Hi Ham, Been awhile since I asked about your philosophy. I know you've missed my questions. :-)
Can Essence be known (realized) without a sensible agent? What motivated Essence to create us agents of itself? Thanks, Ham. As always, best regards. Platt > > Hi Marsha -- > > > You wrote that "consciousness is not found in neurons > > or gray cells". I agree. But I cannot find consciousness > > anywhere. I've seen it flow in meditation, but it wasn't > > any kind of entity. > > You won't find consciousness because it is not an 'existent'. It cannot > be > localized, quantified, or directly observed. By all objective standards, > it > does not exist. Yet, conscious awareness is the essential You. Without > it > there would be no Marsha, and that would be tragic for all of us. > > The subjective self transcends existence, even as it actively > participates > in it. Which is why we can't dismiss it from our reality perspective. I > suspect you introduced this topic because Prisig puts very little emphasis > on the individual self. His worldview is a collective hierarchy of levels > and patterns whose morality and existence are independent of the > individual. > As you know, I consider this a travesty of philosophical understanding. > > Human beings are a unique combination of psychic awareness and organic > matter. Each of us is a 'being-aware' -- a microcosmic representation of > the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy that defines existence. The source of > this dichtomy is absolute and undifferentiated. But because our > neuro-sensory perception is finite, we are cognizant of reality as a > continuous series of events in time and space which we intellectualize as > cause-and-effect. The sensibility that starts this whole > process is our affinity for Essence, which I call Value. > > Because we are organic beings, this value-sensibility is converted by the > brain into the things and events of experienced reality. So, in a real > sense, the universe is your value objectivized. Or, to phrase it more > poetically, you are your universe. You bring value into being through > experience. And it is by your free choice of values that your world is > either a joyous and inspiring place, or a dreadful and burdensome > existence. > > The existentialists here say the subjective self emerges out of being and > is > insignificant. They won't consider my view that being is a valuistic > construct of the self which is primary to existence. Pirsig's MoQ kind of > straddles the fence by positing subjects and objects as patterns of > quality, > without telling us where quality comes from or how it can be realized in > the > absence of a sensible agent. Perhaps his theory was influenced by the > 'selflessness' of Zen Buddhism. (You would know better that I.) I can > only > say that a philosophy which doesn't acknowledge a purpose for human > existence is deficient. > > Long live the subjective! > > Warmest regards, > Ham > > 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/
