[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[gav]

hey ham,

--- Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>> 
> 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.

no it ain't absurd, it actually makes perfect sense
and is more consistent with our experience than seeing
the world as mostly inanimate.

  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. 

no you are wrong. trees are self-organizing systems
and as such are intelligent. your genetic determinism
is very naive ham. also your hubris is off the richter
mate. i just visited the redwoods north of san
francisco and was literally in awe as i wandered
around, humbled in the presence of these 1000 yr old +
magnificent beings. felt like crying. of course many
other folk were wandering around talking about trivia
or listening to headphones but hey: you can lead a
horse to water but you can't make it think.

 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.

again as someone with degrees in biology and
biochemistry i feel that i am better equipped than
most to say: 'no you are totally wrong ham'. 

 so when in the course of evolution did blind
obedience to physico-chemical forces turn into bona
fide 'experience'? ham our separateness from the rest
of the world is an optical illusion of consciousness.
it is more accurate to see ourselves as static
approximations of perpetual dynamic interrelationships
that include us and the whole planet, and beyond!


  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.

yes the ancients were right. funny that this view was
consistent across all indigenous cultures over
thousands of years...yet they were all wrong ham? you
know better than the accumulated experiential wisdom
of the human species? come on!

> 
> 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.

dreams are private myths, to quote campbell i think.
they are messages from higher levels of consciousness
to our normal waking consciousness. dreams are your
own personal analyst. 

look sorry for my vehemence but i am really annoyed
when people denigrate the living planet, because this
view excuses all the shit we do to it: which is of
course only done to oursleves (tat tvam asi).

this is why i was trying to explain about the radical
nature of MOQ thinking ham: ******it is a change of
perspective from subjects experiencing objects to
experience *producing* subjects and objects********

hang in there ham, and loosen up your thinking a
little.

cheers
gav


		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Photos: Unlimited free storage – keep all your photos in one place! 
http://au.photos.yahoo.com