[MD] Tit's

[David M]

Hi DMB

Sounds about right. I'd suggest SOM has been overly dominant. It needs to be 
put in its place,
its right place, by MOQ. Before we can use our concepts like mind and 
matter, subject and
object to explain experience we first have to use the MOQ or something like 
it (phenomenology)
to see how our concepts are based on experiences and are analogies of these. 
Without
experiences, eg robots, concepts are pretty meaningless. Yet we use concepts 
to make
sense of experience. Often to fill in the gaps that experience suggests. EG 
the concept
of objectivity assumes/suggests that objects continue to exist when we are 
not directly
experiencing them. If this is a good idea it forms part of all those SQ 
concepts that we use
to make sense of what lies beyond experience both in space and time. We put 
together
a story of the development of such objects in space and time since the big 
bang, such is
SOM and it has its uses. SOM can even start to postulate how matter, 
life,humans
& minds came into being. But MOQ comes first. Before any story comes the 
values
and experiences we are given, find, discover and create. These are all full 
of possibilities
and numerous possible concepts that can uncover many different approaches to
experience and narrating a cosmic story.

David M


> dmb says:
> SOM is hard wired? I'd say that "mind" and "matter" are just like the 
> "wall". They're an interpretation of the qualities felt in experience. The 
> same idea applies to mind, matter, walls or anything else one could name. 
> Like I said, rejecting SOM in no way denies the experience from which 
> these ideas are derived, it is simply a matter of stepping back to see 
> that subjects and objects are conventional interpretations of experience 
> rather than the cause of experience. The MOQ says that experience comes 
> first, that experience IS reality.
>