[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[jjengele]

Heather,  

Thank you for writing back.  I'm enjoying trying to figure this stuff out.  

 Are you saying here, that when subject and object
meet, that's consciousness?

Yes

[Jim] 
In fact, consciousness
> itself is neatly defined by the intellectual level.

I'd like to strike this sentence.  It's not accurate at all.  I think it's adding to the confusion.

The
> action of Subject meeting Object is consciousness
and the view 
> through that prism is intellect.

I'm using the term intellect here as synonymous with mind(think mindfulness).  In order to 
experience quality, there must first of all be a mind.  It is the mind which divides reality 
into subject and object.  When you(subject) meet object, the experience itself is consciousness, 
awareness.  We don't say that a rock 'experiences' quality or that a rock is 'aware' of quality.  
This is because it does not have a brain(duh), no brain, no SO split, no consciousness.  
This is not to say that just because one has a brain one is conscious.  It is all too easy to go 
through life denying oneself access to dynamic quality.

I'd like to point out that I like to use the term 'reality' instead of 'quality'.  I think it is more useful 
at this point as we are discussing things in broader terms than RP did in ZMM.  I believe that 
RP used the term 'quality' because of the nature of the problem he was faced with answering at 
the time.


  keeping this occurance within human beings
for simplicities sake,

I think you are right to make this distinction because I think the implications are that just about 
any creature with a brain is potentially capable of being conscious.  We can let someone else go 
down that road for now, but it is interesting to note.  I think our intellectual abilities evolved to serve 
the requirements of the lower levels(biological, sociological) before becoming arguably dominant 
sometime in recent history. 

To
intellectualize this conscious event would be to put
this conscious event into subject and object
terminology?  

This brings me to my next point.  The intellect is capable of creating patterns (static quality).  I think 
these could be referred to as thoughts and emotions(subject/object again, reason/feelings)  There 
are two kinds of intellect, dynamic(present moment), and static(patterns created after the fact).  
I think this is why in the East the brain is considered a sensory organ, because of the ability to both 
experience reality, and to create static patterns or thoughts, even dreams.  It's all Subject/Object.  
The intellect IS subject/object.  As Bodvar Skutnik states, 'object is reason and subject is feeling'.  
This is the mind, totally!  You feel and you think, that's what your mind does.  Emotions are just as 
much a cognitive function as is logic.  No brain, no emotions, no brain, no reason.


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? 

I think a lot of confusion comes from referring to SOM in the derogatory.  The point RP made with ZMM 
was that we have a tendency, in our western culture, to cut ourselves off from the reality of the present 
moment.  We prefer not to see the present moment, instead, favoring the static patterns we created.  
Essentially, living in denial(sounds like our predicament here in the US all right).  The problem with SOM 
is not looking at the world through the SO lens, but looking at the world solely through the static SO 
lens and denying the value of the dynamic lens.  He characterized this problem as the placement of 
quality(I say reality) subordinate to Subject and Object instead of being the creator of the subject/object 
split(in evolutionary terms).  A fair assessment, but it's easy to think that the problem is with Subject 
and Object, not with the placement of reality, as the case seems to be.  there's nothing wrong with the 
SO perspective, I argue that it is the only way we can experience reality. 

  In addition, I think RP pointed out the problem with the denial of subjectivity(or feeling), that comes with 
the practice of objectivity(reason, logic, the scientific method).  But what he proved was that subjectivity 
cannot be removed, it is an integral part of the scientific method.  Hypotheses don't come out of nowhere.  
Objectivity and Subjectivity go hand in hand, essential, one to the other.


     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?  

That would be the intellectualization of reality through the use of your mind.  You experience it, you create 
patterns, you think of it, you speak of it, it's all subject/object, it's all in your mind. Static AND Dynamic.  
S/O is consciousness of the present moment as well as consciousness of the static patterns created 
solely in your mind.  Both are in your mind.  Reality exists independently of your mind but you can 
experience reality by being aware of it through the use of your mind(it sounds patronizing I'm sorry, 
I don't intend it to be, it's just one of those simple facts that when it's spelled out you think, 'why didn't 
I see that before?').  To be conscious of reality means: to use the SO split that is your intellect.

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.


It's all a matter of perspective.  


  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.

What I mean by saying 'you are not your mind' is this:  Your mind is a sensory organ capable of 
perceiving  reality like your other five senses. ... 

You know, I had this figured out in the car on the way home today but now I thought through what 
I was going to type and it doesn't make sense.  I think I had a revelation.  I was going to say that 
if you are not your thoughts then you are not your mind by deductive reasoning, or something to 
that effect.  But now I realize that all your thoughts and emotions are intellectual creations based 
on the SO perception of reality.  This implies that the brain is not a sensory organ (I would like to 
believe it is) but more simply, a processor and reconstructor of sensory data.  This would further 
imply that the person that I refer to as 'me' is the accumulation of all the qualities that go into who 
I am, physical, intellectual, memories, thoughts, experiences, all wrapped up into one but no more.

I'm not clear on that last point, I'll have to stew on it for a while.


Thanks for the dialogue, I'd like to hear what you think.
Take care,

Jim Engele