[MD] The Problem of the Subject-Object Dictonomy

[Zenith Uzbeckistan]

Thank you Platt. I couldn't ask for a more eloquent response.

You say "we divide to survive" but without a division, there is no "we" to do the dividing.
Obviously there is a division that came prior to us. But if, in the real world, "All is One," then any division logically contradicts that. 

I dunno. Perhaps it is true that "intellect is next to worthless, but"... and here's where you lost me, "beauty points the way."  

Beauty?
Or is life beautiful?
 
Always,
Jean

> From: plattholden at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:29:30 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Problem of the Subject-Object Dictonomy
> 
> 
> On 23 Jul 2009 at 23:50, Zenith Uzbeckistan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> What "some say" is right. But our world is different from the real world. 
> We divide to survive, but the real world is everything all at once, i.e., 
> "To see the world in a grain of sand, Heaven in a wildflower . . ."  
> 
> > 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? Because of the urge of living beings to survive. (The question of 
> why are there living beings who want to survive remains a mystery.) 
> Threats to survival come from "outside" a living being's surface. 
> 
> So you have 1) an elemental division of life/death, 2) a practical division 
> of life in here/threat to life out there, and 3) an intuitive division of  
> good/bad -- all stemming from the urge to survive. .     
> 
> > Why am I, the subject, capable of interpreting the objectivity that is
> > the world around me? How did this framework of experience get started? 
> 
> A framework, though false, necessary for survival.
> 
>  > 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. 
> 
> Why consciousness? Like "Why life?" there's no answer. Yes, a futile 
> question, but fun to ponder anyway. Pirsig's answer is the best  I know, 
> "Because life and consciousness are better than the alternatives."   
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Yes, the mystics know something beside the self-other model, only its 
> not a concept, it's an experience. Everyone has experienced it, too, if 
> only briefly, like when totally focused so that one's separate self-sense 
> disappears. 
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Again, the survival imperative.Because of the life/death division we
> create space and time(which Einstein proved are not separate) and exist 
> in a paradox -- always separate but never apart.
> 
> Which is why when it comes to answering fundamental questions such 
> as yours, intellect is next to worthless, but beauty points the way.  
> 
> Platt
> 
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009