition of Value (Quality) where
    object-first and foremost just can't cover it.

    Just clarificaion.

    Ron

    >From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
    >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:28:28 -0000
    >
    >Ron, Platt, Matt DMB n'all ...
    >
    >Not sure about breakthrough, but at least we're back on page one MoQ
    >(and out of that morass of political & religious spin of global affairs)
    >So hail to that.
    >
    >As you (each) seem to go on to say, in my own words ...
    >This is very (approximately) "pragmatic" and suggests Pirsig was
    >re-organising existing thought into a useful framework, rather than
    >inventing something entirely new.
    >
    >After some words about the significance of "new physics" in bringing to
    >the attention of the world a hundred years ago that "objectivity is
    >overrated", in the next thread, Ron you make a statement using the words
    >"xxxx is relegated to mere subjectivity". This is the crux for me.
    >
    >The problem is the words - relegated and mere - say that subjectivity is
    >somehow inferior, showing the toxic meme of objectivity is preserved in
    >usage. MoQ was (is) the antidote to that way of thinking - all experiences
    >are interactions between S & O, and its the interactions that matter.
    >Neither O nor S is the more important.
    >
    >Interestingly, I'm reading Searle's latest "Mind" at the moment and he is
    >promoting "observer dependent subjectivity and qualitativeness".
    >Some hope for mainstream philosophy ?
    >
    >Ian
    >----- Original Message ----- From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
    >Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:12 PM
    >Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
    >
    >
    >>Hi Ron, All:
    >>
    >>Two breakthrough thoughts in your brilliant post:
    >>
    >>" There is nothing to be experienced except for experience itself."
    >>
    >>and
    >>
    >>"DQ does not exist after the fact; after it is experienced."
    >>
    >>For those who missed it, here's Ron's complete commentary:
    >>
    >>Platt
    >>
    >>
    >>>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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>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
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
    http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:24:24 GMT