[MD] subject / object logic

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Ron Kulp" <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic
>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:42:32 -0400
>
>
>
> >Ron:
> >when DMB quoted James as saying ""only new born babes and people in
> >extraordinary circumstances have access to pure experience (James 1912,
>
> >93). I agree and this is where I say changing this spacial awareness of
>
> >objects is difficult (unless you consider a full frontal lobotomy easy
> >also and I'm still projecting my own difficulties).
>
>Dan:
>I would say that the spacial awareness of objects that you refer to is
>your imagination at work; there is no way to prove spacial awareness (or
>objects) exists.
>
>Ron:
>I Argue then that there is no way for you to prove other people exist or
>anything else outside of
>you exists. Are we all then constructs of your mind? back to Solopsism.

Dan:
I would go back to the statement that matter comes before ideas is a high 
quality intellectual pattern of value. Solopsism is an indefensable 
postition as you know. It will always be there, just as our human-ness will 
forever color our perception of reality.

The deeper researchers delve into physical reality, the more apparent it 
becomes that there is "nothing" there that can be objectified. Only when 
subject and object are considered together does some sense begin to emerge. 
I think that's what the MOQ brings to the table: a way of ordering reality 
that doesn't begin by separating subject from object but rather uniting them 
under one umbrella.

>
>
>Dan:
>
>If ideas are not the genesis of reality then in your subject/object
>world you're back to matter. Are you saying matter is the genesis of
>reality? If so, how? How do ideas arise from matter?
>
>Ron:
>How does one arise from their mother and father? where then does the
>food come from to sustain
>your ideas? stop indulging in the idea of nutritional consumption for
>say a week and let me
>know if matter exists.

Dan:
In the MOQ, biological patterns have a completely different evolutionary 
history than do intellectual patterns yet they contain each other without 
contradiction. When we're born we're helpless. We don't have any 
intellectual comprehension of why we're uncomfortable but we know 
biologically to eat when food is proferred. As we grow we develop the sense 
of self including a personal history of where we come from.

Looking at the biology of conception, birth is quite a miracle and one that 
we have yet to come to grips with intellectually. How do we arise? I'm sure 
we all know the mechanics of it but that is merely superficial knowledge. 
Where do we come from and where do we go? I don't know and I don't know of 
anyone who does.

>
>
>Dan:
>This is what subject/object thinking will do... twist a person into
>loops.
>You seem to be maintaining that there really is an objective reality
>which can be subjectively sensed and building your hypothesis to support
>that end.
>The MOQ states that the idea of matter before ideas is a high quality
>idea, nothing more.
>
>
>Dan:
>Ham is a wonderful person. He does not (in my opinion) seem to have a
>handle on the MOQ, however. If you want to talk Essence, he's the guy.
>If you want to talk MOQ, then gav, Platt, Anthony McWatt, DMB, etc., are
>the guys.
>
>Ron:
>None of them have yet to address any of my questions. I can almost hear
>the ka-ching of the static latch.
>whatever happened to radical empiricism.

Dan:
Of course I cannot speak for the others but over the years we have been 
through this numerous times. I suspect your questions have been asked and 
answered before.

>Ron:
>Thanks Dan I don't mean to get snippy but I'm kinda frustrated right
>now. Going to spend the
>remainder of the week in the mountains to clear my head, I really do
>appreciate your time.

Dan:
Enjoy.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,

Dan