[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Laird Bedore]

Hi SA,

The Dogen quote is very good. I've been mulling over it for a while, 
because there are quite a few ways to look at it. Naturally the most 
obvious has to do with its treatment of subjects and objects. On that 
front it makes a significant point: We can think and talk about subjects 
and objects from a perspective outside of subject-object distinction. It 
sounds like a painfully obvious statement, but it supports abstraction 
of intellect (thinking about intellect, like looking into your own eyes 
as Marsha put it) and, indirectly, subjects and objects as abstracted 
creations of consciousness, also suggested by the first sentence of 
point (2). When it comes to narrowing down the particulars of 
"consciousness" above, a key consideration is at play: The MoQ has found 
it useful to differentiate the static into levels, and if we are to 
consider these statements in respect to the MoQ we should be cognizant 
of the level-affinity of "consciousness". I wouldn't say that we are 
conscious of subjects and objects on an inorganic or biological level, 
some argument can be made for the social level (though it's sketchy at 
best and suggests some restructuring of levels), but certainly we ARE 
conscious of subjects and objects on the intellectual level. Or, we can 
choose to speak of consciousness as some undifferentiated emergence from 
staticness in general, but doing so arguably has us discussing something 
other than the MoQ.

Another way to look at the Dogen quote is in terms of describing the 
static-dynamic continuum, the "sweet 
spot"/coherence/balance/pick-a-label often discussed. I find it 
intriguing (or at least romantic) to imagine a balance-point of 
consciousness where we can experience S/O-nondifferentiation 
(intellectually). Non-S/O mode(s) of intellect. The analogy of wearing 
different intellectual glasses comes to mind again. I think the concept 
of S/O distinction as one of many intellectual modes goes further to 
show how the MoQ accommodates our wearing of "SOM", "MoQ", "Zen", and 
other 'intellectual glasses'.

-Laird

> [SA]
>       Laird, does the Dogen Part 1 post, I placed,
> signify anything your trying to get at here.  Mainly
> what I tried to indicate in the post is Zen is able to
> use S/O distinctions to explain a Zen experience. 
> Where the MoQ then would come in, is the MoQ uses a
> different terminology to release S/O old
> trappings/baggage into a refreshed view.  Thus, S/O is
> still present, but in MoQ language/paradigm.  If not,
> then I'm not sure what your getting at?
>
>
> blue,
> SA 
>
>
>
>      [Laird]
>   
>> It's been interesting watching how this thread has
>> shifted and danced 
>> around, all the while conspicuously avoiding the
>> original topic! This 
>> all started with my acknowledgement that
>> "subject-object logic as 
>> intellect" (exhaustive) had problems, so I suggested
>> we talk about the 
>> S/O split as a non-exhaustive subset of intellect to
>> see if it's more 
>> palatable than Bo's original SOL.
>> Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM is
>> a very dangerous 
>> road. The MoQ encompasses and tames SOM, and to some
>> extent relies upon 
>> the fruits of SOM to provide strength to its
>> argument. SOM provides an 
>> awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would be
>> a catastrophic loss. 
>> An MoQ directly opposed to SOM would be
>> anti-rational, anti-logical, 
>> self-destructive and doomed from the get-go. SOM
>> just has a big ego and 
>> the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)
>> So back toward the original topic again... does a
>> revised SOL improve 
>> the big picture? SOL/SOM as just one (though
>> dominant) mode of 
>> intellect, objective reality within intellect and
>> not equivalent to 
>> primary reality, social and intellectual level
>> empowered by use of 
>> abstraction/recursion... SOM can then be seen as a
>> method of 
>> abstraction... Mmm, lots of possible discussion, if
>> anyone's actually 
>> interested in discussing it, rather than bitching
>> about aspects of the 
>> SOL already discarded.
>>