No, at least in the sense that it doesn't move. But does something require action to be self-aware? I am unfamiliar (not in Socrates' sense) of MoQ's idea of self-awareness.
On Nov 26, 2007 5:41 AM, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is a pencil active? > > DM > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:06 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The education of Peter Corteen > > > > Is a pencil 'self-aware'? > > > > On Nov 25, 2007 7:34 AM, Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> [quote] > >> > Do you think that a cat can think? > >> > >> "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats > >> self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part > >> of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter > >> where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was > >> CREATED. > >> > >> [/quote] > >> > >> Consciousness (or self-awareness) is nothing but Dynamic Quality, hence > >> it > >> is the very essence of all "things" while at the same time existing > >> beyond > >> it. We are spiritual beings tied to a mortal framework of body and > mind. > >> > >> Akshay > >> > >> > >> On 24/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi Peter > >> > > >> > On 23 Nov. you wrote: > >> > > >> > > on one hand your apparent unwavering confidence in your > understanding > >> > > of the MoQ is persuasive and makes me think I need to understand > your > >> > > point of view more; on the other hand in your posts your use of > >> > > common > >> > > words with your own specialised meaning, your poor phraseology, > your > >> > > sometimes patronising responses and that you frequently miss out > >> > > conjunctions in your explanations and use unusual punctuation all > do > >> > > not help your cause. > >> > > >> > But English is not my first language. In the old days when there > >> > were other Europeans around this site I used to find them easier > >> > to understand than the "natives". But no sore feelings, I > >> > appreciate your honesty. > >> > > >> > > It could be my weak brain that's the snag and if I were more > familiar > >> > > with ZAMM and LILA I would be able to decipher better what you > mean; > >> > > so I hope you don't take those comments too negatively, I say them > in > >> > > the hope that they can some how lead me to be able to understand > you > >> > > better. > >> > > >> > > I'm in the process of reading your SOLAQI update but in the > meantime > >> > > I'd like to ask you a couple of, for me, important questions: > >> > > >> > GOOD! > >> > > >> > > Do you think that a cat can think? > >> > > >> > "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats > >> > self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part > >> > of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter > >> > where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was > >> > CREATED. > >> > > >> > If you can stand some more on "intelligence"? It is a biological > >> > pattern by way of the neural complexity called brain that makes > >> > higher organisms able to store former experience (Read and > >> > Write memory) and retrieve it - play around with it in imaginary > >> > scenarios - what makes them able to learn from experience > >> > included seeing other perform an act. At the bio.(cat) level this > >> > does not include a self or language, particularly not the internal > >> > kind we call "thinking". As the social level rose on top of biology > it > >> > adopted this pattern and because the biological pattern which > >> > spawned "society" were Homo Sapiens, brain and intelligence > >> > were enormous. If language was part of the social level from the > >> > start or developed is a big question, the Neanderthals certainly > >> > lived in family and tribal groups, but did not have language. > >> > Anyway, with language came the silent form called "thinking", so > >> > did names and a group identity that transcended the animal > >> > range. Kingdoms and other "doms" arose. (this is a leap of tens > >> > of thousands of years course) I find this passage from ZAMM > >> > catching this reality so well. > >> > > >> > One must first get over the idea that the time span > >> > between the last caveman and the first Greek > >> > philosophers was short. The absence of any history for > >> > this period sometimes gives this illusion. But before the > >> > Greek philosophers arrived on the scene, for a period of > >> > at least five times all our recorded history since the Greek > >> > philosophers, there existed civilizations in an advanced > >> > state of development. They had villages and cities, > >> > vehicles, houses, marketplaces, bounded fields, > >> > agricultural implements and domestic 381 animals, and > >> > led a life quite as rich and varied as that in most rural > >> > areas of the world today. And like people in those areas > >> > today they saw no reason to write it all down, or if they > >> > did, they wrote it on materials that have never been > >> > found. Thus we know nothing about them. The ``Dark > >> > Ages'' were merely the resumption of a natural way of life > >> > that had been momentarily interrupted by the Greeks. > >> > > >> > This also shows that - to Phaedrus - "The Greeks" are the pivot > >> > point that changed everything , in ZAMM they meant the coming > >> > of SOM, in LILA it ought to have been the emergence of 4th. > >> > level. But more on INTELLECT in another post. > >> > > >> > > Do you think quality can manifest itself in any way without the > >> > > inorganic? > >> > > >> > The quick answer is "no", but it requires some explanation. At > >> > first Pirsig put great emphasize on a QUALITY outside the MOQ > >> > (that creates an infinite regress) He later "recanted" and said that > >> > the Quality he speaks about in ZAMM is the DQ of the MOQ. In > >> > that case the basic postulate is Reality=DQ/SQ (which isn't > >> > different from the Reality=Quality in any other respect than > >> > removing the Quality outside/ahead of the MOQ) thus Quality's > >> > first manifestation was/is the inorganic level. > >> > > >> > Everything in my opinion of course, but I can't add this at the end > >> > of each sentence. > >> > > >> > Bo > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 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/ > >> > > >> 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/ > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > "The only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the truth > is > > nothing separates us from the animals." > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > -- "The only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the truth is nothing separates us from the animals." 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/
