[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Heather Perella]

Jim,

     [Jim]
> I recently changed ISP's and I've been off list for
> about 
> a week.  There were some things I wished I could
> have 
> addressed sooner but, better late than never.

     Ok, I'm glad you eventually did respond.  I still
don't completely get what you're saying.  I'm trying. 
I continued discussion with you would help.

     [Jim]
> those are the words of Bodvar Skutvik, not mine (Jim
> Engele).  I took them from his letter which is
linked to on
> the MoQ.org main page titled "The SOL".  

     Ok, and I've read it, but I'm not quite getting
it.  Discussion, as I've said above, would help.

     [Jim]
> He's saying that the SO divide really is the
intellectual level.

     ok, I"m following it, so far, so good.
   
     [Jim]
> They are one and the same.  In fact, consciousness
> itself is neatly defined by the intellectual level. 
The
> action of Subject meeting Object is consciousness
and the view 
> through that prism is intellect.   This is SO in its
dynamic
> (present moment) form.

     Are you saying here, that when subject and object
meet, that's consciousness?  What is the view of that
meeting?  I thought that would be quality, which is a
circular answer since quality is not fully defined. 
So, to add some definition for communications sake,
your saying, maybe, that with the meeting of subject
and object, keeping this occurance within human beings
for simplicities sake, human beings are conscious?  To
intellectualize this conscious event would be to put
this conscious event into subject and object
terminology?  This is close to Ham's thesis, I
hesitantly point out, but let's go on.

     [Jim]
> The scientific method is the use of the SO split to
> analyze (static pattern of reality) and learn from
dynamic
> reality.  

    Are you saying that dynamic reality is the same as
consciousness?  At this point, I'm not putting
boundaries on consciousness, unless, you find a need
to in your explanation.  By this I'm saying,
consciousness isn't necessarily human and/or nonhuman,
but let's go on.

     [Jim]
> I think that different people place more or less
> value on subject or object depending who they are.

     You mean when we intellectualize, which is also
the same as saying, when we talk, discuss, think,
paint, and write, etc...

     [Jim]
> Or at least this is how I can understand it at this
point which I
> admit I'm not entirely clear about.  For example: 
'Beauty is in
> the eye of the beholder' is a concept that people
have
> generally accepted as true.  Well that is because it
is
> subjective and that is more valuable than saying our
society
> dictates what we must accept as 'beauty' (however,
as you can see,
> this is a battle which is still raging).  Subjective
and
> objective truths are both of a superior position to
> sociological values if, and only if, they are
generally accepted.  They
> all are, however, static patterns created to aid in
the
> understanding of dynamic reality (which we
experience consciously
> as described by the subject meeting object in the
> present moment).

     How does the MOQ advocate getting past the
hang-ups and set-backs of SOM, when S/O are leanings
people always have on the intellectual level, which is
above the social level?  The only way I see the MOQ
saying it can get past the S/O of the intellectual
level, according to what your saying I believe, is to
just be conscious.  According to what I understand
your saying, you can intellectualize, but understand
that when one intellectualizes that will do so with a
S/O slant in their perspective/intellectualizing. 
Thus, knowing this, then the beyond aspect of SOM is
just being conscious?  By just being conscious, your
stating that is the way the MOQ is primary, because
the MOQ recognizes 'consciousness', which is primary
to S/O, and that is how the MOQ gets around being
stuck with a reality that we might believe is S/O
only?  This S/O reality is not the primary reality. 
It is a reality just of the intellect, therefore, a
way to notice the larger reality or the more primary
reality that is not just intellect alone, is to be
conscious.  This is what I'm getting so far, let's go
on.

     [Jim] 
> To use your example of a walk through the forest: 
> Sure, the forest exists whether you are aware of it
or not,
> but when you(subject) and the forest(object) meet in
the
> dynamic aspect of quality (present moment) then you
are
> aware of reality (dynamic quality).

     This being so, then wouldn't we need to perceive
through a primary reality, as you mention, a dynamic
quality reality, that doesn't solely intellectualize
in order to communicate this primary reality.  Thus,
if I can speak from a conscious level, instead of a
solely intellectual level, then, as I see it, I would
be, as I have been, stating 'things' such as primary
reality is bears-yellow leaves-human heartbeat-human
thought-deer, etc...  All together now, right?, that
is primary reality, which I am conscious of.  Thus,
this primary reality when I walk in the woods, is not
solely this human intellectualizing, this primary
reality speaking to you, thus, typing to you this very
moment you read this, is a primary reality that is:
 
     Leaves shuffling through the legs,
           Feel the air chill,
     Blue Jay gets the corn.

     So, now, a change in perspective, maybe?  An
intellect that is not discussing S/O, but a conscious
intellect that is birds, human thought, perspective,
and blue sky disappearing as the gray clouds blow in.


     [Jim]
> Analysis of this snapshot
> in time is how we learn (we apply subjectivity or
objectivity
> to the moment in question).  This is obviously done
> intellectually after the fact.  The intellectual
products created
> are constructs that may or may not be accepted as
useful.  Good
> ideas are contagious.

     Might I be intellectualizing, as I seem to think
I am, but without the S/O type of intellectualizing
that you state here that "we apply... to the moment in
question.", thus, might I be providing a snapshot that
is not S/O defined, but actually consciously defined,
to use your distinction?


     [Jim]
> One cannot be aware of reality without your personal
> perspective and it is impossible to experience
> reality without some sort of object for the subject
to experience. 
> This is the intellectualization of reality, the
division of
> subject and object.

     Isn't this actually just a way to devise reality,
if you so choose to do so this way, but what is this
way of divisional reality actually saying that is so
different than just pointing out (A) human-bear-leaf. 
What would you call that?  Or, if you want to put
division here, then where would you place the lines of
division?  Isn't the lines of division that you state
above "some sort of object for the subject", aren't I
an object in your reality according to this logic? 
Yet, I am a subject and you are the object.  So, I can
be subject and object, thus, these both become
malleable definitions with no exact one or the other
must be this or that defining.  Is this making any
sense?

     [Jim]
> Of course, in the present moment, reality happens
> whether you are aware of it or not.  Awareness is
the
> subject object divide.

     ?

     [Jim] 
> This is at odds with what RP had to say as he
> waffled between the placement of S&O parallel with
inorganic and
> biological levels and subject with sociological and
> intellectual and with the placement of S&O in some
other fashion.  I > felt confused with RP's discussion
of SO but almost instantly at
> peace with Bodvar's.

    ok

     [Jim] 
> I'm sure there is a better and more thorough
> explanation than this but that's roughly how I see
it.  I may
> have made some errors in this explanation.  This is
formulating in
> my mind as I write and I've cut and changed things
many times to
> be as accurate as I can.

     This is why I find it easily to have a on-going
discussion with you, until we may hopefully come to
clearer understanding.

 
> Bodvar says you are not your mind!  And now so does
> the MoQ.

     I'm not my mind.  I define this to mean, I am
much more than just my mind.  I am a bear.  I am a
bear experiencing this as a human being.


Thanks,
SA



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited