[MD] subject / object logic

[Joseph Maurer]

On Sunday 9 September 2007 2:39:28 AM David M quotes Joe:

Hi Joe

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say below?

Ta
David M

[Joe]
Hi David M, Ron, DMB, and all,

IMO opinion the S/O division has to be distinguished first.
Aristotle’s theory of knowledge describes a division between
‘intentional existence’ and ‘real existence’ S/O. This division
between the body/soul, with mind/will as functions of the soul,
has so permeated thought that I cannot distinguish mechanical/conscious
behavior. I unconsciously speak of my mind.Until I realize that my behavior follows cosmic/conscious values,
I have no way of distinguishing mechanical/conscious activity.
I assume all my actions are from my own intentions.
This is contrary to experience. I do what I do not want to do.

Joe

Hi David M, and All,

You have thrown down the gauntlet! Are you interested? Subject/Object was misinterpreted by Aristotle. Existence cannot be divided rationally into an intentional existence of an essence in a mind, and an objective (outside the knower) existence of an essence. Too many errors capped by "Why should I care?"

I love the two aspects of sex, the physical act, and the consciousness of intimacy with another. This includes two forms of evolution the cosmic (mechanical actions) and the conscious evolution of heightened awareness. That distinction underlies all behavior, and is primary S/O evolution. Sex highlights the evolution of proprietary awareness. When you used the example of scoring the goal!!!!!!!!!!!, I thought that is what you were getting at.

Joe





[David M]
Hi Ron/DMB

And when we come to describe and divide this reality
there are many ways to do so. Subject/object is one
way and has some uses, its latches onto certain
qualities of our experience, there are many others
to be dscribed. There are qualities that are more
pertinent than those described by the subject-object
division. MOQ notices that all our experiences are
based in values. What we experience/notice we experience as
having a value from the horrific through to bliss. And
MOQ notices that the flux and change dominate our
experience, yet there are also some patterns and order
to notice and desribe. It is a long way down the road
of conceptual evolution that we might suggest such
generalities as subjects and objects. People and stuff
must get noticed a long time before such conceptual
peculiarities as subjects and objects. And when you
look hard, SOM causes many conceptual problems
but has been very useful for dominance over nature
and is now costing us dearly. If you can't grasp this
via Pirsig, try James, or Dewey, or even Heidegger.

Regards
David M



Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/