[MD] The Problem of the Subject-Object Dictonomy

Sat Jul 25 05:47:34 PDT 2009

On 24 Jul 2009 at 18:07, Zenith Uzbeckistan wrote:

> 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. 

These are the sort of paradoxes that reason (subject/object intellect) 
producers, or as Ollie said to Stanley, "This is a fine mess you got us 
into." No one knows how or why the first living cell divided itself to 
become two cells, and divided again and again so as to eventually beget 
the likes of you and me. Perhaps division also accounts for the Big 
Bang, like the splitting of the atom causes a big bang here on Earth. 
Who knows? Anyway, the chicken-egg question has been around 
forever, unsolved to this very day. Reason is not helpful when answering 
questions about beginnings, nor is science helpful in explaining things 
that only happen once. As for division logically contradicting "All is One" 
I suppose you could get around it by arguing that reality is "All is One 
Bunch of Divisions." But, your point is well taken -- paradox again. 

> 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?

By "beauty points the way" I meant our aesthetic sense leads us to truth. 
Even many "objective" scientists vouch for that. And yes, when you say 
"Life is beautiful" you give the best answer I know to the question, "Why 
life?" Answer:"Because it's beautiful."

Thanks for you questions and comments, Jean. They go to the heart of 
metaphysics and illustrate why intellect, though necessary for our 
survival, erects a wall that blocks our view of the "real world." What 
most people settle for is "Do or die reality," which is OK if that's as far as 
they want to go. But there are some like you and me and other 
contributors to this site who believe there's more to learn about life and 
living than simply accepting things as they appear to be. We may not 
come up with the right answers, but it sure is fun trying. As Pirsig put it, 
"Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a 
part of life." (Lila, 5)

Regards,
Platt.  

> > 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 LiveTM SkyDriveTM: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
> http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_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/