LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics

Bodvar Skutvik (
Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:14:43 +0100

Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:43:29 +0000
Gunn Era wrote:

> I have a feeling that in a S-O world, mind is equal
> to conscious mind, a mind that sees only objects
> and other subjects surrounding its own subject.
> If we accept subliminal perception, we will have to
> have a broader view on mind. For instance, as Tor
> Nörretranders suggests, we are a "ME" that percepts
> and throws away superfluous information and
> presents the vital information for the "I".

You are absolutely right: in a S/O world mind IS equal to
consciousness, and it's been my 'mission' to prevent it making its
way into the Quality world. It takes too long to bring Tor
Nörretranders' line of argument, but as evereybody knows: the SOM
picture of the mind/body relationship is a little figure inside our
heads monitoring the outside - objective - world making descisions
and throwing switches to make his/our body work.

TN introduces a third entity - ME - behind the veil. Left to itself
without interference from consciousness ME knows how to cope
perfectly (re the football game example). You ask if the I is analog
to static- and ME analog to dynamic quality? But this I won't vouch
for - completely, rather do I see conscious I as "static Intellectual
identity" and ME as "static Biological identity".

Why is Intellect so keen on imposing itself upon the lower levels and
spoil their act? Well, it is what ALL value levels do, Intellect
(self-consciousness) is the highest value and it sphere of influence
is hard to limit. It's supposed to control Social identity, but
overshoots into Biology where it makes us awkward. It is sheer bliss
to get rid of Intellect for a while, but it is top value and for
better and for worse what makes us HUMAN.

(NB! see 'poem' on page 406 of LILA: "While sustaining biological and
social patterns. Kill all intellectual patterns....")

Now, here comes the hard part. You wrote:

> So if "I" is analog to static quality and "ME" is analog
> dynamic quality, does that mean that Quality, being
> in front of perception, is analog to our soul, the patterns
> that makes me the special one that I am?

You will know Gunn that the soul is deemed a Greek invention - the
Platonic heavens and all that - not so Christian or religious as we
believe it to be, and definitely foreign to Eastern tradition. The
MOQ and our discussion has perhaps disgusted some: re Jason Gaedkes'
recent outburst and Mark Murdock's Christmas resignation. I can only
speak for myself, but Quality's reinstallation of GOOD as reality's
basis is so overwhelmingly attractive that whatever "harm" it
inflicts upon traditional thinking receedes into insignificance.

Hope this is within limits.



TO BE IS TO DO (Socrates)
TO DO IS TO BE (Sartre)
DO BE DO - BE DO (Sinatra)

(sign seen in a bar)

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST