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

[Heather Perella]

     [Laird]
> 'afternoon SA,

     hello


 
     [Laird]
> The omission of the static levels moves us from
> MoQ-land to a more 
> general brand of empiricism. It could be a very
> useful discussion, but 
> it would no longer be about the MoQ. The MoQ just
> ain't the MoQ unless 
> it's got the levels.

     Yes, but what is kept from the SOM.  I don't
think the MoQ rejects subjects and objects, but what
is a subject could be an object in the perspective of
another.  The levels are more definitive and elaborate
more clearly upon the static patterns.  SOM doesn't
even allow for dq.  So, the MoQ notices subjects and
objects as static patterns, but what does that say. 
The terms subjects and objects are pretty vacant as
opposed to terms like intellect, social, biological,
and inorganic.  Notice how these latter words provide
more definition.



 
      [Laird]
> Our perspective, precisely. I'm hesitant to say any
> more because I'd 
> probably just be babbling (which I've been told I'm
> good at!). Heck, I 
> might already just be babbling! ;)

     Babble away, but being concise helps, too. 
Perspective would not know the difference between the
levels, and thus, we're left with quality.  I'm being
simple.  If we needed to expand into the levels or
point out things (objects), or even talk about me
(subject) seeing this (object), we could.  Perspective
tells all, and thus, could be all - a tree is ultimate
reality, but what does that say about flowers? 
Nothing.  Putting tree as ultimate reality has
something more to suggest than just ordinary object
tree, we're using a perspective in which all that is,
is this tree.  If you want to notice other things,
other than this tree, go on ahead, but don't lose this
quietness.

 
     [Laird]
> "Completely" in what sense? separated in an absolute
> reality, or within 
> our heads?

     Both, in reality and in our heads.  Quiet doesn't
notice a difference.  When quiet this just is.  Sit
and notice without distracting yourself, so, just sit
in this quiet.

     [Laird]
> Can we fit all these S/O distinctions in
> our tiny skulls, or 
> just some of them?

     It depends on how much you think, how many
thoughts you clutter your mind with.


     [Laird]
> What's the use of the split being
> "complete"?

     No use, thus, MoQ notices all is one, we are one
with nature, so on and so forth.  Outside of S/O what
is there?  Nothing.  It is either a subject or object.
 The subject could be object, for instance, I notice
you.  You are a subject, but like a stick an object,
too, but all in all, SOM notices subjects and objects
only, as far as I understand.  The Zen explanation in
the Dogen Part 1 had a consciousness outside of the
subject and object.  Nothingness was also mentioned. 
Zen used S/O, but was not restricted to it, just like
MoQ, wouldn't you say.

     {Laird] 
> The emphasis in my statement should be on "as one of
> many intellectual 
> modes".

     ok.

     [Laird]
> (the assertion I'm testing is:)
> S/O-distinction is one mode of 
> intellect, one "toolset" of consciousness. 

     ok


     [Laird]
> This leaves room for other 
> such "toolsets". A "Zen" toolset is a very distinct
> example. The 
> metaphor can be interchanged between toolsets,
> glasses, shoes, etc and 
> keep the same meaning.

     ok


     [Laird]
> In your thought experiment, I think both are
> possible, and you've 
> characterized them both... Consciousness can be just
> aware and be quiet. 
> It can be aware of itself (a split into dualism) and
> be unquiet. Which 
> is better? Whichever is the right tool for the job?

     Any more, my meditations are just quiet.  I'm
just SEEING.  I don't focus upon the I or the things
to be seen.  I focus upon particulars at times, as
they are brought to my attention.  Such as, I hear a
loud raindrop.  I move my foot.  I hear the dog
walking.  Yet, as my focus may notice these
particulars emphasized in this quiet, but even these
particulars just blend into this quiet and don't stick
out.  Some particulars do at times, that is stick out,
are emphasized, and my attention focuses upon these
particulars as if nothing else exists.  At other
times, I hear many particulars, as a melody, which
actually I listen to non-vocal music while I meditate,
if I'm in the house.  It is more a concern if anything
is bothering me or not, the particulars are
distracting or not.  So, as to what is better, well,
the effort to keep my attention intentionally upon my
consciousness, to reflect upon what I'm doing at the
time, is something to do.  I've done this before, but
I get the feeling I'm interfering with the natural
flow, for this has lead to tension.  I use relaxation
as a guide.  Yet, to meditate is not to fall asleep or
fall unconscious, so, to remain alert is meditating.  


     [Laird]
> In an only faintly related thought (gotta write it
> down before I forget 
> it)... splitting levels 1/2 into objective and 3/4
> into subjective has a 
> key problem: it doesn't accommodate abstraction,
> recursion, symbol 
> manipulation... I (subject) can think about and
> understand the law of 
> gravity (object), but the law of gravity is an
> intellectual pattern and 
> classified in subjective reality. But it can
> obviously be treated as an 
> object too, and the 1/2 vs 3/4 split doesn't jive
> with that.

     Yes, exactly.  That is also what I mentioned
above.  You the subject can be object, something out
there away from me this subject talking about you. 
So, objects can be sticks, societies, thoughts, etc...
 Subjects and objects are not very definitive, yet,
subjects and objects in an SOM doesn't provide for dq.
 SOM also just states:  somethings a subject,
somethings an object, and even though these objects
and subjects can be vice versa, the distinction, once
made, even though the distinction is flexible, the
distinction doesn't fill in the gap between the S and
the O.

What do you think?

thanks.

water drops heard,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com