From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 08 2005 - 23:37:47 GMT
Scott:
The liking is inseparable from the "anything". That is, there is no liking
without an O[2], and there is no O[2] without a liking, and there is no
liking without S[2] and O[2].
One thing that should be kept in mind, especially when bringing in evidence
from mystics, is that frequently a mystic will say that in the Awakened
state there is no good and bad, no "betterness". Hence, it seems to me
better to infer that the S[2]/O[2] form and the sense of Quality are
mutually dependent, rather than saying that the sense of Quality is prior to
the S[2]/O[2] form.
Hi Scott,
I hate to join in with everyone else trying to bring you around to Quality
thinking. Generally I like to side with the underdog, but I must offer my
view as I see it. Three different individuals from varying backgrounds would
see a redlight as a part of three totally different empirical systems.
Thinking in terms of Quality in the experienced, you might think, as you
were suggesting before. that the mind is separate from the body, and the
mystical experience comes from 'Out there' to the mind. The mind itself
existed before it was experienced, and didn't depend on some 'Out there' to
give rise to it. Gravity existed before the mystical experience that led to
the empirical nature of gravity. The round earth existed before what you
call the 'Mind's eye' experienced it.
A mystical experience is nothing more than something that totally changes
your view of what you believe to be empirical, and even though it may not
become accepted as empirical until after hashed out through the intellect,
it was empirical prior to the intellect accepting it as empirical.
The mind is empirical, but it cannot be put under a microscope. The round
earth is empirical, but it couldn't be viewed from out in space when it was
first accepted as such, and gravity is empirical, but there was nothing to
point toward it prior to Newton's intuition which had no generally accepted
empirical grounding. The earth moved around the sun, not the other way
around, before it was realized to be the case.
You can think of all these things as mystical experiences, and none came
from an outside source. You may not see my mystical experience as empirical,
but I certainly would. Tying down my beliefs to what you would accept as
empirical would not allow me to advance in my thinking beyond that which is
already defined through reason. To accept only that which can be accepted
through reason leaves you blind to that which has not already been reasoned.
The intellect would stop evolving like a driver that slammed on brakes. It
is only those who are open to the mystical experience who advance.
"The reasonable man persists in adapting to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in adapting the world to him. Therefore all progress relies on the
unreasonable man." - Shaw
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: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:22:09 -0700
>
>Paul,
>
>Scott said:
>There are good reasons (to which a good chunk of ZAMM is addressed) for
>saying that value is neither in the subject nor in the object. However,
>to go on from this and claim that the value exists prior to the
>distinction into subject and object has no empirical basis, as far as I
>can see.
>
>Paul said:
>The newborn baby example is supposed to provide that. Newborn babies do
>not grasp for objects until they are several months old and show no
>acknowledgement of self until much later than that but cry from birth
>and smile and laugh soon after. They are experiencing something and they
>communicate it in a way that no human needs an explanation of.
>
>Scott:
>In this, and in what follows, I see the problem as being a result of
>Pirsig's conflating the two meanings of the S/Odistinction.
>Subject[1/Object[1] is the distinction between mental patterns and physical
>patterns, while Subject[2]/Object[2] is the distinction between that which
>is aware of any object[2], that is, an object[2] can be mental or physical,
>and subject[2] is not any pattern. (Note: one can explain the S[2]/O[2]
>distinction without the implied reification of Subject[2] as expressed in
>*that* which is aware. For example, by referring to "awareness" as distinct
>from "that which there is awareness *of*", the latter being any Object[2]).
>
>So with this in mind, one can say that in a baby there is no S[1] or O[1],
>but can one say there is no S[2]/O[2]?
>
>Scott said:
>What is the *empirical* basis for making the claim that experience comes
>first?
>
>Paul said:
>What is the basis for saying that anything comes before experience? How
>is that basis known if not through experience?
>
>Scott:
>I am suggesting as an alternative that S[2] and O[2] are not derivative of
>experience, but that they are essential components of experience, that they
>come into existence with the experience, and that experience comes into
>experience with S[2] and O[2]. Or, in the alternative formulation, that
>S[2]
>and "experience" come into existence only with an O[2]. But the point is,
>how does one choose between these alternatives *empirically*? It seems to
>me
>to be reason and reason alone (which may also take into account various
>mystical reports) that will deal with these alternatives, with no help from
>the senses.
>
>Scott said:
>What is the response to my saying that I do not experience myself as
>coming second after the experience?
>
>Paul said:
>Huh? How do you experience yourself as arising prior to experience?
>
>Scott:
>I could be experiencing myself (as a locus of S[2]) simultaneously with
>experience, along with an O[2]. Without experience there is no S[2], but
>without S[2] there is no experience. (Again, I am saying that this is an
>alternative formulation, and that there is no empirical way to choose one
>way over the other).
>
>Scott said:
>I experience trees, thoughts, and so on, or think I do. I do not
>experience Quality, at least not obviously in the way I experience
>objects.
>
>Paul said:
>So you don't "obviously" like or dislike anything?
>
>Scott:
>The liking is inseparable from the "anything". That is, there is no liking
>without an O[2], and there is no O[2] without a liking, and there is no
>liking without S[2] and O[2].
>
>One thing that should be kept in mind, especially when bringing in evidence
>from mystics, is that frequently a mystic will say that in the Awakened
>state there is no good and bad, no "betterness". Hence, it seems to me
>better to infer that the S[2]/O[2] form and the sense of Quality are
>mutually dependent, rather than saying that the sense of Quality is prior
>to
>the S[2]/O[2] form.
>
>- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 08 2005 - 23:42:22 GMT