[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Ham Priday]

Hello again, Marsha and Gav --

Ham, previously:
> It would seem to me that having a functional mind and
> body is prerequisite for having an experience.
> But at least we agree that Value is pre-intellectual.

Gav:
> No, a body and mind are not required for experience,
> since things without a body or mind still experience
> (ie exhibit reaction to stimuli, intelligence); and
> what of dreaming?

Here we go again, confusing the "behavior" of inanimate objects with
"experience".  This is an absurd notion obliquely suggested by Mr. Prisig to
make his Quality theory work.  Things do not experience; they "behave" in
certain ways because of the physical forces acting on them.  In the case of
living plants and organisms the forces are genetic.  For example, an acorn
grows into an oak tree not because it "wants" to, but because it is
genetically designed to this end.  Atoms, magnetic particles, and celestial
bodies are moved by the forces of molecular valence, electrical attraction,
and gravity.  An amoeba's response to caustic chemicals or a plant turning
toward the sun to facilitate photo-synthesis of CO2 is exhibiting a
biological response designed into these organisms to ensure their survival.
This kind of behavior has no more to do with "experience" than a ball
rolling downhill.  Just because something moves or responds in a predictable
fashion doesn't mean that it has experiential awareness.  To equate behavior
with experience, as ancient societies used to do, is a form of
supernaturalism called animism -- the attribution of consciousness to nature
and insentient objects.

Dreams are images recollected from experience by the subconscious mind
during sleep,  so I don't see how they can be independent of the mind or
body of the dreamer.

Gav continues:
> We are living in a consensual dream; essentially an
> illusion. our minds and bodies are part of this
> illusion. experience or consciousness or awareness or
> Mind: this is the ground that allows anything to
> exist, including of course mind and body. *nothing
> exists independently of perception of it*: if a tree
> falls in the forest......
> yeah i know it sounds weird ham-the MOQ is a RADICAL
> philosophy: it goes right to the roots man.

A "consensual dream" -- like, yeah, man!  By whose consent are you dreaming?
Or, are you suggesting that there's a collective "dream playbill" out there
somewhere that we switch on at night for entertainment?  "Mind: the ground
that allows anything to exist"?   I don't know what hallucinogen you're
using, but in my world the only things that exist are those that can be
accounted for by physical and biological causes or the creative hand of man.
Thank goodness we don't confront a chaotic universe where "anything" goes -- 
unless, of course, you're referring to our liberalized western society.

> This is the biggest stumbling block of all. this is
> SOM hanging on - refusing to budge. it is also why the
> MOQ is so powerful: once you begin to absorb this way
> of seeing reality...well it sure beats SOM!
> *everything* changes, gains significance, meaning.
> irresolvable dilemmas (under SOM) dissolve; the ego
> becomes less and less solid; alienation gives way to
> integration; the world is re-enchanted.
>
> i cannot overstate the value of this change of
> perspective, because all our woes, personal and global
> are ultimately due to faulty 'vision'. the MOQ is a
> shit-hot pair of specs!

Are you sure you're not on something, Gav?   Whatever it is, I'd suggest
that you package it up and advertise it on the Internet.  You'll find a huge
demand for it in the New Age community.

Regards,
Ham