[MD] The Problem of the Subject-Object Dictonomy

[MarshaV]

I couldn't get to your link, so I found this one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/biocentrism-the-new-face_b_231622
.html   





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Zenith
Uzbeckistan
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:51 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] The Problem of the Subject-Object Dictonomy


Its been a super-long time since I've been on this discussion forum and even
longer since I can remember what the MOQ is all about, and I couldn't really
find a place to squeeze into one of the existing discussions so here I am,
trying to fly solo into the storm clouds of philosophical discussion. Well,
I recently wrote something and I thought it might be something ya'll might
help me out with, since I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around it,
or even articulating it adequately. So here goes nothing:

The subject-object dualism seems inescapable, ingrained in our science,
our language, and our way of thinking about the world. Some would even
go so far as to say it "created" our world.



Biocentrism (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080...ence-science//)
postulates that living things give time and space their meaning. In
this theory, time and space do not exist except as the tools of the
living organism. If this is true, then it begs the question: why did
living organisms "create" time and space? Why did a bit of the universe
suddenly become categorically separated from the rest of the universe? 



Why am I, the subject, capable of interpreting the objectivity that is
the world around me? How did this framework of experience get started? 



I'm not looking for a history of consciousness. I'm looking for the
"why" of consciousness. Maybe its a futile question. I'm very confused
about it all, but I think that somehow our assumption about the
universe and ourselves is fundamentally wrong. 



Take an example from brain science: There is a region in the brain,
called the posterior superior parietal lobe, that controls spatial
distinctions and navigation. This region of the brain normally works by
creating a map of "you" distinct from all that which is "not you."
However, when deprived of sensory stimuli, it cannot create that map.
This results in an experience of expansion of the self, a merging of
oneself with all that the mind can imagine. (See Why God Won't Go Away,
by Andrew Newberg M.D., et al.) Such mystical experiences suggest that
there is another way of conceptualizing the universe beside the
standard self-other model. 



If one follows the philosophy of biocentrism, it doesn't make sense
that the self-other model should predominate. After all, if space and
time have no objective existence, why should it be more adaptive to
live within artificial parameters? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to
see life the way it "really" is, without time or space? Or is some
framework, even if wrong, absolutely necessary? If so, why? Its not
even certain that the subject-object duality is necessary. 
 
Any thoughts/ideas would be appreciated. 





_________________________________________________________________
NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone.  Click here.
http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072009
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/