[MD] Sobjectivism

[David M]

Hi Bo

see comments


> Maybe "intellect" has some deeper meaning (to Scott and you)
> than "the intellectual level", but the latter is static and I can't for
> the life of me understand why it's should be seen otherwise.

DM: For something new to emerge it has to be dynamic. When new patterns/
structures emerge on the 4th level they are intellectual in nature, at a 
higher
level DQ is creating new kinds of SQ, this implies a new kindof capacity in
DQ at different levels.

>> Everything begins with experience. This implies awareness
>> and the world that we are aware of. But it is one reality: experience. So
>> there is no separate consciousness or subject or object possible on their
>> own in reality, just this one reality that is
>> awareness-of-what-we-are-aware-of.


>
> I am not sure if this is profound wisdom or drivel, you heap it on
> so thickly.

DM: Now come on, looks who's talking.


However the chief MOQ axiom is that
> Experience=Quality, but it does not mean that the human
> consciousness is (all of)  experience. You know the very idea of
> the MOQ is that there are levels of experience.


DM: Yes, but Pirsig is suggesting that the reality of all these levels
is grounded in quality-experience-values, for reality is an activity
even if they activity is to repeat, i.e. SQ.


>
>> So awareness includes the experienced
>> world all at once. When it is not experienced (shut your eyes) where is
>> it?
>
> If you mean the visual sense there are other senses left, but I
> guess you mean sense deprivation or "unconsciousness".


DM: Yes.


>
>> Now the idea of an independ world can be postulated from
> experience
>> due to the evidence of experience (plus a bit of reasoning). We find that
>> something we can call the separate world changes in our experience so 
>> that
>> our experiences changes from one bit of it to another. Some bits enter,
>> some bits leave, some bits come back -we theorise. We have to postulate
>> the world because we can experience only a part of it at a 'time'. We 
>> have
>> the ideaof the 'world' to explain the changingness or DQ of experience.
>> Got it?
>
> Is it my statement:
>
>> > I hoped that you were out to correct Gav for this SOM -based
>> > nonsense about everything existing through consciousness (in
>> > our minds),
>
> .... you argue against? And that you mean that the world only
> exists in our mind(s)?
>
> I must make this clear first.


DM: Experience is the only known reality, on the one side of it is
the finite world of SQ, on the other the infinite one of DQ.


>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <skutvik at online.no>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Sobjectivism
>>
>>
>> > Hi Mike.
>> >
>> > On 11 Jan. you wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Bo,
>> >
>> >> I have to wonder if somewhere in this post you skimmed over the
>> >> word "sobjective" and read it as "subjective". In any case, I think
>> >> you've misunderstood me.
>> >
>> >> > > Ian and I have been bandying around the term "new-objectivity"
>> >> > > to describe the objective fact of the subject's participation
>> >> > > in Quality / reality. It occured to me that it could just as
>> >> > > accurately be termed "new-subjectivity", i.e. the objective
>> >> > > fact that reality is inextricably linked to consciousness and
>> >> > > the subject.
>> >
>> >> > Why not just the S/O distinction?
>> >
>> >> Because I'm not talking about the 4th level. I'm talking about
>> >> Quality itself. Hence the "sobject", from which the subject and the
>> >> object are later separated out by the intellect.
>> >
>> > Yes, I obviously missed your point - particularly this one: " To
>> > describe the objective fact of the subject's participation in
>> > Quality/reality.."
>> >
>> > But now you have shifted to the SELF puzzle. Who/what does the
>> > valuation and determines at what level our experience/focus is to be
>> > at any moment. Why an ache makes us "drop" to the
>> > biological-sensational level, or why love switches our focus to the
>> > social-emotional one ...etc.
>> >
>> > Or maybe you mean what in its time made the biological level
>> > emerge from the inorganic, the social from the biological and the
>> > intellectual from the social? Your "...sobject from which the
>> > subject and object are later separated out by intellect" indicates
>> > this latter interpretation.
>> >
>> >> Yeah, yeah. The thing to realise is that intellectualisation
>> >> (distinguishing between S and O) is an experience too.
>> >
>> > Profound agreement.
>> >
>> >> On another
>> >> thread Scott is berating Gav for excluding "thought" from Quality
>> >> experience, righly pointing out that this is a regression.
>> >> Intellect needs to be integrated into the way in which we conceive
>> >> DQ.
>> >
>> > To Scott the intellectual level means thinking or mind and is just
>> > another name for DQ, exactly what I have been trying to save the MOQ
>> > from with my SOL idea that the 4th level is the more mundane value
>> > of the S/O distinction. There are some grand concepts that cannot be
>> > integrated into the MOQ without wrecking it.*) "Thinking", "Mind",
>> > "Consciousness" (there are more and if you had been around as long
>> > as I you would have remembered how many alternatives that have been
>> > suggested up through the years)  all could have served as the
>> > groundstuff of reality and resulted in MOT, MOM, MOC ... but Quality
>> > is the mother of them all!
>> >
>> > *) I don't mean these terms to be erased from language, we may
>> > continue to speak of "in my mind" and "conscious of" ...etc, but
>> > metaphysically they can't be used.
>> >
>> >> I follow Scott in recognising consciousness as another word for
>> >> Quality. However, to do this we need to distinguish between
>> >> "consciousness" and "self-consciousness" - the latter, of course,
>> >> means the consciousness of oneself as a subject (in a world of
>> >> objects) and therefore does not arise until the 4th level.
>> >
>> > See, here you are in full swing with developing a Metaphysics of
>> > Consciousness.  Drop Scott, he is the great "obfuscator" of this
>> > site.
>> >
>> > Bo
>> >
>> >
>> > moq_discuss mailing list
>> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> > Archives:
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> >
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>